As the Russia-Ukraine war rolls on with little sign of reconciliation, one of the ways being discussed to bring an end to the situation is the notion of Kyiv becoming a neutral state. Although far from straightforward, DiEM25 co-founder Yanis Varoufakis has spoken of the merits behind the ‘Finlandisation’ of the country.
This would mean Ukraine becoming neutral to both the West and Russia, including demilitarisation, with the notion of ‘Finlandisation’ being in reference to the 1947 Peace Treaty with Finland and the 1948 Finno-Soviet Agreement of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance.
Responding to questions put forward in our recent ‘How to end the war in Ukraine’ discussion, Varoufakis explained why this could be a fruitful outcome.
“The first question is, ‘well, wasn’t Finlandisation a terrible thing for Finland imposed upon it?’ Well, it was imposed upon it as a result of a war with Russia, but was it terrible?
“Finland was a fully-fledged democratic country. Yes, they had to keep a little bit quiet regarding their criticism of the Soviet Union during the Cold War. They’ll have no doubt that if they had a choice between Finlandisation and no Finlandisation, they would have chosen the latter, all other things being equal. In other words, not being gobbled up by Russia.
“Let me tell you that I’m getting on a bit in life and I’m old enough to remember living in a NATO country that also had a fascist right-wing dictatorship here in Greece. And I can tell you that, back then, we were dreaming of being Finland.
“We [in Greece] were thinking of either Finland, or Austria, countries that were not in NATO, not in the European Union, as dreams come true for their people.
“And we were right because Austria, Finland, in a state of Finlandisation, of neutrality, achieved remarkable attainments, remarkable outcomes, politically, technologically, educationally, health-wise, in terms of a social democracy that will not be bad for Ukraine today.”
Some believe that, even if such an agreement for Ukraine were to be reached, Vladimir Putin could then quickly change his mind, rendering it meaningless.
“Well, that’s not my proposal. It’s not our proposal,” Varoufakis said. “Our proposal is that this should be the result of a summit between the United States of America and Russia, the result of an agreement, a binding agreement, including demilitarisation of the border areas of Donbass, one that would be guaranteed by both sides.
“And Putin would actually appreciate that because he would be able to show to his own people, to his regime, to his party, that he’s being taken seriously by Washington DC.”
Varoufakis insists that this should only come about through the will of the Ukrainian people, not something to be forced upon them.
“We are Democrats, but for the Ukrainians to decide, there are two prerequisites,” Varoufakis insists.
The first one is that they are told the truth by the West, by the European Union, not to be led up the garden path, because this is what the European Union is doing – it’s promising them things that it is not prepared to deliver.
“This thing about the entry of Ukraine in the European Union – they can promise it until they’re blue in the face. They don’t mean it. There is no way that Berlin is going to accept Ukraine as a member of the European Union even if they say that they will, not for a very long time. And certainly not while Donbass is occupied, and not while the economy is in tatters.
“So first you need to rebuild Ukraine before there’s any chance of entry into the European Union.”
Russia’s aggression against Ukraine has brought widespread condemnation. Yet despite good intentions from citizens across Europe to assist in the cause, there are also traps of the past that are important to avoid.
DiEM25’s Ivana Nenadović gave her perspective on what the world can learn from her personal experience which has parallels with the current situation that is unfolding today.
Increased NATO involvement in the conflict is among the most popular calls to remedy Russia’s actions but, having lived through NATO’s bombing campaign in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, Ivana stressed her concerns.
“I would like to mention another part of the war that is always brutal and never a solution – more arms and guns are not going to bring peace,” she said during DiEM25’s ‘How to end the war in Ukraine’ discussion.
Ivana is also concerned about the “war of words” that is happening at the same time, particularly from the left, and that disdain towards Russia’s government should not spill over to everyday Russian citizens.
“On the left I can see this need to be on the right side of history, this moral high ground that we will condemn Putin. And of course we should do that,” she said. “However, what I would like to emphasize from my experience is that when we say ‘Russia’, or when we say ‘Putin’, it also spills over to the people of Russia.
“There are progressive Russian people who are trying to fight this oppression for a very long time, just as we in Serbia tried to fight, and did fight, [Slobodan] Milosevic, and then we ended up being bombed.
“This is one big injustice that I can tell you about, it’s not something that will help too much, but it is something that is perceived as injustice, especially because this whole region of Eastern Europe, ex-USSR, ex-Yugoslavia is very difficult for our Western friends to understand and comprehend.
“And all of a sudden we have this big interest and ‘geopolitical knowledge’ about this region, which doesn’t really exist because of various reasons.”
Above all, Ivana warns against being lured into further division.
“Each side will have their own point of view. Of course, there is a history of oppression repression, and antagonism,” she added.
“And what we should do as an internationalist movement is to bring people closer together, to understand that war doesn’t end – even if I hope that it will end soon for Ukraine and the Ukrainian people, I doubt it will happen. And even if a peace agreement would be signed tomorrow, war lingers on and has its aftermath.
“And [judging by] ex-Yugoslavia or Serbia, because Serbia bears the legacy of Yugoslavia and everything that was bad and connected to Yugoslavia, it’s something that Russian people will suffer for a very long time, when Putin is gone and has his place in history books.
“But we must be careful about more divisions, especially on the left, on the side where people are thinking [in a way that is] progressive or humanitarian and trying not to create more divisions that we already unfortunately have.”
We strongly condemn Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and continue to call for an immediate ceasefire, withdrawal of troops back to the Russian Federation and solidarity for the defenders of Ukraine’s sovereignty.
This brutal war is only benefiting the warmongers and those in favour of militarised security – witness the sudden uptick in support for NATO in Finland and a significant increase in the military budget of the Federal Republic of Germany.
We are already at war, however – even if we live in ‘peace. A continuous war waged on the public. On the 99%. On ordinary people who are now hitherto cannon fodder for the powers that be. And it’s not just humanity but life itself — the planet reduced to a mere resource to build empires of fantasy. Inequality and climate change continue to wreak havoc amongst the population – but the 1% “that’s making war” are winning.
While floods, snow and fire mix at the same time, champagne continues to flow as orders for weapons roar in. This two trillion US dollar industry is not satisfied with its earnings before death and taxes – it has “interlocking directorates with big media companies” that further drive an agenda of warmongering.
Wars are thus manufactured – “born out of the collapse of civil societies, perpetuated by fear, greed and paranoia, and they are run by gangsters, who rise up from the bottom of their own societies and terrorize all, including those they purport to protect”.
A reformist approach is no longer feasible – and as it has always been – the people themselves must rally and take up the call to end advocating for war!
We, therefore, demand that:
Progressive movements must factor in the military-industrial complex on the issues they are fighting for – and mobilise their members to actively engage against militarisation
Civil society must proactively organise towards peace through, amongst others:
Campaigning for closure of overseas military bases and expulsion of foreign troops from all nations – return to your loved ones!
Agitating for divestment of public and private funds in the arms industry – no profits from blood!
Striking at arm manufacturing companies, logistics providers, shipping companies and so forth – ¡No pasarán!
Making the arms industry, its lobbyists and supporters visible to the public – no more hiding in the shadows!
Calling for an end to participation in military alliances across the globe – these supra-national organisations are not subject to democratic control and only benefit warmongers. No security through NATO/CSTO/CSDP!
Insist on the elimination of weapons of mass destruction!
Make progress on peace-centric alternatives to conflict and insist on managing conflicts without violence and create a culture of peace. Common security without bloodshed!
Maximise the call to end hate speech in any and all forms as well as forms of collective punishment – including broad sanctions – that hurt the public.
Our elected representatives must consciously consider loyalty to humanity and begin to, amongst other measures:
Centre non-violence as part of public policy and introduce legislation to reverse military spending – while shifting public resources to sectors that we actually need to achieve – for example – free public transport, free and universal healthcare, localised generation of renewable energy
Urge signing and ratification of all instruments of international law that promote universal rights and further demilitarisation and elimination of weapons of mass destruction
End policy on broad sanctions that – as history has shown – devastates the public and violates their human rights. The people should not be punished for the acts of their so-called leaders!
While hundreds of thousands of people protested on the streets of Berlin, and all over the world, against the war in Ukraine, the government coalition under the leadership of the Social Democrats and the Greens, which emerged from the country’s peace movement, agreed on the massive armament of the German army. This is a breach of policy and values in German post-war history and a particular indictment of the Green Party.
Joint statement of the board of MERA25 in Germany and the German National Collective of DiEM25 on the break in Germany’s arms policy in the wake of the war in Ukraine:
The government coalition of Social Democrats, Greens and Liberals has decided to push ahead with the armament of the German army, together with the conservatives. It is as if the arms industry was just waiting for this opportunity and wrote the chancellor’s speech itself. This coalition opts for armament instead of fighting the pandemic and climate crisis, favouring the start of a new (cold) war instead of a Green New Deal.
The German army has a similar annual budget (52 billion euros) to Russia (60 billion euros), France (52 billion euros) and the UK (60 billion euros). The German government is quite clearly using the war in Ukraine as a cover to now assume a military leadership role in Europe in addition to an economic leadership role. This represents an awful breach of German policy.
We support financial sanctions against Russian oligarchs, as well as the comprehensive reception of refugees. The fact that refugees from other regions and banks from other countries involved in wars are treated quite differently must be corrected immediately. We demand that everything be done to end the war and to leave the people in the region in peace.
Olaf Scholz talks about the “strength of NATO” and the “new strong” capabilities of the army, one that wants to “build the next generation of fighter planes and tanks in Europe” and purchasing new drones. This is to be financed in the 2022 federal budget via a special army fund of 100 billion euros and secured by changing the constitution. In addition, annual expenditure is also to be increased to more than 2% of GDP.
This policy is completely appalling for three reasons:
Armament and threatening policies are not an approach to conflict resolution
The armament of the German army is extremely worrying in historical context and very unnecessary
We are facing the historically unique challenge of climate change, which we must counter with all available means
Scholz’s statements on the rapid expansion of renewable energies and CO2 neutrality by 2045 are hypocritical when at the same time a massive increase in the arms budget is announced. In addition, further infrastructure for fossil fuels is announced, building up a coal and gas reserve and the creation of liquefied gas ports.
In view of this breach and the worrying path taken by the federal government, we demand a shift away from violence as a means of politics and a turn towards a policy of common prosperity and peace. We demand:
No new infrastructure for fossil energies and further integration of the continent and its neighbouring regions within the framework of a European Green Energy Union
The development of diplomacy that unites people and a pan-European security architecture that includes all European countries. The core goals are joint disarmament, the peaceful resolution of conflicts and lasting peace on the entire continent
“100 billion euros are just pulled out of thin air to be invested in the dirtiest industry in the world, in every sense. An industry whose product is exclusively destruction, death, massive pollution and theoretical “security”. Likewise, many seem to miss the historic tidbit that for the first time since World War II, Germany is receiving lavish praise from experts and primarily NATO partners for military build-up on an absurd scale. Instead of dealing with how we can help achieve lasting peace, they are starting an arms race.”
In the wake of the unfolding humanitarian tragedy and the grave threat to peace following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, MeRA25’s Central Committee has voted in favour of the following resolution:
The road to peace: A neutral Ukraine
For MeRA25 the one and only issue at the moment is to stop the war. Russian troops must withdraw and peace must return to Ukraine after years of civil, and now interstate, war.
The only way towards peace is a binding agreement between Washington and Moscow to commit to the neutrality of Ukraine and the simultaneous cessation of the Russian invasion. Therein lies the interest of the citizens of Ukraine, not in a great power play. Ukraine had committed to neutrality until the political anomaly of 2014, at which point the country’s intention to join NATO was incorporated into the Constitution by the successor state, signifying the moral complicity of the US/NATO and the EU in Putin’s crimes today. The principles of collective and mutual security (OSCE Istanbul 1999, OSCE Astana 2010) must be respected, if peace is to be a realistic possibility.
Having chosen to blindly follow NATO, the EU has failed for a second time to fulfill its founding promise to the people of Europe: peace and the absence of war on our continent. As for sanctions, it is naive to believe that they can act as a deterrent without incurring an unbearable parallel cost to the citizens of the states that impose them.
President Putin’s illegal and inhumane military invasion of Ukraine is not a novel concept. Progressive citizens do not forget that international law and human rights have always been instrumentalised at will by the strongmen of today. The bombs dropped on Ukraine do not erase memories of what happened in Belgrade, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Cyprus and various other places.
Finally, while the entire planet is hoping for peace, fringe voices are calling for an expansion of the war. Unfortunately, these include the Prime Minister of Greece Kyriakos Mitsotakis calling for “an EU and NATO response equivalent to the unprecedented Russian provocation”, thus appearing more NATO-like than NATO.
Meanwhile, everyone now understands that the transformation of Greece into a vast American military base (adding to those in Souda, Alexandroupolis, Litochoro, Stefanovikeio and Neorion) – planned by SYRIZA and implemented by New Democracy – is a truly dangerous development for our country. MeRA25’s parliamentary group has voted against, and will continue to vote against, any expansion of NATO plans.
The only way Russia will accept a ceasefire and withdraw its troops is if US/NATO and the West as a whole guarantee Ukraine’s neutrality, as they did in the case of Finland during the Cold War. Those who put the interests of Ukrainian citizens above the interests of both NATO and the Western and Eastern oligarchs who profit from this war should agree to this solution. We have no right to forget that, while people die in Ukraine and the poorest citizens of Europe struggle to cope with rising prices, arms dealers, energy cartels, bankers and, of course, the military-industrial complex in the US and Russia are making a killing. This is why the anti-war movement and the movement in favour of workers and the lower middle class are, at the end of the day, one and the same.
Stop the war now: we call for a neutral Ukraine, the withdrawal of Putin’s army, no military involvement of NATO, Greece or the EU. Peace on our continent!
The following day, MeRA25 Secretary Yanis Varoufakis addressed the following letter to the leaders of SYRIZA-PA and KKE, the two Greek left parliamentary parties:
Athens, February 28 2022
Alexis Tsipras,
President of the Coalition of the Radical Left – Progressive Alliance
Dimitris Koutsoumbas,
General Secretary of the Communist Party of Greece
Dear President,
Dear General Secretary,
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine confronts us with two interrelated responsibilities:
To defend a people from the barbaric invasion of the troops of Putin’s regime
To prevent the threat to Greece posed by the choice of the Mitsotakis government to do whatever Washington and NATO dictate
At this juncture, at a time when the warmongers in the West and the East are winning by invading, dividing and disorienting people, I believe that we have an obligation to coordinate our anti-war actions in a twofold direction:
Immediate end to the war and withdrawal of Russian troops under an international agreement that will allow the people of Ukraine to live freely in an independent, neutral, and democratic Ukraine
Removal of US military bases from Greece, which render our country and our people a target of foreign powers, without contributing anything to the country’s defence against real external threats
With this letter, I call you to jointly coordinate our actions, guided by our internationalist duty towards the people of Ukraine, the people of Europe and, of course, the security of our citizens. Such coordination will, I believe, resonate strongly in the progressive realm within and beyond Greece.
Stop Putin’s invasion. Stop NATO escalation. Peace via a people’s diplomacy!
The 24th of February will be remembered as a dark day for Europe: Russia has attacked Ukraine. The geopolitical games between Putin and NATO have led to war, and Europe’s peoples are the great losers, as the EU has, once again, proven itself powerless and irrelevant.
Today’s top priority must be to stop the war, to return Russian troops to base and to start a real peace process. The immediate cessation of hostilities and a permanent peace must be the objective. Unfortunately, the rulers in Moscow, Washington and in the EU, who either caused the tensions or did nothing to stop their escalation, have shown themselves incapable of initiating a viable peace process.
DiEM25 is calling upon progressives in Europe, Russia, the United States, and across the whole world to energise a new internationalist peace movement with the sole objective of disarming the global military-industrial complex and working through a people’s diplomacy – one that has humanity’s interests at heart – toward internationalist solidarity, cooperation and peace.
Wars sacrifice common people for the benefit of those in power and the profits of the 1%. To stop them and prevent them, we need real democracy.
This statement was published on February 22, 2022. Read our statement following the Russian invasion of Ukraine here.
The European Union’s original promise to the peoples of Europe was a simple but powerful one: Never again will war plague the European continent. Today, however, we see an impotent and divided EU watching helplessly from the sidelines, unwilling and unable to stand up to NATO and Putin.
We observe anxiously an EU sliding into irrelevance, stuck between both NATO’s and Putin’s militarist expansionism. This is not the Europe that Europeans were promised.
The solution exists and is simple: No NATO expansion into Ukraine. And an immediate return of Russian troops to Russian soil.
This is the solution that resonates not only with the interests of the peoples of Europe but also with those of our comrades in Ukraine and in Russia who find themselves either imprisoned or scared for their lives, in regimes that revive the worst of Europe’s history.
Will the EU’s leaders find the courage to articulate this sensible, reasonable “NO WAR” solution? Not likely. That’s why Europeans need movements like DiEM25: to fight for their interests, not for the interests of warmongers profiting from escalating tensions and, yes, even war.
Everyone’s offended today. Social media is red hot with rage over perceived slights. Culture wars show no signs of subsiding. The Overton window is narrowing. Sacred cows are being slaughtered, left and right.
This is happening for two reasons. The cultural moment, especially among young people, has normalised taking offence as a response to disagreement. And the Establishment are generating offence to preserve the status quo.
What does it mean for us as activists? And what can we do about it?
An attack on your self-identity
Being offended is a peculiar human emotion. Psychologists define it as:
a feeling triggered by a blow to a person’s honour because it contradicts a person’s self-concept and identity
I.e., it challenges your deepest-held convictions — what you believe about yourself. Or, put simply:
According to a study by Roma Tre University, if the offender is someone you respect, it stings more. If you have a relationship with them, even more. And if your self-esteem is low, yet more.
Sometimes feeling offended is justified. Everyone has soft spots that others can push, accidentally or not. If someone comments on my losing my hair, or being out of shape in my middle age, I won’t be thrilled.
And we should always stand up to intolerance and bigotry, and call them out. As part of a wider strategy of tackling them.
But as I put forward below, offence – or more accurately, what feeling offended makes us do – almost always works against us. As activists. As team-mates. As humans.
Safetyism and the public shaming cycle
Much of the offence-taking on social media today looks like this:
X believes that Y has committed an ethical violation. X claims to feel offended. They see Y as bigoted or dangerous. They vocally complain, and others gather in support.
A loose campaign begins. The remedy called for by X & Co is usually an apology from Y. But whether or not Y apologises, that’s rarely the end of it. The ‘offended’ behaviour of X & Co typically escalates, until drastic consequences result for Y. As per the cycle of public-shaming:
Why? According to the sociologist Jonathan Haidt, ‘paranoid parenting’ has created a fragile generation, steeped in the culture of what he calls ‘safetyism’. It started with Gen Z — those born between 1995 and 2012 — and it’s bleeding up to older groups.
In a culture of safetyism, you should always trust your feelings, and must protect them at all costs. So when someone is offended, it’s as if a violence has been done to them. Others rally to the ‘victim’, and the feeling is quick to spread. Being offended accords you special rights among your peers.
A cascade of indignation
Offence is kryptonite for activists. When you’re offended, you’re in purely reactive mode. You flail, shooting in all directions, hungry for redress. It takes your attention away from whatever your goal was.
Being offended also has a cascading effect that is psychologically damaging. First you’re angry. Soon, you’re angry for being angry, and having allowed it to consume your day. And it only grows from there. You’ll have a shitty time, and worse – you miss the chance to learn, to understand your opponents. To become a better activist.
But the most pernicious thing about offence is that if you’re easily offended, you’re easily manipulated. Because others can make you act in a way you hadn’t planned.
And nobody knows this better than the Establishment.
The Establishment’s secret weapon
In recent years, the Establishment has got in on the ‘offended’ game in a big way.
The Fabian Society is Britain’s oldest political think-tank. In a detailed report last year, they found evidence that the Establishment stoke culture wars to serve their goals. It started in the US, it’s arrived in Britain, and soon it will be everywhere.
Here’s how it works. The Establishment shouts about, or amplifies, an ethical violation that Y (the offender) has apparently committed, packaged in the most explosive way possible. The goal is to make X (the offended) see Y as bigoted or dangerous. And to kick off a public shaming campaign as described above.
One illustrative example [is] the recurring story that the film Grease faces being ‘cancelled’. The root of these stories is a handful of tweets, many made in jest, making uncontroversial points about the ways in which the 1978 script is dated. This has been the flimsy basis for a wide variety of outlets profiling this ‘controversy’, including the Daily Mail, Good Morning Britain, the Metro and Pink News. While these individual stories may seem harmless, they add up to the impression – inadvertent or otherwise – that movements like #MeToo are obsessed with trivia about musicals instead of, in reality, existing to counter violence against women.
Trying to make you take offence is smart strategy from the Establishment. You’ve got to hand it to them. It allows:
politicians to caricature their enemies (the offended), and hold their voting bases together
commentators to get more engagement, by benefitting from the controversy
media and social media platforms to gain financial profit, by clicks and coverage from the outrage
But worse, by generating offence strategically, the Establishment makes activists divided and toothless. They keep activists trained on the outrage of the moment, unable to see their projects through.
So instead of opposing the Establishment where it might make a difference, precious activist energy gets diverted towards fringe issues and symbolic goals. Out with campaigns on income inequality or global warming or poverty or institutional transparency. In with fighting over whether footballers should take the knee, and which controversial statues should remain standing. While activists are tearing chunks out of each other to get cultural wins, the status quo is preserved.
And often, the ‘offender’ that the Establishment put forward in these manufactured controversies is a party that same Establishment would love to take down. Whether it’s Wikileaks, independent podcasters or heterodox doctors.
As a result of this strategy, activists who would typically oppose the Establishment end up doing the Establishment’s work for them. While being defamed as out of touch with the concerns of common people. What evil genius!
Again: if you’re easily offended, you’re easily manipulated.
How can we avoid being played? And how can we play them back?
Not being offended is a superpower. Cultivate it, and you can avoid your opponents leading you by the nose.
It’s easier said than done, of course. Everyone’s different, and whether you’re easily offended depends on your history, your hidden weaknesses, your self-esteem.
Haidt recommends Cognitive Behavioural Therapy to protect yourself from taking offence. But what works for me is mindfulness meditation. Because:
Thoughts are the fuel of emotions, and meditation puts space between you and those thoughts. [..] Once you identify the thoughts that produce the emotion, both lose their grip on you. And so you can bring your attention back to your Ultimate Goal.
Building a meditation practice will help you identify when the emotion of feeling offended is arising within you. And it will give you the space to pull back and re-assess. Start with Sam Harris’ Waking Up app, and 10 minutes every morning.
Also, if you’re building an activist team, keep an eye out for people who are quick to take offence. Trust me, you don’t want them on it. You need activists who can move past conflict easily, and keep their eye on the goal.
Lastly, don’t forget you’re in an asymmetric battle against power. You can and should use the tools of the enemy against them.
So whatever you’re campaigning on, seek to offend the Establishment. Make it personal: target the individual responsible, instead of an institution or system. Get a rise out of them and shout about it.
Challenge their deeply-held beliefs. Force them to flail and make tactical mistakes. Beat them at their own game.
***
Notes
1. This isn’t technically offence, by the psychology definition. It’s more like X feeling that Y has bigoted views, and feeling angry or disgusted at them. But for our purposes here, let’s call it offence.
The author is an adviser to DiEM25’s Coordinating Collective. A version of this article first appeared in the activist newsletter, Subvrt.
The NHS is under threat. The UK government is using the Health and Care Bill to push through major restructuring that would be damaging to patients at any time, but in the middle of a pandemic will be a disaster for healthcare services.
If this Bill is passed, everyone will be impacted – there will be more privatisation, more cuts, more cronyism. It will result in cuts to services and access to treatments.
The Health and Care Bill will make years of underfunding, understaffing and privatisation far worse. It will cut medical and emergency services, force more people to pay for their health care and let more private companies take over services and make decisions on budgets.
The Bill also caps adult social care costs at £86,000, which will hit the average household hard, while leaving the rich protected.
Time is running out. Unite and DiEM25 are holding a month of action on the NHS, targeting MPs in ‘red wall’ seats.
From Monday February 14 onwards, billboards, ad vans and bus stops will carry direct messages to voters in constituencies [see examples below] where their Tory MP voted for the Bill last year.
The advert campaign is a result of DiEM25 joining forces with Your NHS Needs You and Unite to highlight the impact the Health and Care Bill will have on our NHS.
The advert messages carry a picture of each MP and state: ‘Last year, your MP [name] voted for NHS privatisation. This year, tell him to vote against the toxic Health and Care Bill’.
We’re also holding an NHS day of action on February 26, with street stalls in the constituencies of target MPs to highlight the tsunami of attacks our health service is facing. Please join and help to get the message out about the impact of the Bill on local NHS services. A list of events will be published on their website soon.
We also need you to act now and write to your MP and to members of the House of Lords to demand they oppose the Bill. You can email your MP and the Lords using the Your NHS Needs You tool on the website.
Time is running out. We need you all to act now and write to your MP to demand they oppose this Bill. You can do this using our email action tool.
