Venezuela is closer to being socialist than any of the EU. He literally tried to seize the means of production from companies. He had their slogans everywhere.

Socialism doesn't want to dissolve the state. The only way the community could own and control the means of production, distribution and exchange is thru a government.

Although I'm not from the UK myself, looking at it from the outside, Brexit to me has always come across as essentially a way to eliminate the citizenship status of many of the country's migrants from other parts of Europe (namely Eastern Europe) and thus establish a kind of two-tier working class similar to what we have in the United States around our 11 million or so undocumented immigrants, to which end it has not surprised me that our Donald Trump enthusiasts seem to be its most adamant supporters in my country.

If it was mainly about the European migrants the No vote would have won. The issue became once the Middle Eastern migrants started flooding across Germany and the UK citizens saw the kind of destruction they were causing in Hungary, Sweden, Austria, Germany and other countries hit hardest. EU wanted to force these migrants equitably across EU nations and that is really why the Yes vote won. In reality Angela Merkel can be blamed for Brexit more than anyone. The US has always been a multi ethnic society, but Europe hasn't, so I believe they have the right to protect their society from cultural and ethnic dilution. 

I see. Well at the notion of "ethnic dilution", I think I will have to leave you to your opinion.

The premise behind public welfare systems is a socialistic one: that it is the responsibility of society to provide for human needs and well-being. The prevailing application that the modern nation-state might provide thereof is more a paternalistic one than a socialist one (being as the government and population exist as separate entities, in contrast to say in your ancient hunting and gathering communities), but that does not detract from the fact the principle of distribution of resources according to need is still valued by human beings to one degree or another.

Incidentally, in my previous reply, I supplied a link and an additional explanation for my opinion. It would be appreciated if you would try and do the same going forward instead of just repeating unsubstantiated claims again and again as though the repetition renders them more true.

No. That is simply socialists trying to take credit of good old fashioned human decency. Those programs were not created by socialists. I'm not gonna take your source seriously. You can argue against my points on your own. 

No, it's socialist. Human decency is me CHOOSING to give my money to help those in need. I wouldn't do that because I dont believe in it, so instead the government takes my money in the form of taxes and gives it away. When the collective defines what your so called "human decency" means on behalf of everyone and then enforces it through redistribution of tax money it's socialism.

Socialism doesn't mean "more taxes & bigger government".

Yeah it certainly means bigger government - bigger as in more controlling.