[...] We are concerned about the growth of regulation; we worry that the Eurozone’s need to support their currency will demand even deeper integration; and while we know that free movement is an integral part of being in a successful market, we believe the levels of migration to our country have been unsustainable.

It is precisely these concerns that the Prime Minister’s proposed reforms to the EU are intended to address. Naturally the changes have been dismissed by those for whom no reform will ever be enough, but in fact they would be substantial.

They would ensure that Britain’s interests outside the Eurozone would be protected, allowing countries with the euro to integrate more deeply without imposing damaging regulation on us. They would require the EU to have a long overdue focus on competitiveness, signing new trade deals and cutting regulation.

On the crucial matter of sovereignty, the UK would be exempted from “ever closer union”, and there would be greater role for national parliaments. And on the issue of most concern to the public, immigration, the abuse of free movement would be prevented. By stopping people from claiming generous in-work benefits until they have lived here and contributed for a number of years we could ensure that our welfare system is not an artificial draw for people from the rest of the EU to come to Britain.

The significance of these reforms is that they would not only halt the drive towards ever deeper integration: they would actually begin to reverse the process. That would represent a fundamental change in our relationship with the EU.

This is why I believe that Conservatives should support the Prime Minister’s renegotiation, and why this week I and others will launch Conservatives for Reform in Europe. Our aim is to give a voice to the thousands of Party members and supporters who believe that change in Europe is vital, want the Prime Minister to succeed, and if he does will vote to stay in a reformed EU.

If we cannot secure the reforms Britain needs many of us would be prepared to leave – and our EU partners who must decide whether to agree these changes should know that. But that is not the same as saying that we should leave regardless. And let’s be clear: leaving would not be a cost free option.

Quite apart from the risk to inward investment, the price of access to the market which British business requires would likely be a substantial payment to the EU, the free movement of labour, and no say over the rules – all the very things that the proponents of leaving claim we would no longer have. We would not have regained sovereignty at all. It would not be in the interests of the club from which we had just walked out to give us a free trade agreement with all the benefits and none of the costs. [...]

If reforms are secured, Britain would have the best of both worlds. We would be outside the euro, and protected from deeper integration, but able to access the single market. We would remain in the world’s greatest trading block of over 500 million people, but still be outside the Schengen area and so able to maintain our borders. We would need to be very sure about the alternative before throwing such an advantageous position away, yet we are not. Leaving without the first idea of what we might get instead would be to jump into a void. [...]

Full article on The Telegraph