Predictably, all you get is the repetition of discredited myths and not the slightest attempt to verify their assertions. The factoids have become the perceived wisdom, cast in stone.
And then there's the tribal loyalty. The regulatory convergence myth has been perpetrated by none other than Liam Fox and, since he is one of their own, he cannot be contradicted. By such means is error reinforced and disseminated, to be repeated by all the derivative Tory Muppets and wannabes, as the gospel from on high. And this is why the work from Tory think-tanks is worthless, even where, in this case, the over-generous donors have spent £2.5 million on it.
For that money we also get another of their treasured little mantras, to the effect that a "significant cause of higher prices" of food in the UK "has been the combination of tariffs and agricultural support", from the CAP, "increasing costs and subsidising inefficient methods of production".
Lightfoot and his team particularly vent their spleen on the high rates of agricultural tariffs protecting EU produce, point out that it averages 8.5 percent across the board. Against this, they compare tariffs with Australia and their poster child, the subsidy-free New Zealand, which applies the equivalent of only a 0.4 percent tariff to agriculture.
What these precious little Muppets never seem to do, though, is look at the comparative price of a grocery basket between their heavenly New Zealand and the subsidy-ridden, protectionist UK, in the thrall of the CAP. Yet, only in June, the
New Zealand Herald was complaining that a typical grocery shopping bag in Auckland was twice as expensive as it was in London. A comparison
two years earlier came out at 46 percent higher on nine basic items.
This compares with the
cost of living generally in New Zealand, which is only 17 percent higher than in United Kingdom. And New Zealanders in Australia are united
in saying that Kiwis pay too much for food.
The way Lightfoot
et al get round this inconvenient problem is by comparing UK prices with global
commodity prices, claiming that UK consumers also pay above the odds for food indirectly through the tax system and wider income support. In the European Union, they say, this is equivalent to another 20 percent boost to farm prices.
The fact is, though, that global commodity prices bear little direct relationship to supermarket prices, which are affected by so many other factors that actual raw material costs can be the smaller part of the finished price. Furthermore, there is considerable variation between retail food prices throughout the EU, even where the subsidy system is supposed to be uniform.
And, outside the EU and the CAP, Norway, Iceland and Switzerland all pay higher subsidies than Brussels allows for its farmers, deciding that it is in their national interest to keep the countryside populated, and traditional farming methods alive.
While the EU average total subsidy is about 18 percent of farming income, Norwegian farmers gain just short of 60 percent, slightly ahead of Switzerland, while Iceland farmers are paid just short of 50 percent.
All three are at the top of the list for food prices, yet consumers pay less in the shops than New Zealanders do for their food.
Across Europe,
retail price indices range from 58 (Macedonia), where the EU-28 = 100, to 173 (Switzerland). Denmark, with its country name synonymous with bacon, comes in at 148, compared with the UK at 98, slightly below the EU average. Eurostat offers further
interesting statistics.
In short, the subsidy argument, in the way presented by the Tory right, is utterly crass. The removal of subsidies,
per se, will not necessarily â or at all â see a reduction in retail prices. With other factors taken into account, we could in fact see major increases in some commodities.
What will certainly be a consequence of precipitate tampering with the subsidy system, though, is considerable damage to farming. Furthermore, Lightfoot and his friends talk glibly of the CAP "subsidising inefficient methods of production". Yet, it is the more inefficient methods which produce the most spectacular scenery, which underwrites a £12 billion rural tourism industry. It keeps the countryside populated and provides much-needed jobs.
Not once in 70 pages does the Policy Exchange report mention the economic value of scenery, or that this is a tangible by-product of farming. It is created by farmers, for which they receive no direct compensation. And not only does scenery have a significant economic value, it shapes our perception of ourselves, and contributes to the quality of life.
Instead, they quote Matt Ridley, prattling on about "gardening", completely failing to understand that the scenery that makes England (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) stems from its farming practices. To preserve the countryside, you must preserve "inefficient" farming - not turn farmers into gardeners.
Without more than a sideways look at such issues, which should actually be driving a post-Brexit agriculture policy, the Policy Exchange argues that "the UK should work to phase out direct subsidies and tariff protection for production, and instead look to create a more productive, innovative and ultimately sustainable sector". Do they not realise that production subsidies have been almost completely phased out already? Forgive them Lord, they know not what they do.
And in that category, nowhere at all do we see any reference to the probable impact of Brexit on agricultural exports to the EU. This is a
huge lacuna, as the impact of border controls could bring UK exports to an end for a considerable period, and have a massive effect on the economic health of both agriculture and the food industry.
Unbelievably, there is not a single reference to border issues, or inspection requirements or any of the related issues. And Ireland, it seems, is to be addressed in the next report.
But this simply underlines the obvious. We are not going to get anything sensible from the Tory right on agriculture, and this think-tank has totally lost the plot. All you get from it is dross from on high. What they are offering is wrong, and dangerously so. They would destroy British farming as we know it, for no gain at all.