Same Hannan who dreams of Hong Kong but really wants us to be like Norway, without the oil and the social democracy to boot, because it
"beats the EU"?
Let's post the full debate, and not just the bits that we like, shall we?
Since Brexiters have a paranoia over official sources and Remainers talking to them about their favourite politicians, below is a compendium of fullfact entries pertinent to Daniel Hannan, specifically, and the kind of loose mental gymnastics he enjoys doing. Sometimes he homes in on something like what he is claiming, often not.
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-norway/
https://fullfact.org/europe/norway-switzerland-eu-laws/
https://fullfact.org/europe/14-aprils-bbc-question-time-factchecked/
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-has-shrunk-percentage-world-economy/
https://fullfact.org/europe/partner-visas-and-eu/
https://fullfact.org/europe/did-eu-misspend-enough-money-build-10-new-hospitals/
https://fullfact.org/economy/do-families-spend-more-taxes-they-do-housing-energy-and-food-combined/
The common politician's fallacy about money and hospitals makes me laugh (this is on his theme of waste). Though I suppose most people have gold-fished away our relative waste and accounting error ratios by now?
But that fallacy never really made sense: money earmarked for specific public projects here and in the EU cannot be just reclaimed and pumped into infrastructure instead, especially on imaginary "average hospitals", without demand for them, the staff (hello JD contracts) and with other spending priorities trumping them. Moreover, we fund hospital projects via PFI hybrid schemes (yes, including the one Hannan often uses for reference), which have come under Treasury Select Committee, NAO and OBR scrutiny, and may not be the magic, public money saving tree they were ought to be, to put it mildly.
In addition, to put this innefficiency dog to rest for good -- the EU budget doesn't run a deficit nor accumulates debt for its member states; the budgetary rules and enforcement is tightening, not relaxing. The UK's own rule fiddling, waste and scandals make the reclamation argument also rather moot, since you'd be arguing for a transfer of money to -- presumably from the infinitely large saving on our EU budget contribution -- a larger, less efficient public service body, which notably has a more complex and less transparent relationship with the private sector (you cannot vote out bad spending in PFI projects or disasters like the UC roll-out; the Civil Service is unelected also, and the local government powers are increasingly being concentrated in either private or central government hands, from mayors to academy trusts interacting directly with the private sector; and unseating unpopular governments under FPTP, or just getting a minister to resign, is a taller order than most people realise); and under the proposed EEA model, said "reclamation" cannot even get off the ground, pricesly because of the need to pay our membership fee to participate in the common market. Moreover removing ourselves from having a say on the EU budget in future years, is a rather self-defeating act for those crying out for either budget cuts at EU level, better rules or more/less spending on particular areas. Having an 'informal chat' isn't the same as having a budget veto.
In light of the current economic forecasts of Brexit, EU budget cuts, Obama's intervention and actual rebate figures being available, it all falls apart for him. Hence why you will be hearing more on immigration than the economy from Vote Leave.
Most of the debate was old hat, but if you've got more questions, you can send them in to FullFact directly via site, twitter, fb, etc.
. Seems to me what some people hold as most important (thinking of themselves as British) is not only irrelevant to being in or out of the EU, it is probably the stupidest reason to base the choice of being in or out on.