Alternatively you're cherry picking words and making him seem more against it than it is. You can say it's undemocratic without wanting a Brexit... you can say they've treated the Greeks brutally without wanting a Brexit... you can say the way they've allowed there to be mass unemployment in Southern Europe is morally wrong without wanting Brexit. Of course he's not going to say 10/10... he's a sceptic, but that doesn't mean he wants out. You can be a sceptic and want change from within, or be a sceptic and know change won't happen... but still see continued membership as being better. He sounds sceptical because he is, and he's honest... but that doesn't mean he's 'highly likely' to be a secret Brexiteer.
Recently Paul Mason said how he's anti EU because it's anti democratic etc... but he'd probably vote remain because, in his eyes, as bad as the EU is... Johnson and Gove doing what they want post Brexit is worse.
You say it's 'highly likely', but have no decent evidence to back that up. Why must leave attack people and try and discredit them, rather than actually making eg. economic arguments? Why can't Brexiteers do that rather than call Corbyn a liar without good evidence, call people like the IFS corrupt, etc?
