SCIENCE and the environment are not issues that immediately spring to mind for those deciding which way to vote in the European Union referendum next week.

But in Oxfordshire they are both linked to thousands of jobs.

And depending on which campaign you are inclined to trust, a vote to leave the EU could give us more freedom or cost us dearly.

At stake, the ‘remain’ campaign has warned, are the subsidies farmers receive through our membership and the many millions given to universities.

The EU’s common agricultural policy (CAP) is its most expensive scheme, costing more than £48bn every year, and compensates farmers for expenditure associated with the job.

But many farmers are torn between this benefit and what they see as overbearing regulation coming from the EU.

So divided is the agricultural sector that the National Farmers’ Union has declined to publicly campaign on either side, saying it respects “the diversity of views among its membership”.

It does, however, add: “NFU Council resolved that on the balance of existing evidence available to us at present, the interests of farmers are best served by our continuing membership of the European Union.”

This is not a view shared by great-grandfather-of-one Brian Franklin, who runs Moorlands Farm in Murcott.

Despite receiving about £9,000-a-year to help with the upkeep of his 90 cows through the CAP, the 70-year-old says “we have got to come out”.

He told the Oxford Mail: “It is all the regulations. I can’t drive a sprayer or a digger now without a licence, even though I’ve been driving them all my life. Why should I be told what to do now?

“Because of these EU directives, you’ve got to have a licence for everything.”

This even extends to rat poison.

Under rules that came into force on June 1, farmers must hold a certificate of competence in rodent pest control if they wish to buy it.

The move is designed to cut the risks of poisoning the wrong animals, like barn owls, red kites, buzzards and kestrels, but has fuelled concerns about interference from Brussels.

Mr Franklin said: “That was the straw that broke the camel’s back for me. I’m not going on a course to have someone tell me how to use rat poison.”

Despite warnings from the remain campaign, he does not believe subsidies would be lost if we voted to leave: “We will still get them.

“The EU is just about red tape and jobs for the boys. I think it is disgusting.

“I’ve been farming since I was a schoolboy and I find all these rules a load of rubbish.”

But elsewhere in the county, the fear of losing EU funding is more keenly felt. Professor Steve Cowley, chief executive of the JET fusion power facility in Culham, which employs 1,100 staff, said two thirds of its funding came from the EU.

He said leaving would “create a very tricky situation”, adding: “The EU has been incredibly important for science. If we want to remain a forward-looking country we cannot do that alone.”

Nicola Blackwood, MP for Oxford West and Abingdon, has also issued a warning in her capacity as chairman of the House of Commons science and technology committee.

Earlier this year she said Britain’s EU membership “protects lifesaving research and key research and development jobs”, with the vice-chancellors of Oxford University and Oxford Brookes University both saying the UK’s membership of the EU was “vital” to higher education in an open letter.

Oxford University alone received £70m of research funding from EU sources in the 2014/15 financial year. In turn, it has spawned more than 100 spin-out companies over the past 25 years and is one of the most prolific patent filers in the UK.

The remain campaign warns this is at risk if we quit. But Vote Leave claims the government could continue funding science and research with money it would save from leaving.

Bob Price, leader of Oxford City Council, said leaving the EU would be “a massive blow”.

He said the UK had benefited disproportionately from its research grants, getting more money back proportionally than it puts in.

And he said a restriction on free movement would harm Oxford University’s attractiveness to top academics.

“We have a global university that takes the cream in terms of getting the best people coming here.

“That is in part because they do not have to worry about visas, or how long they can stay, and that is down to freedom of movement the EU guarantees in the single market.

“It is a huge benefit but that attractiveness would dissipate if we leave.”

However, in an open letter this week top campaigners from Vote Leave wrote: “We can take back control of British taxpayers’ money, protect funding for those who now get it from the EU, and improve the funding mechanisms so that money saved gets to the frontline.

“In particular it is clear that scientists and universities should expect that funding will be much more generous after we take back control and give them the priority they deserve.”

EU-FUNDED CULHAM FACILITY

SINCE 1983, the heart of European efforts to crack nuclear fusion – the Holy Grail of energy production – has been based down the road fromOxford, in Culham.

The JET fusion experiment is the largest of its kind in the world and is jointly funded by European countries through the EU Commission.

Nuclear fusion – the cousin of nuclear fission carried out in Britain’s current nuclear power plants – offers a virtually unlimited source of energy but has proved difficult to harness because of the extremely high pressures and temperatures required.

A €283m (£224.5m) contract signed by the commission and the Culham Centre for Fusion Energy in July 2014 secures the facility’s operations until at least 2018.

JET is set to be replaced by an even bigger facility called ITER in Southern France, which is already under construction and is expected to be ready in the next decade.

But scientists based in Culham hope they will be able to carry on with different types of experiments that will still contribute to fusion research.

FARMING CASH

LAUNCHED in 1962, the common agricultural policy is a subsidy scheme paid by the European Union to member states and then to farmers.

It was set up to ensure consumers had a stable supply of food and to ensure EU farmers could make a reasonable living.

The subsidy was championed by France – traditionally the biggest beneficiary – as a price for agreeing to free trade in industrial goods in the single market.

There are about 14 million farmers in the EU, which has budgeted to spend about 40 percent of its cash on the CAP – about £289bn up to 2020.

However, countries including Britain have argued less should be spent and called for a shift towards boosting growth and jobs.