Someone with the facebook handle “Howlin Wolfe Tone” came up with the following, which I thought worth repeating (and recording):-
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was a post from a troll making ten arguments. I have given these arguments and their refutations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n ‘1. Ditching EU tariffs means tariffs are dropped on all goods, we can \nimport cheaper eg food and clothes from outside the EU. The EU is a \nprotectionist trading bloc which imposes over 13000 tariffs on \nimports.’.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
1 The EU tariffs average at 2.8% which is about par \nwith the rest of the world, so it is no more protectionist than any \nother region. Food tariffs are quite high, but, then again they amount \nto roughly the same degree of support given to farms in other regions. \nFood security is vitally important, which is why most regions and \ncountries choose to support domestic supply either by tariffs, or \nsubsidy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Claiming that trading under WTO rules is specious, since the UK as a member of the EU also traded widely under these rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n ‘2. We can stop paying \u00a311 billion (net) to the EU – at worst this \noffsets any economic downturn. At best it\u2019s \u00a311 billion more we can \ninvest in Britain.’<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2 The mean, five year average net contribution 2014-2018 (incl.) was \u00a37.8bn. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Source: ONS:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
https:\/\/www.ons.gov.uk\/\u2026\/theukcontributiontothee\u2026\/2017-10-31<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n \n The most conservative value for a downturn is 5%. Since the GDP of UK \nis \u00a32.86tn, of which 5% is \u00a3143bn, so, no, it would replace only 5.5% of\n a downturn. Furthermore, given the misuse by successive Conservative \ngovernments of QE that led to an unprecedented capital flight from the \nUK, and for which UK tax payers footed the bill, it seems more likely \nthat the same would happen to any saving from leaving the UK.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ‘3.\n Withdrawn from CAP , apart from the fact the EU misallocates (sic) \nresources – eg 40% of the EU budget goes to agriculture which only \naccounts for 1% of GDP across the EU – we would see a double benefit as \nwe stop paying into it and it will reduce food prices (CAP keeps food \nprices artificially high).’<\/p>\n\n\n\n 3 ‘Not paying into it . . .’ This \nsuggests that the CAP incurs additional costs, which it does not; it is \npart of the \u00a37.8bn. The proportion of the EU budget stated is roughly \ncorrect:<\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/\u2026\/common-agricultural-po\u2026\/cap-glance_en<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n \n It is also true that it contributes very little to the EU GDP, but food\n security is a strategic tool and is vitally important, not just as a \nbulwark against fluctuations in food commodity prices, but also as a \nbulwark against others that might want to pressure us by restriction of \naccess to food.<\/p>\n\n\n\n About 25% of the CAP budget is not concerned with\n food subsidies, but with rural development, protection of the \nenvironment and issues surrounding enhanced climate change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \nWithout the CAP, or similar subsidies food would either be much more \nexpensive, or our rural environment would decline. Most other countries\n support their farmers to roughly the same degree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is a bitter\n pill to swallow, but, on balance it is better to have it than not. \nRural income is around 60% that of urban income, so without any subsidy,\n there would be a flight to cities and unemployment that is already high\n (don’t believe the government figures; if it really was that low there\n would be huge upward pressure on wages that has not happened in a \ndecade, or, for that matter, the past two decades.) Subsidies, according\n to the Thatcher handbag model of economy states that they are dead \nmoney, but they are not. While it is true that they are around half as \neffective contributors to GDP as that generated by labour and \nproduction, and that labour and production has to be in the great \nmajority, it is not dead money. On a tax basis of 25%, those subsidies \nare made back by the time they have passes through seven exchanges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Without the CAP, or similar subsidy, there will be a death of the British countryside:<\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/www.nfuonline.com\/assets\/61142<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n ‘4. Skills based immigration – we can let in people that we need\/want.’<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n 4 Superficially, there is nothing wrong with that, except that studies \ntoo numerous to mention suggest that general immigration is good for \nboth countries of origin and destination. Here is just one example:<\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/www.economist.com\/\u2026\/how-to-convince-sceptics-of-the\u2026<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n \n ‘5. Autonomy to make new trade deals -Striking free trade deals \ndirectly with third countries – such as the US and Asian economies – \nwould boost GDP and net productivity due to a more global market and \nreduced trade barriers.’<\/p>\n\n\n\n 5 The UK already had trade deals as part\n of the EU. They take a very long time to negotiate and, with many of \nof the other players, the UK has a very weak hand. It had a very strong \n hand in both the Council and Commission and, although to a lesser \nextent, the Parliament.<\/p>\n\n\n\n See the above for evidence that this is specious.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \n ‘8. An end to the asset striping of Great Britain Plc, and the movement\n of Britains manufacturing to the EU, using our money to subsidise it. \nDHL IT Services moves to Prague with and EU grant, Cadbury to Poland \nwith an EU grant, Ford Transit to Turkey with an EU grant, JLR to \nSlovakia, Gillette to Eastern Europe, Texas Instruments to Germany, \nMetal Box to Poland etc etc etc.’<\/p>\n\n\n\n 8 This is equivocation and lying by omission:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Cadbury was bought by Kraft, which is American. Kraft shafted Cadbury. The EU had nothing to do with it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n http:\/\/www.mirror.co.uk\/\u2026\/cadbury-closes-british-factory-to\u2026<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n \n Jaguar Land Rover built a new factory in Slovakia. No it was not with \nan EU grant. And Tata is Indian so what\u2019s that got to do with it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/\u2026\/jaguar-land-rover-factory-slo\u2026<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n \n There was no EU funding, but there was a grant by the Slovakian \ngovernment. This document is a summary of why the EU found the grant \ndid not break EU rules on state aid. Basically, it was a new factory, it\n was never going to be built in the UK, no jobs left the UK as a result.<\/p>\n\n\n\n http:\/\/europa.eu\/rapid\/press-release_IP-18-6023_en.htm<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n \n Peugeot moved production to Slovakia, but again without an EU grant. \nThere was an investigation as to whether Slovakia improperly gave EU \nmoney to Peugeot, but nothing seems to have come of it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n http:\/\/www.birminghampost.co.uk\/\u2026\/subsidise-peugeot-jobs-ax\u2026<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n \n Ford Transit moved to Turkey 2013 with an EU a loan (not a grant) for \nFord’s Turkish plant (which was already building most of the Transits), \nand, after that their Southampton plant closed. The EU had already \nloaned money to Ford UK but that doesn\u2019t appear to have saved it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n