.

A YEAR has come and gone since the EU Referendum. As everyone should know by now, on 23^rd June 2016, a majority of the electorate took the brave and historic decision to get Britain out of the EU. On a national turnout of 72.2%, 17,410,742 (51.9%) people voted to free Britain from the shackles of the European Union. Indeed, as the Guardian at the time – https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2016/jun/23/eu-referendum-live-results-and-analysis – noted, ‘Britain has voted by a substantial margin to leave the European Union.’

Despite this, members of the elite still don’t get it. One particular case which raised the hackles of many people involved the well-known evolutionary biologist and writer, Richard Dawkins. Here’s what he had to say: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39218108

Liberal Future are the first to concede that Dawkins raises many valid points. We feel that Cameron called the EU Referendum in an attempt to both shut up the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory party and kill off the threat of UKIP. (Ironically, the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory party walked all over Cameron and internal rumblings within UKIP seem to have killed it off. That’s politics, folks!)

Dawkins also notes that Cameron should have insisted on a 2/3 majority for the EU Referendum, held a ‘cooling off’ period and so on. Maybe he should of – but the fact is he didn’t and that the majority of the electorate opted for Brexit. We wonder if Dawkins would still be calling for a 2/3 majority and so on if the Remain camp had won the vote?

THURSDAY 15^th June marked the 802^nd Anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta. As National Liberals will know, its signing – by King John and his Barons – represented the first time a Monarch accepted that he/she had responsibilities and their ‘subjects’ had rights.

We feel that the signing of the Magna Carta was the first step in establishing the right to free of speech and assembly. These rights were further strengthened during the reign of King William III (who, along with his wife Mary, were crowned joint monarchs of England, Scotland and Ireland in 1689) which ensured ‘Civil and Religious Liberties for all.’

To mark Magna Carta Day our friends at Free Speech: How Do We Protect It? – https://www.facebook.com/groups/1607711629485795/ – produced an e-poster and article, which we reproduce below. They asked their supporters to viral it out via social media to remind everyone of the historic importance of the day and to wish everyone a Happy Magna Carta Day.

The following article – supplied by Free Speech: How Do We Protect It? – examines why the issue of freedom should remain central to any political agenda.

.

The Historical Importance Of Magna Carta Day

FREEDOM LOVERS recently took time out to celebrate Magna Carta Day. However, immediately afterwards we resolved to re-double our efforts to defend free speech, especially – but not exclusively – from establishment attacks.

Why? Because we feel that the establishment will use the rise of Islamist terrorism in Britain as an excuse to clamp down both on freedom of speech and assembly. During the recent election campaign Theresa May made plenty of noise about the need to curb ‘extremism’ as well as combating terrorism. Free Speech realises that much of this noise, to some degree or other, would have been sound bites, designed to appeal to reactionary Tory ‘right’ supporters – basically, the ‘flog ‘em and hang ‘em brigade.’

However, freedom lovers should be wary of Theresa May’s approach for several reasons.

Firstly, at the moment Theresa May is down – but she’s not out. And that makes her a very dangerous woman indeed. Election promises aside, she does have a reasonably long-term record of wanting to clamp down of Human Rights legislation. And when it comes to freedom of speech and assembly she is more ‘hawkish’ than many of her fellow Tories.

Secondly, her ‘government of certainty’ with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) may wish to lay down a marker when it comes to Islamist terrorism. It’s probably fair to describe the DUP as a socially conservative political party that is totally opposed to any terrorist group which threatens the United Kingdom. This is hardly surprising given Ulster’s recent past. With this in mind, we’re concerned that it wouldn’t be difficult to persuade the DUP to clamp down on ‘extremism’ in the name of fighting Islamist terrorism.

Free Speech feels that it would be sheer hypocrisy and political opportunism for the establishment to use the terrible events of Manchester and London to justify clamping down on freedom of speech. Our position is simple: either we all have rights or none of us have rights.

(As an aside, are we alone in wondering if the Manchester suicide bomber and London Bridge terrorists are, to some degree or another, mere pawns in a wider geopolitical ‘war of position’?)

Thirdly, May – and others on the reactionary right – talk a lot about ‘extremism’ but never seem to provide a legally binding definition of ‘extremism.’ What exactly is ‘extremism’ – indeed, how would you define it? We’re worried that its definition could be left so vague that it could potentially include those opposed to capitalism right through to those who would go out and kill people in the name of Allah.

With all of this in mind, we feel that it’s essential that we stand up for the right of free speech and assembly – as well as the concept of Civil and Religious liberties for all. Free Speech appreciates that, on a personal level, it may become very uncomfortable to make a principled stand on this issue. No doubt, some elements of the establishment mainstream media will twist our position and produce fake news stories claiming that we support terrorism!

However, if freedom lovers don’t make a principled stand, who will? We should not abandon our ancient rights (effectively granted by the signing of the Magna Carta at Runnymede in 1215) and merely surrender to political expediency, media pressure, the need to be ‘popular’ or simply go with the herd.

Remember, the establishment is smart and will use any excuse as an opportunity to ban groups and organisations. Any legislation designed to silence ‘extremists’ will simply be the thin end of the wedge. In the past the establishment has picked on ‘unpopular’ groups – in the recent past it was the British National Party or Religious (but non-violent) fundamentalists – and demonised them. If the ‘unpopular’ group is not banned outright, the establishment will try to make it near nigh impossible for it to organise. It will be subject to numerous restrictions and smear jobs. ‘Counter gangs’ could also be used to fight it on the streets.

To reiterate, when making any informed decision subjects relating to freedom, we must always examine the cold hard facts, figures and evidence. In addition, we should not let our emotions get the better of us. As we noted earlier, we should not abandon our ancient rights and merely surrender to ‘political expediency, media pressure, the need to be ‘popular’ or simply go with the herd.’

As a pressure group, Free Speech is not interested in being ‘popular’ – we’re only interested in being right. And it is right and proper to both support free speech and assembly and the concept of Civil and Religious liberties for all.

NATIONAL LIBERAL TRADE UNIONISTS – NLTU – are deeply unhappy at the current state of the National Health Service. The NHS faces many challenges: the threat of privitisation, low wages and morale, outdated equipment and a unhealthy reliance (in terms of a form of self-sufficiency) on foreign workers.

In futures articles the NLTU hopes to examine all of these problems. However, we want to kick off by looking at the role of foreign NHS healtcare workers, not least because the subject was recently aired by a NHS psychiatrist, Dr. Max Pemberton. His article – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-4392300/DR-MAX-Not-racist-want-NHS-nurses-speak-English.html – appeared in early April.

The NLTU found Dr. Pemberton’s article very thought-provoking, especially his brief mention of the EU. One of the reasons why the NLTU supported Brexit was that the policy of allowing the ‘free movement of capital and labour’ between EU member states means that big business can chase – and exploit – the lowest wages across Europe. At the same time British workers have seen with their own eyes the massive influx of Eastern European workers. Understandably they want to improve their lives – but the result of their movement has placed enormous strains upon local services. With this in mind, we found it hard to believe that other Trade Unionists who supported the Remain campaign were effectively supporting the rape of Eastern Europe.

If you have any comments specifically realting to Dr. Pemberton’s article – or the NHS in general – please leave them on the NLTU Facebook site https://www.facebook.com/groups/277840098977231/ once you see this article appear.

It goes without saying that there are no official links between Dr. Pemberton, the Daily Mail or the NLTU.

.

It’s not racist to want NHS nurses to speak English

.

The National Health Service needs to be saved. But is it healthy to be so reliant on foreign workers? Have your say.

What rot! Having control of our borders will mean that we are able to choose who can come in.

We will, therefore, be able to allow into this country those from the EU who have skills that we need, just as we currently do for those coming from outside the EU.

In fact, just over 25 per cent of the NHS medical workforce is from outside the EU — countries such as India — compared with the 10 per cent from the EU.

But why is the UK so reliant on staff from overseas in the first place? What happened?

Britain was once at the forefront of the development of biomedicine. We are head and shoulders above other nations in our contribution towards medical science. From penicillin to DNA, our discoveries have changed the course of history.

So why can’t we organise ourselves well enough to train sufficient doctors and nurses to keep the NHS afloat?

The current situation in which the NHS needs to recruit staff from all over the world, while celebrated by some of the liberal elite as evidence of how ‘inclusive’ and ‘tolerant’ we are as a nation, makes me profoundly uncomfortable.

Why is it celebrated that we effectively steal the best medical staff from impoverished, struggling countries? Why is it that we have to import staff — who may not fully understand the language, culture or practices of our country — as a matter of routine?

A House of Lords committee has now waded into the issue, saying that the NHS is ‘too reliant’ on foreign staff and blamed successive governments for failing to plan. It argues that our reliance on foreign workers is the biggest threat to the NHS.

I completely agree. I’ve seen this myself in psychiatry. In some areas of the country, nearly half of posts are unfilled simply because there aren’t the staff for them. This means trusts increasingly have to recruit from abroad.

Things are so dire that they will employ people who, frankly, I wouldn’t trust to look after my goldfish. One former colleague told me she had struggled to get work in her own country, so came here because she knew she’d walk into a job.

But if she was not deemed good enough for a job in her own country, why is she considered good enough in ours?

In one hospital where I worked, they recruited health care assistants (HCAs) from outside the EU. The interview was conducted in local dialect by a local recruiter, and one of the HCAs arrived not being able to speak a word of English. Not a word. I had to teach her how to say ‘Good Morning’ to the patients.

How could she be expected to take blood pressure readings, record the results and then tell me if there was a problem? How could she reassure anxious patients if she could not even speak to them?

Recently, a wholly unhelpful sensitivity has sprung up around talking about this, yet it has to be said: many of these recruits struggle with English, have limited written communication skills and are from different cultures with different attitudes and beliefs. Why is it considered racist to be concerned that patients can’t understand the nurse trying to explain something to them?

While we’re wasting money left, right and centre in the NHS on managers and paper-pushers who contribute absolutely nothing to the welfare of patients, why can’t the money be channelled into training adequate numbers of staff to meet our needs?

We rely on more overseas health staff than any other European country. What an embarrassment.

Rather than giving ourselves a self-satisfied pat on the back that we employ staff from all over the world, we should acknowledge that the reason we do this is because of our own ineptitude at workforce planning and hang our heads in shame.

• CHECK out our previous NLTU debates here:

National Liberal Trade Unionists Debate 1 – How Can we Achieve Our Main Aims? http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-national-liberal-trade-unionists-debate-1-how-can-we-achieve-our-main-aims

National Liberal Trade Unionists Debate 2 – What Should Be Re-Nationalised? http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-%e2%80%93-national-liberal-trade-unionists-debate-2-%e2%80%93-what-should-be-re-nationalised

National Liberal Trade Unionists Debate 3 – Bob Crow: What Is His Legacy? http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-%e2%80%93-national-liberal-trade-unionists-%e2%80%93-bob-crow-what-is-his-legacy

National Liberal Trade Unionists Debate 4 – How Should Trade Unionists View The EU? (06/05/14) http://nationalliberal.org/from-the-liberty-wall-%e2%80%93-national-liberal-trade-unionists-debate-4-%e2%80%93-how-should-trade-unionists-view-the-eu

• CHECK OUT issue 1 of Liberal Worker – the voice of National Liberal Trade Unionists. To get hold of your FREE pdf copy simply request it by e-mailing natliberal@aol.com Also look out for more information about issue 2 in due course.