The UK's problem with Brexit was that the sovereignty issues under discussion were mostly lies (not merely false, but knowingly false, with incompatible stories told to different voters). The UK had opt-outs for a lot, wide-ranging veto powers, and for much of the rest the UK's trade gravity reality meant it had to follow the rules regardless of if it was in or out.

So far as I'm concerned, if it had been about sovereignty, it's of course fine to say "we know leaving is expensive but we want out anyway". That's what money is for.

The changes due to having left also means that rejoining is likely to be as disconnected from the reality of the situation as leaving itself was: the opt-outs are unlikely to be permitted, the vetos are already being reduced for practical reasons.

> The EU is in bad need of reform, much like FIFA or IOC or the hopelessly broken 2 party system in the US, it likely never will. Very ugly nationalists may come and tear it apart.

Indeed, though it remains to be seen if those nationalists are within or without.

A threat from outside could be the trigger needed for reform, turning this free-trade union into something more like a nation. One on the inside could just end it.