Brexit. Why do Brits want Out of the EU?

[...]
Of course we must try to retain the economic benefits of the single market when we leave the EU: some argue this means we should negotiate to stay inside the European Economic Area (EEA), which would retain the friction-free trade not only in goods but also in services, upon which the bulk of our economy is based.

However, the political price to be paid for such access is correspondingly high, and runs directly counter to the leavers’ four objectives. In the EEA, Britain would be obliged to keep the four freedoms, including the free movement of people, so no regaining control of our borders; align its regulatory regime with the EU’s – so no regaining sovereignty (in fact we would no longer have a seat at the table so there would actually be a reduction of sovereignty); follow ECJ rulings; and still pay into the EU budget.

The UK would technically not be a member of the EU, but we would in effect become a vassal state: obliged to pay into the union’s budget while having even less sovereignty than we do now – no longer able to appoint commissioners, sit on the EU council to have a say in how we determine our regulations and laws, or appoint British judges to the ECJ to adjudicate disputes. The 52% would almost certainly consider this a con.

Some have suggested we should retain membership of the customs union, the benefits of which extend to goods rather than services, and establish common import tariffs with respect to the rest of the world. But that is not possible. The only members of this union are the member states of the EU, and they alone have negotiating power.

Other countries such as Turkey have a separate customs union agreement with the EU. If we were to have a similar agreement, several things would follow: the EU’s 27 members would set the common tariffs and Britain would have no say in how they were set. We would be unable to enter into any separate bilateral free trade agreement. We would be obliged to align our regulatory regime with the EU in all areas covered by the union, without any say in the rules we had to adopt. And we would be bound by the case law of the ECJ, even though we would have no power to bring a case to the court.

As a transitional phase, a customs union agreement might be thought to have some merit. However, as an end point it is deeply unattractive. It would preclude us from making our own independent trade agreements with our five largest export markets outside the EU (the US, China, Japan, Australia and the Gulf states).

More important, were, say, the EU to negotiate an agreement with the US that was in the union’s best interests but against our own, our markets would be obliged to accept American produce with no guarantee of reciprocal access for our own goods into the US.

Turkey faces precisely such an asymmetry with Mexico, with which the EU negotiated an agreement 20 years ago. Turkey still faces a 20% tariff on its clothing goods exported to Mexico, while it imports Mexican cars on a tariff-free basis.
... ... ...

Perhaps so. I don't detect any serious effort in the UK to rescind the decision of the electorate.

I'm not sure I accept your "jumping off a cliff" metaphor.

the "ever close union" postulate

I'm aware there was vigorous campaigning on both sides of this issue, and that it, and other EU issues, had been a part of the ongoing UK political debate for some time before PM Cameron put the issue before the voters

Who was the "former British EU negotiator" and why was he removed? It appears there may be more to the story than you have revealed.

Well I hope both the UK and the EU both do well in any event.

The "ever closer union" aspiration may not be explicit in the various treaties, but it certainly appears to be an extant and long-standing aspiration of many EU advocates, and, as well, an often implicit assumption in many actions of the EU governing apparatus.

it was the British voters who called PM Cameron's bluff