fourmummy, it's a little ironic that you highlight the potential bias of independent scientific studies, yet you suggest people get their information from a Brexit propaganda leaflet
nothing wrong with propaganda as such, it has its place in political campaigning, but also not the best place to get proper information
That being said, to focus on the argument and not the clear bias of the source:
-
EU funding myth - this goes back to the general "net contributor" question, yes Britain gives more money than it receives in funding, but this is more than compensated by the many structural benefits that come with membership. Even more so in the case of research, since the UK gets a disproportionately high amount of all the research funding distributed by the EU.
-
Erasmus myth: not a myth at all, it's an EU programme, and the non-EU countries that want to join have to pay whatever price the EU sets. For example: when Switzerland voted to limit free movement with the EU, its Erasmus agreement was cancelled.
-
"most of our trade is with the EU" - also debated ad nauseam elsewhere
-
"the EU helps science" - they're really off the mark with their criticism of the Clinical Trials Directive here, see the opinion of a Professor of Public Health below, not to mention the 93% of UK scientists and engineers that think the EU is a "major benefit" to UK science
www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2016/feb/19/europes-framework-for-clinical-trials-is-good-news-for-uk-scientists-and-patients
-
"the progressive thing to say is to stay in the EU" - looks like their argument here is to say the EU is bad for continental economies? Ok, well, Brexit wouldn't help
-
"the EU protects minority rights" - they're half right here, the EU promotes minority rights but only has limited powers to enforce them. Which should really delight the Brexit side - respect for national sovereignties!