Robert Oulds’ book Everything You Wanted to Know About the EU, published in 2013, is still current and even more relevant than when it was first published; I doubt that any of his core arguments have been refuted subsequently, and all we have to be thankful for are some stat updates that probably further confirm his core arguments. Indeed, some of the events since 2013, specifically the Syrian immigration crisis, should add more weight to his position. But to be clear from the start: Robert Oulds is the director of the Bruges Group, which for the last 20 years has been campaigning for the UK to leave the EU. So partisan? Yes, but being partisan does not disqualify one from having an informed opinion, let alone being right. The purpose of criticism is to see the object for what it is and to do that one has to first understand one’s own subjectivity and bring it into the equation. This I think Robert Oulds has done admirably; And for the completeness of this review, I must disclose that I have known Robert for several years and consider him a friend. With that in mind, how about the book about him?

The book contains a short introduction and then has 7 meaty chapters that cover in more detail than most people would like the economic, legal, political and historical workings of the EU, especially as it relates to the UK. . The chapter titles are: A Snapshot of the EU, The Problem with the EU, A Question of Influence, The Options for Britain, Which Way Out, The Implications of Withdrawal, Alternatives to the EU, and these are followed by a conclusion. chapter and a couple of helpful appendices. There has been a lot of criticism recently about the quality of the debate: that it lacks real information, real analysis, and is about ‘key points’ that each side fires at the other. Well, if you think that’s the case, read this book. Instead of bullet points, Oulds provides chapters, verses, and statistics on all the key topics; in addition, he also provides a balanced commentary. To put that in perspective: when the EU benefits the UK, he is quick to admit it. But with Oulds, the key issue is always the balance of the arguments: the cost-benefit analysis, in other words, so that reading the book one feels more and more that while there are some good things about being in the EU, there are so many negatives too that the position of staying there for any rational mind is untenable.

What, then, of some of their arguments? What have I found especially compelling in reading this work? First, I like your general observations about how things work. This is like discussing first principles. A good example appears in Chapter 2, The EU Problem, when he observes: “Political unions are not necessary for trade; in fact, by improving trade policy, politicians create barriers to trade.” Aren’t we in the UK guilty of double-thinking here? We all know that political interference in business is disastrous, hence the need over the last 40 years to denationalize so many chronically underperforming industries; Knowing that, how can it be consistent for Britain’s corporate leaders to say that business would be better in the EU, which is precisely not ‘state regulated’ but ‘managed by a higher state’? When you think about it, it’s absurd: FOOTSIE 100 Chiefs asking the UK government for less red tape and regulation and then suggesting that the only hope for our business and economy is to be in the EU. To put that in perspective, Chapter 7, Alternatives to the EU, makes a revealing point. Switzerland is not a member of the EU, but still trades with it under two bilateral agreements. It therefore has to accept – on their terms – some restrictions, but as Oulds points out: “Since the beginning of 1993, when the Single Market was created, the Swiss have adapted their legal code to align with approximately two thousand legislative instruments of the EU. Yet the UK, along with other EU members, has had more than 20,000 taxes from above.” If we then look at the costs of this, as Oulds does in great detail, the bilateral agreements allowed them to have access to the market at a cost to them of 550 million Swiss francs a year; while if they were full members of the EU, the cost would rise to 4.9 billion Swiss francs, a nine-fold increase. And this “excludes the cost of the inevitable increase in EU legislation”! That is, the 18,000 pieces of legislation that have been lost since 1993, and more since 2013! These figures, incidentally, are not composed by Oulds, but are based on the Swiss Federal Council’s own research incorporated in its Report on Europe. It is, then, very revealing.

More important than any of the above, however, as important as those points are, is the more general evidence that EU membership is a recipe for terminal economic decline. Citing the work of Professor Jean-Jacques Rosa, a French economist, “It is [the EU] it imposes and increases the rents of large and old business enterprises and bureaucracies and freezes the hierarchical structure of both industry and political production at a time when innovation, small start-ups and lighter government are required. It is a recipe for accelerated decline.” Surely this must resonate with us. We know that entrepreneurship depends on flexibility, innovation and vision, the exact opposite of what the EU offers us as members.

Robert Oulds offers many more examples of how the EU works against our interests as Britons, and I have hardly mentioned the important arguments of sovereignty and democracy. Space forbids me to outline his points here, suffice it to say, as an important point Oulds explores: the rise of the political right in Europe, against which the EU likes to characterize itself as the champion, is almost certain (and especially in the 3 years since his book was published) a consequence of the EU: the ‘democratic deficit’ is felt throughout Europe, and instead of creating stability and security, the EU is fomenting widespread opposition to its imperialist and undemocratic dictates, which leads to extremism.

But going back to the economic issue, it would be best to end on a positive note, because if we leave the EU, what options do we have? As Oulds explains: quite a lot! It goes into fine detail about the situation related to various international organizations and scenarios, two of these organizations, one unknown to most of us and one well known, offer great hope for our progress and success in the rest of the world if we choose to leave. . The United States. These two organizations are EFTA, the lesser known, and the Commonwealth of Nations itself. Briefly, on the first, it is notable, though somewhat inconvenient for the EU, that the four European countries that are currently members (Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and Liechtenstein) have some of the highest standards of living for their populations of any country in the world. anywhere. in the world. So much for suffering from not really being in the EU. An important statistic that Oulds cites is that in 2011 EFTA exported €189.2 billion worth of goods to the EU; the US itself only managed €90 billion. This is pretty phenomenal stuff, but if we consider the Commonwealth and the option to re-activate that option, then what’s possible might really surprise us.

John Cridland, former CEO of the Confederation of British Industries, said in 2001: “We have focused too much on Europe; we need to go out and build export markets in the rest of the world.” Currently, of course, “the UK is barred from creating its own specific bilateral investment treaties on its own terms with Commonwealth countries, but also the EU is preventing the UK from striking trade deals with these tigers.” [economies within the Commonwealth]”. Lest we forget that the Commonwealth comprised “54 countries that stretched across every inhabited continent on the planet; including Europe, where the UK is not the only member. Both Malta and Cyprus are members of the Commonwealth.” Even more impressive: “The population of the Commonwealth is nearly two and a half billion people, approaching one-third of the world’s population, living in more than eleven and a half million square miles; nearly a quarter of the planet’s land mass. What’s more, this territory is rich in natural resources, which not only provide the global economy with the commodities that enable growth, but can also give its member states real potential.” As Oulds goes on to observe: “Currently , the Chinese are linked to these resource-rich states; the UK’s Eurocentric orientation is causing Britain to miss out on plentiful opportunities abroad.” If it goes on like this, it is sure to be a sorry read 20 years from now for the UK.

There is much more to say about this wonderful book, but space forbids it. It’s an essential book for those who really want to get to some of the facts underpinning this debate and get away from fear and slander: the idea that only crackpots and Little Englanders might want to get away from our lovable Big Brother. , The United States.

But I have to end on a critical note about this book, as good as it is: given the quality of the research and the citations used, the lack of an index is a major flaw; perhaps a new updated edition, timely now, will correct this great read.