Cedar has answered most of your points. The opportunity of not being under the thumb of a monstrous dictatorial beauracracy that the EU is rapidly becoming is reason enough. Being free to negotiate trade deals with dynamic free-market economies is another opportunity.
I big to differ about “non-binding referendum”. Britain has an unwritten constitution where traditions govern. One of those traditions is that if an election is held on around a particular issue, then the outcome of that election is a mandate to implement that issue. That is why a prime minister who couldn’t in good conscious implement that mandate resigned. That is why the current rump parliament, despite clearly desiring to undermine Brexit, doesn’t dare simply say “that was a non-binding referendum”.
Like the tradition that there is no place in the constitution for national binary referendums, for which there had therefore been only two precedents?
Like the tradition that Parliament is sovereign: 'nothing may be done that Parliament cannot undo'?
Like the tradition that the Parliament established by the most recent General Election therefore trumps all previous elections and votes?
Here's the thing -- I believed that as well, until about 2018, that the EU bureaucracy was bloated and getting in the way.
I still think it needs trimming, but it isn't a clear bad - it has helped and helps the UK economy grow immensely now.
What changed me from thinking it only bad to my stance that it is slightly good but needs reform, is that I checked up on the various "incidents" of bureaucratic redtape - and read for myself that the various banana curvature, tea kettles etc. were media myths - just as much lies as accusing the President of Russian collusion etc.
That's why I ask folks on FR why they personally think about X, y or z and most of the answers are "because the media told me" -- don't trust the media - whether the telegraph or the guardian (and the sun is like Huff post - heavily biased and half truths at best)
Anyway, so Being free to negotiate trade deals with dynamic free-market economies is another opportunity. -- they can already and already DO negotiate trade deals as part of the wider bloc -- the Vietnam trade deal I mentioned above is an EU-vietnam trade deal that gives the UK immense benefits -- UNTIL BREXIT. Then the UK will need to negotiate from a weaker stance
I brought up W Virginia as an example of stating how it is better to negotiate as part of a wider group.
I beg to differ about “non-binding referendum” -- yes, Sir you are right about the unwritten constitution, and in that it is clear that parliament is sovereign, not the people - The European Union Referendum Act 2015 is a shoddy piece of legislation. The Act did not make the Brexit vote legally binding. The Act contained no rules or ministerial responsibility on what should happen in the event of a vote to leave. There was no time limit on implementing the referendum result. The Act makes no reference whatsoever to Article 50: the UK’s legal means of exiting the EU.
"One of those traditions is that if an election is held on around a particular issue, then the outcome of that election is a mandate to implement that issue." - and yet the referendum wasn't such an election - it needed a separate act of parliament and one that did not make it binding
As to why "the current rump parliament, despite clearly desiring to undermine Brexit, doesn’t dare simply say “that was a non-binding referendum”." is because later in 2016 Parliament passed an act calling on the government to invoke Article 50
in addition - the current parliament is not a rump parliament - it was elected in in 2017 May - after Brexit. This parliament is what the British people wanted, in a general election.