The economics are contentious. Firstly, there are too many myths about money going into the EU. It is nothing like £55 million a day, more like £35m. Still a lot of money. £18m of that goes back in grants and subsidies leaving £17m a day. In national money terms that is peanuts. As far as the ECB printing money, well at the last count for 2015 UK government debt (national debt) amounted to £1.56 trillion or 81.58% of total GDP as a result of which the UK is short f money, so the exchequer via the treasury has millions of pounds printed every day. The UK is in enormous debts, proportionately several times higher than the EU alone. If they wanted to stand alone then the IMF would need to support the UK, they are reluctant and could easily say only limited support. The farmers' subsidy is far more complicated than so-called 'farm gate' funding. In fact large parts of the money is used for joint agricultural and research programmes which, if the EU did not carry out as a shared programme, would be done by nations alone who would then largely need to rely on the private sector. In fact, no European country can afford that which would knock it on into the hands of the large corporations, which ironically may well happen if the TTIP is signed, but the bill could theoretically be higher because whilst the countries would not pay for the benefits of that research and development the farmers would need to. Do not be mislead by the 'made in France' label on what looks like everything because in fact there is far more moving between countries than appears obvious. The UK, for example, produces large amounts of bovine semen for artificial insemination of dairy cattle which is used in 16 of the 28 countries at present. That trade would continue in the hands of corporations but at higher prices since then there would be no common costs and payments, but what each large concern could charge. National herds without exchanges between them would become far too inbred to remain fertile and numbers of cattle born would go down, all dairy produce become far more expensive. The population sizes and use of milk products exceeds national capabilities. The budget naturally contributes to that. Then there are cereal crop matters such as improving wheat grain outputs for the large populations' needs, along with the fertilisers, pesticides and all else. Milk and flour are two of the basic needs, so that must be. Then crops such as potatoes, carrots and other roots highly susceptible to blights... on and on. When the actual products of the joint research and development goes to farmers, they receive grants to enable them to use what they are being partly given but on the other hand may need to but from Monsanto and so on, hence the payment to pay for those things. That is already too little for small farmers everywhere, which is why they are going broke.
I lived in a farming community in East Anglia for many years and saw the farms go broke, to be bought up by large corporations. In fact my neighbour, although with acres and acres of wheat and oil seed rape was mainly dependent on breeding polo ponies. Without subsidies and the open market he would have gone broke long ago. The EU even helped him export the ponies to the USA, Canada and so on. Alone he would have gone bust. He is still going but he large Palladian farmhouse, 'The Hall' as it is named, and its grounds were sold off to subsidise his subsidies. He had 'inherited' being parish chairman from his father, but one meeting resigned. He was confronted with possible bankruptcy and there is a stupid old law that forbids a bankrupt serving as a councillor (ironically one can be MP, MEP or even president of the USA). The only 'victim' willing to step in was me. I then saw how a chair received notifications of bankruptcy proceedings that were put up on the village notice board. Five of eight councillors were farmers, none wanted to chair because of the ever present threat.
Look at farming through those eyes and what you find is not the shoving around of money and a heap of bureaucracy anti-EU forces present it as but the very things that maintain the farming community (by the skin of their teeth) through not only the money they receive but the scientific benefits within the EU and all the rest of it. Take that away and many more farms will go to the wall with large concerns scooping up the best and the rest going to waste as here in France.
As for investment funds, they don't dare talk down any economy because they want people to pass money through their hands into investments they recommend and manage. If any of them said the UK could go broke the immediate capital flight would drag the entire fund management sector down. No matter what Woodford says, why are are Goldman Sachs as the world's largest investment brokers saying the UK would be in serious trouble? Financially, as a global US corporation they can survive perfectly well without the UK, so have no need to warn as they do. Which one does one listen to?