On the topic of economists, Paul Mason isn't an economist, he's a journalist. Richard Murphy is an economist, but his view seems to be that the economic impact wouldn't be that much because we would renegotiate a deal ilke the one the European Free Trade area, whereby we agree to all of the regulations of the EU anyway, including free movement, in order to get access to the free market. But not being represented in the EC or the European Parliament. If you are concerned about Sovereignty, that's even worse. That's the equivalent of being Puerto Rico- governed by US law but not having senate on Congressional representation.
On the topic of "getting back what we put in" that arguably not the case, or doesn't matter. The contribution to Europe is 340 euros per household per year. The estimated economic benefit of access to the single market is about 3,000 pounds per year. Thus, in technical terms, we make fucking bank by being the in the EU.
To be blunt, it's fairly cut-and-dried. On the economic and financial side, being in the EU is a big win. Leaving will almost certainly hurt, probably a lot. Honestly, I am happy to hear back and forth on the other aspects of the debate, concerns about TTIP, sovereignty, the democratic deficit- these are totally valid. But I am pretty sure that there is little point going back on economic and financial issues. It's pretty much settled. The public policy debate equivalent of whether you should cut squats off before you get to parallel- yes, you can find a few people who say you should, but they don't know what they are talking and meanwhile pretty much everyone who does know will tell you otherwise.
That's why Johnson and Gove don't seriously try to engage- they just stink the waters up with lies and misdirection, and move on to areas where they have a stronger case, or where things are decided on appeal to emotion and not obectively, like immigration.
