As to NJ's post: who can say? But in fact we've already made a great deal of concessions to Leavers during our long membership. It shaped Maastricht, or at least the UK's part in it. Such concessions kept the UK out of the Schengen area and the Euro, fought hard to guarantee a hefty rebate from our contributions; it's led to the UK exercising its veto on other matters, too. It is likely that this pattern would have largely continued, and the UK would have at least taken some time to fully embrace the "European Project", if it ever did. Put another way, there would have constantly been gestures to placate the "leave" camp, some of them actually fairly reasonable, no doubt; even if we never left entirely, which is what Leavers want, then at least we would have kept one foot out of the door.
What's more, a close vote (albeit the other way) would have only given more momentum to Leavers; now they would know that they had a great deal of popular support, and no political party could ignore this without taking a hit. I would not be surprised to see Nigel Farage's stock actually increase -- Ukip could directly appeal to the "48%" and surge in popularity as the only party who might truly listen to them.
I'm running the risk of getting too caught up in this counter-factual speculation, but I suppose what I am saying is that (a) I don't think the Leave vote will ever have gone away, and (b) ironically, you might have even had a better time of it if you'd (narrowly) lost the vote. Whether you agree with me on this or not, what should be becoming clear by now is that leaving in this manner, at this time, with these political leaders, is not going to be even close to delivering what you wanted. Would it have really been such a blow if you'd lost, but had the chance to lick your wounds, carry on the fight, and maybe be properly ready for next time?
Instead, you've won the vote, but nobody has seemed keen on sticking around to own that victory.