WELCOME TO THE CNI WEBPAGE

CAMPAIGN FOR NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE

Was, is and shall remain in favour of Maltese workers

and against Malta's membership of the European Union

WE SWEAR TO FREE MALTA FROM THE SLAVERY, COLONIALISM AND DICTATORIAL ILLEGAL EUROPEAN UNION RULE

The auditors entrusted by the Government in December 2007 found that the Shipyard suffered a loss of around €37 million on the contracts that it took in 2006 for the conversion of two barges for the Fairmount company.

The auditors report was published on 14 September of this year,

* and in it they unhesitatingly said

* that the Fairmount contract was badly negotiated from the very beginning

* by the prices being too low,

* the conditions were not good for the Shipyard,

* the executive management gave wrong information

* on how much profit was going to be made on the workers work,

* and the conversion work was conducted in an inefficient manner.

In the Fairmount contract disaster

are concerned directly both the Minister responsible for the Shipyard

as well as the EU Commission.

The European Commission had,

* according to the Shipyard Restructuring Plan agreement for the years 2002-2009,

* control how the Shipyard was being managed

* and what contract it was negotiating.

In the agreement it had been agreed that the Maltese Government

* must provide to the European Commission

* with annual reports on the implementation of the plan

* and the reports had to include how the Shipyard

* was fixing the prices for new contract that it makes.

The reports had to be sent to the Commission within two months from the end of each year.

The plan agreement also stated that the Maltese Government had to cooperate with the control arrangements agreed by the European Commission, including inspections on site from independent experts.

Therefore, the European Commission

* could not say that it was not aware of the bad Shipyard management,

* the lack of control by the minister responsible for it,

* with the disastrous negotiations of the Fairmount contracts

* and with the inefficient management of the work on the barges.

But in the Fairmount scandal,

* apart form the blame that the European Commission has,               

* the greatest blame is carried by Minister Gatt                                 

* who was responsible to see that the Shipyard is managed correctly.

Minister Gatt issued a statement on the failure of the Fairmount contracts.

The statement incriminates him instead of exculpating him.

In it he showed himself satisfied with the losses suffered by the Shipyard, because he said that that loss justified “the Government policy not to have direct shareholding in commercial enterprises and instead give space to the private sector where this is ready to invest and take risks”.

These words implicates that had the Fairmount contracts were profitable, the Government on privatization would not have been justified.

The Government wanted that policy to be justified

* and for that policy to be justified

* the Shipyard had to suffer huge losses from the Fairmount contracts.

Minister Gatt’s statement also brags on the Shipyard closure on the basis of the Fairmount contracts which, according to the Minister, “are the last page in a big book of wastage of public funds in subsidies”.

Because had the Shipyard not suffered losses on the barges conversion work, the big book mentioned by Minister Gatt, with the last page of public funds would not have been closed.

Minister Gatt wanted this book to be closed and that is why he wanted its last page to be written

Minister Gatt also complained about the “realities of industrial relations and trade unionism intransigence that one still finds today only in the public sector, not in the private sector”.

For Minister Gatt, therefore, to destroy “industrial realities” and Trade unionism intransigence”, it is better that the public sector is destroyed by giving everything to the private sector.

According to the Minister’s statement, the Fairmount bitter experience “also confirms that the public sector does not have the resources and technical capability to take commercial risks that after all are taken with public funds”.

These words mean that Minister Gatt was happy with the losses suffered by the Shipyard, had its confirmation by his opinion about the lack of “resources and technical capability” of the public sector.

In his partisan blindness,

* Minister Gatt forgot that the financial and economic crisis

* that is hitting many countries,

* is the fruit of the technical capability and resources of the private sector,

* and that it has to be the public sector not to allow the private sector to fail completely.

The failure of the Fairmount projects does not justify, but accuses Minister Gatt.

Because he is paid by the people to take care of the peoples investments and assure that public funds are not badly spent.

The Minister had to see that the works contract that the Shipyard takes will not be disadvantageous and that they do not make a loss.

The Minister did not carry out this duty notwithstanding how he brags about how efficient they are.

He also did not take heed of the warnings that the Shipyard management was not good and that it was inefficient.

He is only concerned with denigrating the workers and their union.

He did not do anything to fix the pitiful state of the Shipyard, indeed he took a deep breath when the Government and the EU decided that the Shipyard shall not continue to operate and employ hundreds of tradesmen that it had.

In the destruction of the 1,700 jobs at the Shipyard, Minister Gatt and the EU European Commission have the greatest blame.

They merit the condemnation and contempt of the Maltese people

Tomorrow the Irish people are going to vote for the second time on the Lisbon Treaty. In the first referendum that was held last year, 53% of those who voted said NO to the treaty.

But the European Union leaders do not accept that the people hold them back from doing what they want.

That is why they are forcing the Irish people to change their decision against the treaty.

To force the Irish to vote in favour of the treaty,

* the European Union spent millions of euros in the referendum propaganda campaign

* and a great number of European leaders took part,

* including the President of the Commission Jose’ Manuel Barroso.

Threats to the Irish were not lacking if they did not do what the EU wanted.

The story of the Lisbon Treaty is a great shame for the EU.

Apart from the great damage that it is going to cause to the member countries, this was of great damage to the EU itself because the treaty does not have the support of the EU citizens.

The EU leaders

* know about the lack of popular support for the treaty

* and to overcome this obstacle

* they decided that the treaty will not be presented for the approval of the peoples vote,

* but passed by the parliaments of the member countries.

In Ireland this could not be done because the Constitution of the country provides that such treaties must be presented to a referendum.

This EU decision

* not to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty

* uncovers its hypocrisy that it preaches democracy

* but does not practice it.

For critics,

* this attitude serves as another proof with many others,

* how the European block is not democratic at all.

That is why the Lisbon Treaty causes damage to the EU itself.

The treaty is also of great damage for the member countries for many reasons.

The first one is that with this agreement,

* the UE is going to acquire more powers

* and the power that it acquires

* is reduced from the powers of the member countries

* that become weaker when compared to it.

The EU increases the sectors that it has power to decide what happens in them and the member countries lose their power to decide these sectors themselves.

With the treaty the sectors that the EU has power have increased considerably.

The second main reason of the damage that the treaty is going to cause the member countries is that it will be increasing the number of things that it can decide without the consent of some of the member countries and even against their will.

This notwithstanding, the countries who will be in a minority when a vote is taken shall have to submit to the decision of the majority.

But the majority of the countries can be against the will of the majority in a member country and the people of the country would have to submit to the decision of the EU.

There are many other things that are damaging to the member countries.

The treaty provides for the EU to make a common foreign policy and to appoint a European representative for foreign affairs.

This development means that a member country,

* such as Malta,

* cannot implement its own foreign policy of neutrality and non-alignment,

* but shall be bound to follow the common foreign policy decided in Brussels.

The imposition of the common foreign policy on the EU countries

* shackles the freedom of the country such as ours

* to follow a policy of peace and friendship

* once the Union decides to use force against some country or countries,

* or to impose sanction measures

* on the country with which Malta has friendly reports.

The Lisbon Treaty binds the EU countries to increase their military spending.

Instead of insisting on demilitarization,

* the EU wants more militarization

* which means that the country spends more of its resources on armaments

* instead of in productive work and which increases the wealth for the people.

Few have yet become aware that the Lisbon Treaty

* again introduces the DEATH PENALTY

* for those who take part in a civil rebellion,

* riots or terrorist acts.

It does this notwithstanding that no one should be condemned to death and that this penalty was abolished in all the EU member countries including in Malta.

The treaty strengthens more the obligation

* of the EU member countries

* to observe its liberal economic policy

* and regulations on the annual financial estimates,

* when in the economic crisis that the EU is presently in

* many of the member countries feel the need

* to put aside the obstacles of the European financial regulations

* to protect the industry and jobs.

These and more considerations justify the criticism of the Lisbon Treaty.

The PILOT PROJECT

* that the EU so bragged about that it was going to do specially for Malta

* so that the other EU member countries

* take between them 2,000 illegal immigrants that are in Malta

* burst like a bubble in our faces

* because only six from the 26 EU member countries

* have up to now offered to take some 200 or 300 only.

Neither the appeals

* of the Maltese Government

* nor those of the European Commissioner Jacques Barrot,

* responsible for illegal immigrants,

* who encouraged the EU member countries

* to show a sense of solidarity with our country

* so that we will be able to cope

* against the invasion of thousands of illegal immigrant were heeded.

Neither were useful the diplomatic efforts of Prime Minister Gonzi and the Ministers of the Maltese Government with their EU colleagues to help our country in the burden that it has with the illegal immigrants crisis

The very negative response of the vast majority of the Union countries for the special pilot project for Malta, are a very eloquent proof of how it is not true that the EU is built on the principle of solidarity between the member countries.

The ugly truth is that the EU countries seek what are their best interests and are not ready to sacrifice them for the benefit of the people of some other country that is with them a member in the EU.

It was useless that a few months ago the EU had drafted a plan on voluntary burden sharing between the member countries so that they share the burden of illegal immigrants.

The pact had to form the basis of the EU policy on illegal immigration.

In Malta the EU propagandists bragged that the voluntary burden sharing pact was a great step forward for the solution of the crisis of immigration in Malta.

The negative response for the pilot project for Malta gave credit to all those who condemned the burden sharing on a voluntary basis as a fib and a joke, once it did not bind the Union member countries.

This was another proof of how the EU can be false.

The lesson from all this should be

* that the Maltese people should think with their own minds

* and not let the EU decide for them,

* and do what is best for them,

* not what the EU forces them to do as it wants.

In the interests of our people

* we should let the illegal immigrants  

* go wherever they want to in Europe  

* or take them back whence they came

* from safe and sound.                          

Thursday 1 October 2009

e-mail: cnimalta at yahoo.co.uk 

Thank you for visiting our website

Support our fight for Independence and Freedom

Do you want to help us regain our Independence and Freedom?

If yes, help CNI in its work so that the majority of the people would want to get rid of European Union rule.

Become a CNI member by sending €5 together with this application form to,  

The Financial Secretary CNI,

60A Strait Street

Valletta

Name .......................................................

Address ....................................................

ID Number................................................

Thank you for your help

Free and neutral Malta shall overcome