[Pseudoscience-is-malarkey (OP)]

Brexit proponents say they don't want their laws and currency influenced or made by non-British bureaucrats in Brussels. Is it largely a nationalist/xenophobic thing?

[Bored chemist]

The Rich in the UK want Brexit because it allows them to destroy worker, environment and social protections- which they see as harming short term profits.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retained_EU_Law_(Revocation_and_Reform)_Bill

To be fair, there are Left wing arguments against the EU but they seldom get a mention compared to nationalism and xenophobia.

[Petrochemicals]

It's not, there are many people who are pro European union and right wing, land owners business owners etc and many left wing (Jeremy Corbyn) who are brexiteers due to the undercutting provided.

Any segregation a list policy is easily construed as fascist if you have liberal peace and one love mankind all united hippie spectacles. Trouble is no one ever says to liberals that the ukraine would be speaking Russian at this point in time and so probably would they if left up to them due to the fact that saying as such would be, well, fascist wouldn't it?  Jeremy Corbyn is also of a similar position to the liberals regarding the ukraine invasion.

[Bored chemist]

What Corbyn actually said was that just giving arms to Ukraine won't fix the problem.
And he's right; we also need a diplomatic effort, which is the other point he made but which wasn't reported in the media (which is owned by billionaires who daren't have people listen to the Left).
The problem is the maniacs on both sides who, as Putin does, support the idea of "guns for peace".

There are valid Left wing reasons for opposing the EU.
The simplest is that the EU is effectively a cartel and cartels are bad for customers and workers.

But... if there's going to be a cartel, you are much better off inside it than outside.
And Brexit was never going to break up the EU no matter how many Right wing nut-jobs said it would.
so leaving was as most predicted, a disaster for our economy etc.

Essentially everything described in the press as "project fear" has come true.
There is no "considerable upside"; the "sunny uplands" were never more than a mirage.

[Petrochemicals]

The phrasing of a question is very important in such break away events for the very reason of hippie unity liberal spectacles.

www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-20512743.amp

It would be quite  easy to portray the segregational Nationalist party in Scotland as swivel eyed fascists. One thing about these "cause" parties like the UKIP is that they have a common enemy, a goal to unite against. Fascism is power (not that I am saying UKIP or the SNP are fascists) through belief, once the initial goal is achieved another cause is needed, probably a bigger or more extreme goal. The National socialists of Germany in the 1930s needed a bigger cause once they had achieved power, so they ended up invading other countries, with fascism it always has to be someone else's fault.

[Bored chemist]

Fascism is power ... through belief,

It's power through lying.

[Petrochemicals]

Fascism is power ... through belief,

It's power through lying.

Differentiate that from communism, which is power through consensus.

[Zer0]

Fascism is power ... through belief,

It's power through lying.

Differentiate that from communism, which is power through consensus.

Looks like your ' Signature Line ' just went Obsolete...
Congratulations!
& Well Done.
: )

[Petrochemicals]

Fascism is power ... through belief,

It's power through lying.

Differentiate that from communism, which is power through consensus.

Looks like your ' Signature Line ' just went Obsolete...
Congratulations!
& Well Done.
: )

No, it's just a disclaimer.

[Bored chemist]

Fascism is power ... through belief,

It's power through lying.

Differentiate that from communism, which is power through consensus.

Looks like your ' Signature Line ' just went Obsolete...
Congratulations!
& Well Done.
: )

No, it's just a disclaimer.

It's not "just a disclaimer"; It's not true.

[Zer0]

I was Hoping to see this Change since awhile, hence couldn't resist commenting.

Please do not let my Silly comment manipulate You into going Off Topic.

Wish you will carry on your civilized discussions on the important Subject of BrExit.

Thank Yous!
(u both)

[alancalverd]

From my point of view, Brexit was never a right wing cause.

The EU was set up to protect market prices in Europe, regardless of the consequences to the environment or common sense. It imposed laws based on Roman principles (everything is forbidden except that which is allowed, commanded, or granted as a right) which do not mesh well with our Scandi-Celtic tradition (a few things are forbidden, you have few duties beyond paying tax and serving on a jury, and you don't need many rights). It told lies and set minimum "safety" standards that actually made medical equipment more dangerous. It required privatisation of national assets. It undermined the wages of the poor and made the rich richer. It required the UK to pay for the privilege of an increasingly negative balance of trade. It had a phony parliament with no power but unlimited tax-free expenses, and an unelected executive whose accounts were never signed off by the auditors.

[Bored chemist]

...set up to protect market prices ... regardless of the consequences to the environment or common sense.
everything is forbidden
It told lies
 set minimum "safety" standards
t required privatisation of national assets.

So... why did the Tories decide to leave it.
You seem to think that it was implementing all their policies.
Yet they say that we had to leave in order to implement those policies.

[alancalverd]

So... why did the Tories decide to leave it.

In order to win a general election. Having made a few quid by buying public assets at knockdown prices but failed to fully privatise the NHS, then realised that the influx of cheap labor wasn't particularly popular with the electorate and could be blamed on Tony B Liar, seen the writing on the toilet wall for the UK's net balance of trade, and being unable to implement strict Laura Norder policies because of Yuman Rites, it occurred to the few Tories with functional brain cells that this was a good time to deploy the Corbyn card (the Left being in total disarray about Europe) and win a few seats north of Watford.

Never accuse the Tory party of being longsighted (joining the Common Market was an obvious longterm trade disaster) or consistent, but you can't fault their opportunism.

[Bored chemist]

joining the Common Market was an obvious longterm trade disaster

Less so than leaving has been, but if all your money is in offshore tax havens, the UK's economy doesn't matter much to you.

[alancalverd]

I would argue that the reality of Brexit was a case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

As the second largest net contributor to, and largest importer from, the EU, the UK was in a position to get a better deal than Switzerland, Norway or China and blew it away by incompetent negotiation. Margaret Thatcher's only redeeming feature was the ability to say no on behalf of the UK, unlike her successors who were driven only by self-interest.

[Bored chemist]

I would argue that the reality of Brexit was a case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Many of us would argue that what was called "project fear" was a set of reasonable predictions. They have now happened (or are currently happening).
There was no way for Brexit to be a success- and it isn't one.

As the second largest net contributor to

...until we left.
So they were pissed off at us and refused to give us anything but a bad deal; obviously. To do anything but "punish" the UK would be to encourage other countries to leave and they didn't want that. I can not understand how anyone didn't see that coming.


This was entirely predictable except by those who thought we could stop paying our fees but still enjoy the benefits of being in the club.

the UK was in a position to get a better deal than Switzerland, Norway or China and blew it away by incompetent negotiation.

The UK already had a better deal (In fairness, that was due, in part, to Maggie's hand-bagging) than any of those, but voted to abandon it in the name of "blue passports and sovrinty".

Margaret Thatcher's only redeeming feature was the ability to say no on behalf of the UK, unlike her successors who were driven only by self-interest.

Maggie's most obvious feature was her dedication to her  own self-interest.

[alancalverd]

benefits of being in the club.

Such as....losing money by importing more than we export, importing temporary cheap labor that undermines British wages, compulsory privatisation of public assets, destruction of the fishing industry, restrictions on agricultural species, and paying for "intervention buying" to maintain the market price of food. In short, membership of a club set up to benefit French agriculture,  German industry, and the rich.

It is worth asking why the UK was not allowed to join until our economy was already in decline. Nothing to do with the color of passports.

[Petrochemicals]

I would argue that the reality of Brexit was a case of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

As the second largest net contributor to, and largest importer from, the EU, the UK was in a position to get a better deal than Switzerland, Norway or China and blew it away by incompetent negotiation. Margaret Thatcher's only redeeming feature was the ability to say no on behalf of the UK, unlike her successors who were driven only by self-interest.

The Corbyn problem, an many liberties are taken out of the EU as where taken in.

[Bored chemist]

Such as....losing money

That's what we are doing NOW.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-31/brexit-is-costing-the-uk-100-billion-a-year-in-lost-output?leadSource=uverify%20wall

destruction of the fishing industry,

Again; it's the other way round.
https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2022/research/brexit-fisheries-deliver/