Indeed, the entire reasons Leftists hate Western colonialism so much is because the Left wanted to be the Masters and enslavers. They were just bitter about losing their time.

Unless there’s some kind of common connector, like Soros.

The overall trends and patterns are about the same, such as Leftists being a death cult allied with Islamic Jihad, as you can see in Sweden/Germany. But the specific details are sometimes very different.

A “sort of” colonialism? More like an actual colonialism, full stop. They come to our countries but want to keep every part of the country they left behind – religion, language, naming conventions, and refusal to intermarry. They want to live in this country and enjoy its prosperity, but remain apart in nearly all other ways. The San Bernardino terrorist was born in Chicago USA, but his parents named him Syed. He, like his siblings, imported his spouse from abroad. The Orlando terrorist was born in New York USA, but his parents named him Omar Mir Seddique Mateen. He imported his first wife from abroad.

Those are not just the norms for Muslim immigrants who become terorrists, either. A huge majority of ethnic Pakistanis born and raised in Britain import their spouses from the old country, and “Mohammed” is now one of the most popular birth names in England.

This is invasion and colonization, plain and simple. We’d be idiots not to recognize that and stop it.

The history of the UK does have an answer, but it requires understanding that the Crown is the Head of the Nation, and a figurehead Head of State. With that said the Crown must exercise these powers to safeguard the Nation as well as secure it against foreign control. In addition the Head of State role, while mostly symbolic, also has within it the older agreements between the people and the Crown, so that any Parliament working under the auspices of the Crown must be reminded that it cannot make policy in those venues as they are reserved, by agreement, to the Crown alone.

Queen Elizabeth II has been extremely lax in exercising any of the remaining authority that the Crown has not and cannot delegate, and that is an abdication of her duties to the people and the Nation. In past circumstances the Crown has been called by the people when it actively went against the interests of the Nation to secure more power for the State. Thus the changes in agreements are reflected by each new individual coming to the Crown in supporting those past agreements and standing by them. The idea of joining the EU is not something any parliament is fit to take up as it is deciding the course of the Nation, not just the State. The Crown has that role, duty and responsibility that must be much longer term than any mere political movement as it is far too momentous for politicians to make in a monarchy of any sort. Yet Queen Elizabeth II has been lax in this area as well in the realm of firearms where, by prior accords with the people of Britain, past monarchs have agreed to the people who have required that the Crown change its ways to let all people of the Nation be armed. Not confronting parliament over gun laws or joining the EU is an abdication of power, its duties and responsibilities, which then means it is the people who must determine how to be an independent Nation free from the vassalage of Brussels.

Remember that the course to be a Nation is set by the people of the Nation, not merely by the State, which is why referendums are part and parcel of any EU joining/leaving: no government (ie. the State) can be trusted with this decision to disempower local government in favor of a more distant, harder to keep accountable one. This is not determining some mere political piece of legislation, but that of being a Nation in charge of its own State. Really only the Crown can make that decision in a monarchy as it embodies the Nation, by ancient form. When the Crown will not act to defend the Nation and keep it independent, then the people who ARE THE NATION must do so. Luckily the referendum and ballot box replaced blood on the streets in more civilized Nations. That is a big step up from the old way of doing things and going through a sea of blood and body parts to present the Crown with an agreement, take it or be killed, sort of thing.

A great driver of the Leave vote was resentment against immigration from the EU, not from outside it. It is about Labour Protectionism, not xenophobia.
Labour Protectionism may be futile (that is a matter for the economists) but it is not irrational. East Europeans are generally liked and admired for their work ethic, but the view in the provinces is that there are only so many jobs to go around, and a Pole behind the wheel of a builder’s van means a British lad on the dole.
The Remain campaign tried to conflate this cold-blooded self-interest with the resentment against Commonwealth Immigration half a Century ago. (I repeat: half a Century ago the Remainers are that out of touch with the sentiments of the Country). To accuse people with a rational case of irrational prejudice is to initiate a dialogue of the deaf.
So this might be a blow against “phobism” (homo, islamo, xeno) the practice of closing discussions by declaring your opponent irrational. We shall have to learn to talk with each other again, because that is the only basis for democracy, or for any form of civility.