On your first point, what you are talking about here is protectionism. Protectionism is generally accepted as being very bad economics. As you point out, ordinary people are forced to pay more money for goods and services, and often inferior goods and services. This negatively impacts on the consumer. But let's say for a second that while it negatively impacts the consumer (and the poor consumer most of all), it also helps the producer. But does it really? The producer when faced with a competitive market is forced to do things differently. Either improve it's product, or find another way of being productive. This is how you achieve a dynamic, flexible and inventive enconomy. If a producer can simply take a commissioner out for a champagne dinner and lobby for protectionist policies then they avoid the incentive to improve. Did you see in the film the mountains of food being destroyed in order to keep prices high to protect the European producer? The waste becomes two-fold, first you have destroyed perfectly good produce which could have gone to the consumer and saved them money, second, you have denied the producer the incentive and opportunity to use their energy to create something else or something better.
You mention saving those producers jobs, and that is quite visible. But consider the invisible, those people who never get a job which they may otherwise have got because a business is having to import a product at a higher price than they would otherwise have had too. That business has higher costs, meaning they can employ less people. But because those jobs are never created in the first place you only see the existing jobs which might be lost without protectionism, you miss those jobs which can never be created because of it.
Taking again the destruction of vast amounts of food, you can argue that this is benificial to the economy, because now more food must be produced, employing people and generating wealth. But it's a fallacy (similar to what's called the broken window fallacy) because now you have destroyed a product which could have otherwise been used, and you have wasted the resources needed to remake the product, which could have been used productively to create something additional to the products which you destroyed. So you end up losing twice.
The other part of your point, protecting the elderly, minorities, employees etc, well two points on that. First your point is only valid if you believe that we cannot protect those things ourselves. Second, assuming that you do believe that we would not protect those things ourselves, you would have to also believe that the EU will protect them forever. I think most people believe those things should be protected, for sure. So what will best protect them? In a system of accountability you can always rely on the prevailing attitudes of the people to decide. In an unaccountable system you can always rely on the prevailing attitudes of the powerful to decide. So the question is, who do you trust to protect these important things. Who do you trust to, in the long term, have the interests of minorities, women, workers at heart? The people, or the powerful? What the EU gives the EU can take away. Consider a time in which the attitudes of the EU Commission are different, consider a time in which the EU Commission decides to weaken those rights. There will be no recourse. Change cannot be effected. Consider the idea (which you seem to hold) that our democracy might decide to weaken those riights. There is recourse. Change can be effected.
On your last point, again, you would have to believe that we would not have standards for products without the EU. Explosive toothpaste would hit the shelves if we didn't have rules created by the EU? It really isn't the case. You also have to bear in mind that the majority of regulations created by the EU are not created with the welbeing of the consumer in mind, otherwise we would not have more expensive products chosen at the expense of cheaper ones which must be destroyed. Regulations are made with the interests of lobbyists in mind. Big business loves EU regulation because their armies of lawyers and compliance departments are able to handle the regulations, which largely they helped to construct, while a small business struggles to comply. Again, as with other forms of protectionism, the aim here is not to protect the consumer, it is to protect the producer, in this case from competition. Competition which, if embraced rather than feared, would lead to better goods and lower prices. Those things which actually benefit consumers, particularly the poorest consumers.
Too vast a response to go over in detail. Some of what you say, I agree with and some I would contradict but it would then get into a back and forth discussion where we would just have to agree to disagree. I am not a politician so don't want to debate forever on this subject.
The thread was actually about the programme and all I wanted to get across was that it was not a balanced programme. It merely hammered out negativities and that is not balanced