As the United Kingdom’s debate over membership of the European Union gathers pace, one question is coming to dominate: what would Out look like? Unless those who want the UK to leave the EU can tell the country what this would mean, clearly and convincingly, they will deservedly lose both the argument and the forthcoming referendum.

A referendum is a choice between two futures, not an opinion poll on one. “Brexit” campaigners might try to run away from every version of Out, claiming they have never advocated the Norwegian model or the Swiss model, or any model. But they cannot run from them all. And the more the options for leaving are examined, the less attractive they become.

The prime minister was right last week to attack the Norway option as a bad deal for Britain. Under this version we would have to abide by the rules of the European single market, and pay almost as much as we do now for the privilege, but have no say over these rules. That is not enhancing our sovereignty; it is walking away from the top table and rendering ourselves powerless. It’s a policy of surrender rather than one of control.

But the criticism of swapping the power and influence of membership for something far weaker and more passive does not apply only to the Norwegian model. The Swiss option, also advocated by some Brexit campaigners, is effectively the Norway model piece by piece. It is a series of agreements that took years to negotiate and which, despite Swiss desires, still does not cover service industries that are vital to its economy – and, of course, to our own. The package leaves Switzerland “autonomously” having to comply with EU law, over which it has no say, to gain access to the single market.

The Out campaigners respond to such criticisms by saying they don’t favour the Norwegian or Swiss option, instead talking up Britain’s ability to strike trade deals on a global basis. But this argument was brutally shot down last week by the US trade negotiator Mike Froman, who said the United States, which is Britain’s biggest export market outside the EU, was “not particularly in the market” for a trade agreement with a single country such as the UK, and: “Britain has a greater voice at the trade table being part of the EU.”

The outcome of Brexit without a separate UK-US trade agreement would mean, as Froman put it, tariffs for our producers on the same basis as those for China’s, Brazil’s or India’s.

In a new Policy Network pamphlet, we consider in depth all the main alternatives to UK membership – the Norwegian, Swiss, World Trade Organisation (WTO) and UK Free Trade Agreement models. Each is different but they all share a single problem – far from enhancing sovereignty and control, each one moves Britain from being a rule-maker to a rule-taker.

Skaters in Oslo: ‘The Norwegian option would not be enhancing our sovereignty. It is walking away from the top table and rendering ourselves powerless. It’s a policy of surrender rather than one of control.’ Photograph: Jeff Gilbert/Alamy

Each one would mean Britain outside the EU either signing back up to much of what it has just opted out of, but without the leverage of deciding the rules; or subjecting our exporters to greater risk of tariff and non-tariff barriers. Under WTO rules, for example, our car exporters could be hit with a tariff of 10%, putting a great British success story at a clear disadvantage compared with our French or German rivals, as well as making our country less attractive to foreign investment from outside the EU.

The core Eurosceptic argument, that withdrawal from the EU enhances sovereignty and control, collapses if we abandon our influence over the rules of global trade. Both allies and competitors are telling us we have more heft and leverage in negotiating these rules and in setting global standards if we are part of a group of 28 member states than we do on our own. An exit policy that puts us more at the mercy of rules decided by others would be a terrible deal for Britain.

With parts of our manufacturing heartlands already reeling from job losses in the steel industry, issues of employment, trade and investment are not some theoretical game – they are the difference between having a livelihood or not, being able to pay the bills or not.

The Brexit debate is about both the number of jobs we have and about justice and dignity in the workplace. Over the years, agreements reached at EU level have guaranteed minimum amounts of paid leave, equal treatment for part-time workers, rights for people when companies are taken over, anti-discrimination measures, and fair treatment for agency workers.

Those on the left or right who would pull us out of the EU have to explain why it is beneficial to British workers to walk away from these rights at work. Remember, when Brexit campaigners talk about EU red tape it is often these very employment rights that they have in their sights.

So we will argue for a better EU, more able to give its citizens hope for the future, more competitive in the world, and better able to cope with unforeseen crises. Those who ask the public to support leaving, after 40 years of membership, have failed to set out an alternative that empowers rather than weakens Britain.

Pat McFadden MP is shadow minister for Europe and co-author of the Policy Network pamphlet, What Would Out Look Like?, published today