It was suggested that Brexit Exit voters wanted better dealings with Europe originally and when that wasn't going to happen the Exit vote came. For the majority of people it wasn't about racism, just the ineffectiveness of a unionised system due to in part the large number of members and the internal pacts and collations that each had with each other.
The Brexit remainers like the concept of unity, of co-operation of being in something bigger that has the hope and passion of something good at the end of it. Unfortunately the European Union has not been it.
So what would be the best strategy for the UK?
Well I've considered this greatly and I realise that if I don't voice my consideration then it will never have the chance to be heard and that Scaremongering in the press will literally become the very thing we don't want it to be be.... Real. (Also it's alleged that the UK MP's have been busy spending the allocated money on deals that might not even be possible in the future should the following considerations be considered, so really getting this information out is more about them paying heed.)
What the UK needs to have is a strong leader (and this could be the current one not necessarily a replacement) to stand before Europe pre-March (The point of Exit) and literally lay this before them.
They would need to state that the UK is going with a No-Deal (no more need for the press to scaremonger, since it's done and dealt with) however the reason for the No-Deal is that the UK is putting forwards the creation of a New Union, and that the UK's representative is there to offer those in the currently EU the opportunity to switch Unions.
Ideally the countries that are offered would have like-minded considerations about which direction to take this new union, and likely would require to be geographically close. Any deals between such countries and the EU would have to be reworked between the New Union and the EU (This is why a Deal or No-Deal becomes less of a deal breaker, since a rework would likely change everything anyway.)
Tighter external borders (With soft internal ones) could be a foundation of the new union (and it's partly the reason why such a union would work better with Geographical neighbours) this would deal with a mixture of the issues caused by immigration and defence.
A New Union with Ireland (Leadership permitting) would allow a Soft Border, so the hardships and problems caused by the current disarray of a Brexit would be completely un-necessary.
Scotland could even join this new union with it's own voice, while still remaining within the UK. (This might be said of other parts of the UK too)
Proverbially
Optional Considerations
(These aren't necessarily to do with Brexit, but I'd considered them in regards to how the EU should have worked)
Leap Taxes
The concept being that one year in every four a union related country would have a reduction in taxation compared to other countries within the union. This would cause trade to shift back and forth between the countries in the union as better deals would be available with those countries during that time. Using such a method reduces the problems of economic stagnation.
(Controversially) Immigration Tax and Immigration Grants.
Immigration isn't something that is ever going to be fully stopped, however it can be curtailed. If the countries of a union aren't hospitable to immigrants, they should be able to pay a premium to the union to keep the immigrants from their country. That premium (a tax) can then be used as a grant to those countries within the union (and possibly external to it) to fund the human rights and welfare of immigrants they take in. This would allow those countries to build the utilities and facilities that are necessary not just for the added immigrants in their country but their own people.
An immigration policy could be added to be similar to the leap year method, where one year in four would allow immigrants into a country, the other three years that country pays a premium to other countries to take any new immigrants in. Due to the change in having only a one year window for immigration, immigrants would be expected to file paperwork in advance otherwise the likelihood of them being taken in legally would be extremely thin.
(Incidentally I considered this point during Blair as Prime Minister and it made me realise just how ineffective the politicians at the time were, as they either were incompetent for not having push something similar to this in Europe or they were corrupt having done a back channel deal and pocketed any money for housing immigrants in the UK, while making the immigrant situation look so much worse.)
In a nutshell these are just considerations on how the UK should move forwards, whether it will be heard in time or the countries falls apart in the meantime, that's beyond me.