Because I get that that is, really, the wrong question, and that Brexit was always about emotions and narrative, rather than facts and reasons. But you can't exclude the importance of facts, or of statements presented as facts, because these are what fuel the emotions. The notions that the UK sends £350M a week to the EU (and, implicitly, gets little or nothing in return), that Turkey is about to join the EU, that "freedom of movement" means we have no control over our own borders, and that we could easily and quickly make trade deals much more advantageous to us than those we have as an EU member were used by the various Leave campaigns over and over again, and people believed them. All of them are demonstrably untrue, of course. And these have all fuelled the animosity of people towards the EU.
And sure, not everyone is articulate or used to explaining why they feel a certain way to strangers with a camera and microphone. That's a wholly separate issue from thinking something that's objectively untrue, like the UK having laws forced on it by Germany.
If I'm in the minority that I think it's quite bad that we've made this momentous decision that will affect nearly all of us in negative ways - and that's without even considering the deluge of racism that it's unleashed - on the basis of flat-out lies, then so be it. But I think that's very strange and sad and it doesn't fill me with hope for the future. What happens when the real economic harm starts to hit, after the transition period, the EU won't be a viable target for blame and a lot of people will have forgotten about Brexit anyway, and there will be a need for a enemy to be identified? We really are already quite far down a potentially very dark path.