Sovereignty is a ridiculous thing to want anyway. If you think sovereignty is a good thing, then logically you should also be for breaking up the UK into its constituent countries, and for breaking up those into their constituent counties and those into classical-style city states. How is it possible to non-arbitrarily determine that the amount of sovereignty we have at the moment is the 'correct' amount of sovereignty? I'll bet you can't.
Historically, groups of people have banded together because teamwork and cooperation makes us stronger. Would any of the states of the United States of America have got as far as it did if they weren't united?
Sovereignty brings no inherent utility. We'd simply be handing control from one group of elites (the EU) to another (the Tories).
and if you are against controlling your own country, then you should be proud of the fact that your country has had no say in anything the EU has put forwards to this day. all objections your country has put forward in relation to new bills have been ignored or shot down, and your representatives have been disrespected in the very court room where of the EU makes decisions, your country has enough clout and power within the EU on it's own that the deals for immunity to future policies went through with minor trouble, and countries like greece and spain are apparently looking to your country in regards to whether or not they break away. yet your country has been among the lowest favored in the entire organization to this point, does that make any sense to you? you live within what was one of the most powerful countries in the world, and have, i believe the fifth or sixth most powerful economy at the current moment, and your country has been steadily getting pushed around the EU floor.
the US was built under, and operates under, a completely different set of rules from the EU, teamwork and cooperation mean nothing when your voice is drowned out if it's anything but supportive in the echo chamber. your country is built upon a different set of rules than america, but i assume the people still have some form of voice. and right now you'd rather give up your voice than work to establish your freedom. you aren't joining countries that were established under similar grounds, you aren't building the EU from the ground up, it's being built from the top down, it might succeed of fail, but in either case, Britain's is it's own country right now, and this is the only shot at remaining as such. you can either hold that title with pride, and make the effort to grow it as it's own sovereign nation, or you can remove it and latch on under the EU. you don't care about that though, so we won't see eye to eye here regardless.
you have a worldview in that area completely alien to me, i said it already, i don't have a dog in the fight, so i really don't care one way or the other, but you can't change if you aren't willing to struggle for it, britain isn't as weak as you seem to think, and the only way your economy would collapse the way economists are predicting is if you broke off from the EU immediately and cut all ties the next day. that's probably not how the system would work though, i could be wrong here, but there would be quite a bit of paperwork and red tape to cut through before the effects set in, and in that time, so long as you can compose a proper economics plan, including trading, outsourcing, deal making, EU cooperation, and taxing, you could make it out with minimal losses. not as easy as i make it sound, i know, but if you value your country, over being told what to do by outside sources, then you'd vote to leave. sovereignty brings the ability to set your own rules, under the EU, you will have absolutely no say in the rules, you might have a deal set to be immune to absorption, but you'll only ever be the out group until you abandon the freedoms that cameron is negotiating for. you already are, and you will remain such until you give in. either make your own way, or accept everything that comes with joining the crowd. you lose what? 3 million jobs from within the EU? you would then have to open up even more jobs relating to trade and other related facilities. it's not a direct negative, it would all depend upon the size of the shift towards trading. alongside conquering other countries, britain's got a rich history of trade, you still import and export more than practically any other country in the EU, on a side note, are you seriously saying that you trust the EU more than your own country? no government is immune to corruption, and the farther your government is from you, the less you can control said corruption. I'm pretty sure the EU has already been called out on it's spending habits as is, there is no guarantee that you'll be getting an uncorrupted government just because you rely on the one that's more "unified"
in fact, oliver was somewhat wrong in his estimations and statements. for one, he was right about the people he showed being racists (that fat lady was racist to a comical degree) but he then attempted to cover the entire movement as if it were. it's people having pride in their country, and wanting to make it thrive without relying on outside help. or giving up their national identity. there is nothing wrong with that in moderation, and it's not too hard to see why they'd have a bit of pride considering the power your country wielded in the past. as far as his money statement, he didn't factor the shifts in jobs, including the new job opportunities negotiating with the EU instead of within the EU. the time taken to separate which would lead to a more balanced departure instead of the financial fiasco hurriedly predicted. the refunneling of money that would occur if britain no longer has to send money out of the country, meaning britain wouldn't be taking a direct negative with those profits either. the amount of new trade jobs that would open in the wake of separating. the release of foreign prisoners (reducing the cost of prison maintenance). the reduced costs of regulations within britain rom not having to adhere to the more costly regulations at such a breakneck pace. the ability to place a cap on, and properly screen, the amount of immigrants accepted into the country, unlike the "borderless" rule that's currently in effect. the ability to set it's own taxes, while developing more small businesses, upon leaving.there are a lot of plusses that oliver left out in his statement, he's not wrong, there are plenty of benefits to staying as well, but just because the UK has clout, doesn't mean it has power. they send more to britain than they accept from britain, meaning they'd take more damage than britain if they played the tax game. britain might export a lot, but unless they decide to raise taxes on britain higher than they do for other countries (which would be purely spiteful, and easy to call out/exploit) britain can still gain more than it would lose from trading.
don't sell your home short man, you don't need to be flagrantly prideful in your country, but at least try to have a little bit of pride in your sovereignty, you are (maybe not you if you can't vote, but regardless) looking at history in the making, look at the side of leaving, and try to understand the reason they support standing on their own.