I Am A Former UKIP Adviser. I Left And Joined Labour And These Are The Reasons Why… By Sarinder Joshua Duroch

From Nigel’s clutches to Jeremy’s trusting embrace.

We asked Avenger readers that voted for Brexit to submit a question to Sarinder. This is the question we chose:

Question:

Why would you leave UKIP for labour when at the time they were against us leaving the EU?

One of the main reasons we wanted to leave was immigration and labour was against cutting down on immigration numbers.

I used to vote UKIP until conservatives offered a vote on the referendum. As they were the only major party offering us the vote. So to me UKIP served their purpose to get us out of Europe.

Answer:

The fact remains that UKIP has clearly diminished off the face of British politics. The causes for this is evident in policy formation and implementation, there was no doubt their impact on the Brexit result is blatant for all to see with the personality cult of Nigel Farage and the full flow of the populist debate in action.

One may ask why I moved to the Labour party, I moved because even though 47 Labour Members of Parliament voted against igniting Article 50 there was no serious maliciousness or dehumanisation of foreigners or destabilising of communities. If one asks why the sudden shift or complete change of mind, I ask the question, ‘Was I really different to the many working-class voters that were disillusioned with Labour because of the Blair and Campbell years?’ The answer is yes, I was.

However, since Jeremy has become the leader and the faith that he has restored in a brand of socialism that I agree with, it is safe to believe that this Labour party under the leadership of Corbyn is far more plausible and credible than that of what we were subjected to under Blair and Campbell. Under so much pressure he stood his ground and lead the party to a resurrection in the last election. Even Owen Smith had to admit that he was wrong about Jeremy Corbyn; people change in politics don’t they just!

Yes, it is a fact, I was an adviser to the UKIP party, but I wasn’t willing to engage with the far right of European politics for UKIP and their group expansion with the EFDD group. The desecration of our British and Commonwealth war dead was something that I certainly was not willing to do by engaging with political parties that were involved in national socialising.

There was no way on this God’s green Earth that I was willing to dehumanise not only refugees but also those who believed in a fairer and more equal society. Earning the wages of sin in Brussels was something I was not willing to do, especially when one is convinced to believe that associating oneself with holocaust deniers and parties such as the Swedish Democrats with their Islamophobic and anti-Jewish agenda is only a marriage of convenience to keep the group together and to get EU funding.

One soon discovered that EU Parliamentary funding to the tune of nearly 6 million Euros depended on such political associations. The intention of UKIP and their friends in Parliament was to create a Far Right Pan European Alliance, I have to say that being associated with this school of thought is clearly abhorrent.

The question relating to Labour being pro EU and the historic issues that the EU has caused within the creation of causing divisions in British politics is immense. Two well known Members of Parliament, Enoch Powell and Tony Benn both had serious concerns about the EU and greater cohesion with Europe. We don’t have a constitution in the U.K like most EU nations and the Common Agricultural policy suited the French a lot more than it did us British. The closer harmonisation of standardising everything in law and principle was also something that was not applicable to this nation. So, one can ask about Labour’s credentials, but it is obvious that most Labour Members of Parliament voted for Article 50.

They had to there was no other option, would they have taken us out of the EU initially; I don’t believe they would have initially but eventually the immigration debate was something they couldn’t have kept on avoiding.

So why did I join, I come from a working-class background and Jeremy Corbyn and his plausible nature and old school values were far better than the years of spin that I and many others were subjected to. UKIP had failed me and others especially with the far-right connections they were creating and developing at speed, they were also blowing the trumpet and playing the tune that their far-right friends in Europe wanted them to do so.

Would I continue to be part of the rhetoric of someone else’s political agenda; certainly not.

Yes, UKIP certainly changed a lot and the threat of populism in its embryonic stages is still there, it starts with a plausible argument and people will follow the debate. They offered us an option to tackle political correctness and question immigration in the early days without the silhouette of the Rivers of Blood speech.

However, from the embryonic stages it developed into a monster that was out of control and it lead to the Brexit campaign only being a conduit to irrigate, plough and harvest hatred into our society.  

Labour always implemented immigration rules, it wasn’t an open-door immigration policy to non-EU nationals under a Labour government in fact under Labour the rules were stringent. This is the argument about EU immigration, what has the present government done about EU immigration; the answer is nothing in reality. One can say the same about Labour because it was bound by Article 45 of the Lisbon Treaty. Where the Labour government imposed, and controlled immigration was on non-EU nations and that had an impact and very strong element of unfairness towards our Commonwealth. The Conservatives did the same, this shows us the problems that both parties had with continuing membership of the EU.

The main issue was and still is immigration and Article 45, however the mess that we are in now due to the Conservatives not having a Brexit plan is clearly visible for all to see.

Sarinder Joshua Duroch left UKIP in 2016. Please follow these links to read his articles about what he experienced and what led him to leave UKIP.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-saw-picture-drowned-8193892

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/as-a-british-indian-and-ukip-adviser-i-believed-in-brexit-but-what-its-done-to-the-country-has-a7127461.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3366656/SEBASTIAN-SHAKESPEARE-Nazi-bully-row-threatens-5-6million-funding-Ukip.html

Brexit- It’s Not Set In Stone By Helen Hill

By Helen Hill.

Yesterday, Lord Kerr, the author of the infamous “Article 50” made some big headlines when he made a speech that many of us were more than a little surprised by. He said he wanted the British people to know that just because Article 50 has been written and submitted; triggering a British exit from the EU 2 years from the date of submission, that actually, it does not mean we have to leave!

Now I am sure that many of you are as surprised as I was by this revelation because whilst I knew the referendum result was not legally binding, I was under the impression that once the result had been accepted by the Government and Article 50 had been submitted – there was no going back – it was signed, sealed and delivered so to speak and we had to be out of the EU within 2 years of that date.

Lord Kerr explained that actually we can revoke Article 50 at any point and simply change our minds! 

He added that the 2 year time scale we have all come to view as a deadline is also not set in stone and that we are entitled to extend this period, if we so wish. He added that he had felt compelled to come forward, as the author of the document, to address many of the misconceptions that the public seemed to be under, he said he simply felt that the British public had a right to know that we have not made an irreversible decision and that with all of the new evidence that has come to light that if we decide we have made the wrong decision we still have the option to remain.

I
feel that it was honourable of Lord Kerr to come out and inform the public of where they stood because given the revelations since the election about how our exit from the European Union is forecast to negatively impact us in terms of jobs, the economy, the cost of living and travel, people may well want to reconsider. 

The campaign was fought and won on lies spun from the battle bus about money that does not exist and ill information about immigration alongside a patriotic rhetoric of how we could “Make Britain Great Again” when in fact all that has come to light so far is how much worse off our country will be as a direct result of our exit. 

Add to that the fact that those who have been sent to negotiate the terms of our exit are doing a terrible job of it and the fact that we are now looking at the type of hard “No Deal” Brexit that nobody, including the leave campaign wanted, and it is easy to see why Lord Kerr felt he needed to speak out. 

I think it is wonderful that the British people now know that they still have a choice, but I also think we have to be very careful not to undermine democracy – after all a vote was cast and the results were accepted. 

Yet at the same time the election was not won by huge margin, just a couple of percent in fact and had the voters been better informed about the realities rather than the rhetoric that was proven the very next morning to be lies, it is very possible that the vote would have swung the other way. 

We all know people who voted Brexit who now regret it and feel like they were conned into it by lying politicians and a media with their own hidden agenda. 

I think it would be undemocratic to stop the process now and simply revoke Article 50 but I do believe that once the negotiations are over and people know in clear and certain terms exactly what Brexit will mean for them, they should be consulted on whether they accept the terms of it and then make a final, well informed decision based upon cold had facts and figures, not political spin.