I (by a hair) voted to leave, but was deeply conflicted over the decision. I thought the whole EU journey was the right thing to do, and I cast my first-ever vote in favour in 1975. But that vote was in favour of a free trade entitity. And until Mastricht in 1992, that was all it was. It enriched all of Europe.
But in Maastricht, the federalists and expansionists began to advocate eastward expansion and integration at a rapid rate and the project moved on fast. The UK, always the second largest contributor to EU funds, started to ask questions, and intelligent thoughtful people who were not part of the rush to unification and who wanted clarification of constitutional details, regular accounting updates, and approved budgets started getting cold feet but were shunted aside as "insufficiently engaged or committed."
I don't think the UK has much in common with the states that were formerly part of Yugoslavia or Albania, but locally (in Cornwall, not London) there seem to be a lot of migrant workers legally here picking vegetables and packing them, and they are welcome.
But quite frankly, I prefer the Anglo Saxon common law approach and would rather ally with Canada, Australia, New Zealand even though they are further distant because we share cultural similarities and our legal expectations of fairness are bettter aligned.
Apologies for the essay.