Stop the proposal on mass surveillance of the EU

I think in this one, you aren't right. Prominent Vote Leave politicians are against state surveillance.

> The EU, being a free trade agreement with the unusual extra layer of some democratic

I think this shift has happened during M.Thatcher. Initially she was for the common market, but later she has learned about the political agenda that wasn't often in the interest of the UK. Honestly, it has started even before, I believe Enoch Powell will have older critical speeches on the same topic. It's nothing new in the British politics.

Which confirms:

> I would add a third pillar of the Brexit campaign to your two: "take back control"

Yes, absolutely. But not for the reason you say. Taking back control might really be based on the fact that many EU countries are way more left-leaning, financially irresponsible, poorer, etc. Taking back control equals decreasing influence of such countries on the reality of ordinary British citizen. But this is something that really goes back for many decades. It isn't something that would be suddenly used by surveillance-favouring people.

> EU, which is mostly white and Christian, got the flack from people who say they want a white Christian country.

People opposing such a quick change (out of racism, ignorance of benefits of immigration or pure conservatism) might see the EU as pro-immigration and pro-multiculturalism (which it openly is for a while now already). And again, leaving the EU might give people more powers to stop this from happening. The fact that it is hurting the UK a lot now is a different topic.

Some were, some weren't. Broad tent is necessary for anything at this scale.

I'm surprised you list Frage among the supporters of human rights, given:

• https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nigel-farage-human-righ...

• https://www.gbnews.uk/news/nigel-farage-told-human-rights-la...

Hannan is quieter about it, and generally puts a positive hopeful tone through his speeches and writing, but still disfavours the institution and appears to believe that the UK doesn't need an outside court because, to paraphrase, "we're the goodies not the baddies": https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/717100/Conservative-...

Not on your list, but there is also Boris Johnson: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/12656214/boris-johnson-europea...

(Though with him I will grant you he's so pathologically disconnected from the concept of truth existing in objective reality that it's difficult to say what his goals were beyond self-aggrandisement).

> Taking back control might really be based on the fact that many EU countries are way more left-leaning, financially irresponsible, poorer, etc

Eh, if that was a strong part of it, there wouldn't be so much anti-German sentiment.

And I saw a lot more people going "look how badly Greece was treated" than "Greece is what happens when you mess up, and they got lucky with a massive bailout".

> pro-immigration and pro-multiculturalism

Hmm.

Well, people do put things in a single category when words are similar, let alone identical, so I can believe this error occurred.

But I will still call it an error, as the "pro-immigration and pro-multiculturalism" I see in the EU is between EU countries rather than across the exterior borders. I take the view that, with the post-war meaning of the term, "Fortress Europe" is a thing (and that's bad): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortress_Europe

Obviously I acknowledge there are people who say that "it's not a thing and that's bad". Since the referendum, three such people have managed to combine holding the position (emphasis on "and that's bad") as the UK Home Secretary while also being the children of migrants from outside the EU.

> Reply to: “Losing me. Non citizens aren’t citizens by default and therefore should in any country be extended the same rights. As they don’t bear the same responsibilities.”

Rights while sometimes related to responsibilities, resistance, etc — obviously do not always require those features to be present. For example, basic human rights. In this case, right to privacy for many is a basic human right. Additional rights, for example voting rights, might be limited to factors like those mentioned prior.

> Reply to: “This is where I think the breakthrough was lost in my opinion.”

Stating the obvious, repressive law enforcement requires repressive laws. Further, citizenship by default based on some preexisting factors, such as birth parents being citizens and present in the country at the time of birth, clearly already exist as a path to citizenship which requires literally no threshold other than having happened to be born within those circumstances. If those citizens, while in many cases given rights, must follow laws. As such, might easily make laws that state things such as it is a crime to participate in creation, administration, enforcement, etc - of laws which breach basic human rights. As such, those individuals might in turn lose voting rights, face trial, etc.

_________

Additional clarification: Again, not claiming to have solution, just attempting to understand a potential root cause of the situation. For example, if non-citizens have no right to privacy, it makes sense to develop technologies, skills, etc to use for surveillance of non-citizens. Problem is in doing so that it creates a culture that sees such behavior as justifiable and creates tangible resources that might easily be used on citizens at the whim of current leadership.

If there’s anything that’s flawed reasoning, needs clarification, etc — just let me know and happy to attempt to resolve it.

RSA really is very simple group theory. It was independently invented at least three times, as I recall.

Greek city-states fought each other all the time. They definitely had a concept of "Nation", even though they would have a different name for it. All patterns you associate with Nationalism were there, including xenophobia - that's where the goddamn word was created. The rise of what we call Nationalism in modernity has its own peculiarities, including the rise of military-industrial complexes that have every incentive to weaponize it as well. But it is simply wrong to think that, for example, the issue between Ukraine and Russia can be meaningfully reduced to one or the other side "adopting nationalism". Also, it is factually incorrect to say 20 years ago Ukrainians (or inhabitants of that region) would have wanted to be ruled by Putin or Russia in general.