I couldn't disagree more. At the time of Merkel's Mistake (when she opened the borders to all the world's downtrodden) it looked like leaving was the right thing to do in order to preserve the UK's own culture and society, but since then Europe has found surprising backbone to keep third-world immigrants out - contrast with the USA where leading politicians talk of abolishing ICE.
Even now there is no clear benefit to Britain from leaving. "Unshackling business" by reducing regulations etc. is a canard, the UK is already #9 in the doing business index and fellow EU member Denmark is #3. "End to free movement" seems to mean taking a similar number of immigrants, but a larger proportion from third-world countries.
From what I have seen of the EU, it seems to do a great number of useful things while spending only a minimal amount of money (1-2% of GDP) and leaving individual countries to mostly set their own domestic policies. More or less like the pre-civil-war USA, which many libertarians, free-market and small-government types claim as the ideal.
I don't agree.
A part of Europe signed yesterday "The UN migration Pact" in Marrakesh which means opening all gates for illegal immigration and making sending illegals back almost impossible. The US at least refused to sign, as well as Canada, Australia, Israel, Poland, Hungary, Czech republic, Bulgaria and Croatia.
75% of Europeans are against illegal immigration and want to close all the borders, but politicians don't listen to them. That's the new "European democracy".