The argument that Pastafarian makes showed why your insistence we will have to agree to free movement of people is untrue.
https://nortr3nixy.nimpr.uk/showthread.php?332756-Europe-In-or-Out/page23 Can you please differentiate what part of our doing well is down to domestic government policy and UK innovation and what part is entirely due to being in the EU? How has the ongoing Euro crisis effected the wider European economy and what knock on effect has it had on ours?
Speaking of the Euro crisis ... a large part of your criticism of the case for Brexit is a leap into the dark/economic uncertainty. What is the biggest internal threat to the future of European economic security? (Already given you a clue) Can you guarantee the ongoing Euro crisis will not continue to cause severe difficulties for numerous European countries suppressing growth exacerbating unemployment and possibly causing some members to leave monetary union? We have no influence on resolving this crisis in or out but pay the price none the less.
You'll go with a source that supports your view and would have seen us in the centre of the Eurozone debacle.
I prefer a more balanced source that gives both sides of the argument and cites other surveys including your worst case scenario ones.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32793642
If we want a deal with a similar sort of access to the EU internal market that we presently enjoy, yes, free movement will be part of that package.
The Thatcher reforms were of course central, but so was the way that the EU changed the shape of the UK economy.
Many economists contend what matters most is not funds transferred between Brussels and London, or even claims of jobs created or destroyed. Instead, the central issue is how EU membership has changed the shape of the British economy — its competitiveness and openness to other markets — through the impact on thousands of companies such as Nifco.
“Competition forces these guys to improve or exit,” says Professor Nick Bloom of Stanford University, in words that echo Mr Matthews’ experiences. “The single European market increased competition and forced British firms to increase the level of innovation.”
and
Professor Nick Crafts of Warwick University, Britain’s pre-eminent economic historian, adds that opening to trade allowed the UK to bounce back after falling behind its neighbours. “Britain’s really, really big problem in the 1960s was very weak competition,” he says. “Trade liberalisation was a major factor in improving competition . . . It removed weak firms, made management better and improved industrial relations — more than Thatcher.”
and the killer quote :
Warwick University’s Prof Crafts says no one can know exactly how much the EU directly benefited Britain, but a 10 per cent rise in prosperity is a reasonable estimate. “That dominates any reasonable idea of what the membership fee is,” he concludes. He cautions there is little evidence that joining the bloc permanently increased Britain’s growth rate, since the EU primarily boosted the economy in the 1970s and 1990s. But leaving the union could jeopardise the UK’s gains from increased openness and competition — the contributions economists overwhelmingly say the EU has made to British prosperity."
The EU helped to free up trade, and as such helped us to become the swashbuckling globally-minded trading nation we all want the UK to be.
With the last point on the Eurozone question. You're right that we're subject to the consequences in or out. But you're totally wrong to say we have no say in the matter whether we're in or out.
Essentially and fundamentally Britain can help strengthen the northern European hand and bolster the case for stronger budget rules inside the Eurozone. This would be part of our broader national interest and we have greater influence on this inside the EU. Our special status means however that we do not have to contribute to eurozone bailout funds. We get to help shape a system we want and benefit from that reform process. It's not easy but it's a proactive move we can actually take rather than stick our heads in the sand and simply ignore the problem. We can get stuck in and fight for the Europe we want or we can watch it change in ways we don't like from the outside. More control, more influence = in.
The FT is balanced and independent you just don't like its conclusions. I might take that argument on board if I was only quoting the Guardian.