Take on low wages and job insecurity by...flooding Europe with migrants? If anything, it seems like it was playing a role in creating low wages and job insecurity. There was also the posturing over the specter of Greece leaving the Euro. There is also the issue of the system whereby richer countries are forced into subsidizing poorer countries. I get the sense that that might be what you are referring to, though.
As for democratizing the EU, what steps might these have been? Given the bureaucratic nature of the European Union, it is far too easy to strip away democracy with limited input from the citizens of its member states. A proposal only has to pass a vote once to become effectively irrevocable, and they will push to get the "correct" answer. The UK could have done more to save their continental brethren, but I am fine with their decision to cut bait and run all the same. The EU will have to take many more steps towards democratization before being a part of them begins to make sense again.
Indeed, the one set of fairly stringent regulations is easier for them to deal with. Say what you will, the folks behind multinationals are pretty rational. They recognized a system that would be better for them than the alternative, and that made the choice an easy one.
Besides, your comment about Swiss banking confidentiality laws reminded me: the European politicians have the art of bullying down pat. In their dealings with Switzerland, Norway, England, and Scotland, I have seen them consistently act like spoiled brats, ready to take their ball and go home. The Remain camp might have done better had it not come out swinging with transparent, empty threats of economic revanche.
Flooding Europe with migrants was not EU policy; free movement between EU member states and the controls various EU member states have over non-EU migration are completely different issues. If you want to complain about the effects of internal EU migration on wages in some of the receiving countries - well the North of England was suffering from de-industrialisation and job insecurity well before the accession countries joined. They have been suffering since the 1980s, when the UK actually had net out migration.
The EU, as has been pointed out, is no more bureaucratic than any government or pseudo-government. It is clearly far from perfect, but the last round of EU elections were attempting to beef uo the democratic deficit, what with each of the major EU party groupings having identifiable leaders, policy sets and even the debates between Martin Schultz and Jean Claude Juncker and the idea of an elected commission president.
And in all fairness, Switzerland deserved to be bullied on its banking secrecy laws, which have been a disgrace, and a national embarrassment, as a way to hide criminals and tax evaders money for centuries. Switzerland also benefits nicely from the EU regulatory structure, and the single market that it is part of.
I would also think the EU is entitled to push back against England as well, given how consistently obstructive the UK has been in blocking any sort of legislation that would actually democratise the EU; it has always been the UK kicking its heels, and stopping some of the better EU legislation from coming through. Case in point being Cameron managing to get private funds excluded from EU tax transparency laws.
I'm not saying it is perfect, not in a long shot, it is just that, in my perspective, it is the best shot we have got at countering the worst effects of globalisation.