Take the one they're trying to sell in this BBC piece:
The British National Party have called for restrictions on imports from China to protect British jobs.It's the Corn Laws for the 21st Century!
Leader Nick Griffin told BBC Radio 4 British industry faced "disaster" unless something was done to halt the flow of cheap goods into the country.
Like so much of this kind of nonsense, it focuses on the interests of the producer and ignores the interests of the consumer. The consumer will be turned into a captive market to be exploited by domestic producers, because in the fascist and Stalinist approaches (I struggle to decide which category the BNP fits into), that's all that matters; to them, we as individuals don't exist to enjoy and experience, we just exist to produce in order to enrich and empower the state.
He denied reciprocal restrictions would hurt the British economy, saying trade with China was a "one-way street".If it were a "one-way street", it's wouldn't be trade, because there would be no exchange. The correct term for a movement of goods which is not reciprocated is "aid".
In spite of what the BNP claim, I'm fairly confident that no significant number of Chinese manufacturers are operating in order to give the British aid and even if they were, only a total moron would suggest that the Chinese giving the British free goods is inherently so bad for the British people that it must be legislated against.
We have got eight million adults of working age not working in Britain and if we protect certain sections of our industry to create jobs we would get these people off the dole.And of course, replace them with the workers in the exporting business which you would be crippling. Welcome to the world of unintended consequences.
He said his party was not "isolationist"I decided to ask my correspondent out in the field for his reaction to this claim: