In what areas specifically and in what ways?
Um, nope. That wasn't what the referendum was about. And the UK has long been a voice against European unification. By leaving we now make that possible future more likely.
"As a whole" makes it sound like the result was decisively in favour of one outcome or the other. It was not. You're also not considering the fact that while England & Wales voted to Leave, Gibraltar, Northern Ireland & Scotland all voted to Remain; with Scotland returning a majority in favour of Remain in every single constituency.
Grasping and aggressive with what exactly? You're forgetting that the UK, as a member, has a veto which it can use to stop moves towards a European superstate.
Please provide a specific example of this.
site article "www.cfr.org/backgrounder/what-brexit-means"
Quotations below are from the article above on cfr org. Bold is mine.
"Advocates of a British exit, or Brexit, from the union argued that by
reclaiming its national sovereignty, the UK would be better able to manage immigration,
free itself from
onerous regulations, and spark more dynamic growth."
"UK could face the loss of preferential access to its largest
trading partner" to which it apparently had give up sovereignty on many issues. In other words in order to regain its sovereignty the UK had to leave.
"The British people approved membership in a 1975 referendum, but
suspicion of political union with the rest of Europe remained strong." For a reason it appears. In fact it seems like a very sticky trading partner which has courts which supersede UK courts. You really can't see why citizens would not have any qualms about it? I can.
These are the same conditions which led to the uniting of the Prussias and the United States -- single currency, increasing regulations and a court system over all of the territories. Its pretty obviously an attempt to get the UK and Europe working under a single government using established, historically understood unification principles.
"
Economic migration from eastern Europe spiked after the EU expansions of 2004 and 2007, pushing net migration to the UK to more than three hundred thousand people a year by 2015" ....and UK citizens had to accept it under their agreements with the EU. Is it really that hard to understand why they might be concerned about a complete change in their way of life through massive immigration? "
A wave of asylum seekers arriving from beyond the bloc’s borders has also driven tensions." and not just in the UK. When the EU let in a flood of people, that concerned some people. I can understand that. Its an island, not a continent.
"
In February 2016, EU leaders agreed to a number of changes including protections for non-euro currencies within the EU, new limits on migrants’ benefits, a commitment to reducing EU regulation, and official recognition that the push for “ever closer union” does not apply to the UK."... Ever closer union? They only agreed to this in 2016? Too little too late! The EU planned to eventually replace sovereignty and had already made inroads towards doing so.
Single currency is guaranteed loss of sovereignty--eventually. If the EU states continue they will eventually become one superstate. Spain, Greece, France, Germany, Italy and all of them are on this road, and it only leads to one thing: a country. Its the obvious goal of the EU no matter what any prime minister says. I realize the UK retains its currency, but that doesn't change the goals of the EU. Britain had to get out if it was to remain a sovereign territory. It was either going to leave or become part of the blob.