Andrew Adonis argues that Brexit has been a self-imposed disaster, while Harry Phibbs argues that it puts Britain's fate back in British hands.
This is not the key or only issue. However, when the UK was part of the EU, it was subject to the rulings of the ECHR (European Commission/Court of Human Rights). Now the UK is more free to make its own decisions. The ECHR has a horrible history of left-wing extremism and the UK is now free to ignore the ECHR as is appropriate.
There is a more fundamental over-arching conflict being ignored in the analysis of Brexit and globalism vs the alternatives. It is a ubiquitous debate over the choice of the larger centralized collectivist approach vs smaller distributed autonomy and control.
Frankly, I see it as driven by a matriarchal (someone should take care of me) vs patriarchal (leave me alone so I can take care of myself) wiring that seems to be baked into people for various reasons.
As no system is ever perfect, those attracted to changing the system always have a plethora of criticisms they can use in their PR campaign to convince others to believe in the change being better. And so we see this constant ping-pong of attempts to gain some system advantages... centralize... then decentralize.... then repeat.
But here is what we really know about the effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of system design... smaller is generally better as long as connecting relationships are kept productive and strong.
The explanation for this is embedded in what we know about the mental, emotional and psychological realities of the human animal, and the tribal-cultural realities of the human condition.
Consolidation and centralization moving toward a more collectivist matriarchal system sounds good on paper (More control. Less chaos. More rules to mitigate fairness. Leveraging economies of scale for greater efficiency while taking care of more people.) but the downside is an erosion of individual productivity pursuits that are the engine of creativity and innovative progress.
The recent New York Times best seller "Nudge" talks about a perfect balance being called "libertarian paternalism":
Libertarian paternalism is the idea that it is both possible and legitimate for private and public institutions to affect behavior while also respecting freedom of choice, as well as the implementation of that idea. Libertarian paternalism is paternalism in the sense that "it tries to influence choices in a way that will make choosers better off, as judged by themselves"; note and consider, the concept paternalism specifically requires a restriction of choice. It is libertarian in the sense that it aims to ensure that "people should be free to opt out of specified arrangements if they choose to do so".
This view is one of individual liberty and rights, but with a framework of rules that provide asymmetry of application based on specific individual and group needs, interests and preferences.
It refers to policies designed to help people who behave irrationally and so are not advancing their own interests, while interfering only minimally with people who behave rationally.
European football is a great example here. To encourage top-level play, the rules are set to protect competition that encourages advancing brilliance in play for outcomes, but not to dictate outcomes within a larger pursuit of fairness.
It took decades for the EU changes to impact UK "field of play", and so it will take time to unravel what had been done to get the system back to health. However, we have copious evidence, both modern and historical, that attempts to consolidate and centralize multiple disparate cultures into a single social and economic system is an unsustainable idea. It tends to benefit the ruling class at the expense of everyone else. And eventually everyone else rebels against the elites either in election results, or violently.