In debating Scientists for EU, the point they make is that Erasmus and Horizon 2020 are essential to British scientific research. Put it to them that membership of the EU is not required for participation in either and their response is that non member states would have no say in the creation of the rules of the system - and no voting rights.
That's interesting because our membership of the EU means no independent veto or voting rights at all of the global bodies that make most of the regulations and rules pertaining to the single market and the global markets. They are exclusive competences of the EU, meaning non EU members can veto global agreements, yet Britain, the fifth largest economy in the world cannot.
So the clear suggestion here is that it's essential to have voting rights over a single inter-EU agreement, yet having influence over critical areas of trade and regulation is not essential - thus implying that Britain's subjugation at the global level is acceptable in order to shape EU scientific research programmes.
Do they understand the gravity of what they are saying? If so, can they please explain why their interest in the EU trumps all other trade concerns internationally?