Hope Upbringer! (DragonFable)
Some rebuttal to the counter-argument:
1. Germany is the largest EU economy by quite a long way. In fact, you mentioned France and Spain; Germany's economy is only 9% smaller than the economies of those two countries combined. As such, Merkel gains a huge degree of influence in the EU- think Greek debt crisis, where Germany was the largest lender and as such held all the chips in negotiations. Germany also has the largest number of MEPs, but what increases German influence so much is that their government has far more credibility than the others in the Eurozone. France? Hollande has set records for the worst approval rating for a French president ever, and won't be around for long, with Le Pen (a Eurosceptic), Sarkozy, and Juppé (both of Les Républicains) in the frame to replace him. Italy? Beppe Grillo's Eurosceptic 5 Star Movement are suddenly ahead in polls, and, although an election isn't due for two years, there is certainly pressure brewing on the government. Merkel is the longest serving EU leader and has more influence and respect than you realise.
2. You say that giving us a terrible deal is a way to deter Euroscepticism through being able to say 'look what happened to the UK'. I would counter that the powers of the EU can simply not afford to do that. If the EU imposes tariffs on the UK, the UK is fully within its rights to impose tariffs on EU products and cut tariffs from CET levels on products from the Commonwealth, for example. The result of all this would be that EU trade with the UK diminishes, and since the UK is a net importer, this is a bigger blow to the EU than it is to us. Since the CET has long encouraged trade diversion, the other argument that we would see prices rise for goods that we import is simply unsubstantiated; we would have greater ability to import from other countries that produce at cheaper rates than the EU. With a global recession in 2016-17 definitely on the cards, can the EU really afford to hurt its own economy just to set an example? And if they did, would it really hurt the average person in the UK?
3. The UK has more influence than you realise. We are the 5th largest economy in the world, larger than India, and have a GDP per capita 5.5 times China's and 27 times India's (where, although poverty is rife, the wealth of the population is growing, and the young population is really driving growth- from personal experience, as my relatives live there). What this means is:
The UK presents a very good opportunity for goods to be sold from these countries, making it very desirable as an important export market for both countries, and
The growing countries are demanding higher-end goods and services more than ever, things which the UK specialises in (particularly services).
Why, then, is there any motive for either party to not desire a trade deal, and why do you think that the UK will be easy to push around?
4. Cameron did propose a British Bill of Rights in the manifesto, and if we no longer have the ECHR, then one major obstacle to that is removed. Theresa May (most probable PM currently) did mention something about it as well.
5. 1% of GDP is not 'mere change'. £9 billion, which is the figure you are probably thinking of (less than 1%) isn't huge in comparison to the GDP, but is 12% of the budget deficit, and is enough for a 7.5% increase on the NHS budget- not huge, but not nothing either. That money could well improve patient care to some extent. Granted, as countless people have said, it is the Tories who need to take the blame for the situation and not the EU, but money is money, and leaving the EU gives us more money in raw terms.