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

By Dr Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici

Crocodile tears are hypocratic tears. 

If you can accuse us CNI of everything it is certain that you cannot accuse us with hypocrisy (as a correspondent insinuated in last Monday’s edition [of l-Orizzont]), because we continue to insist that we can leave the European Union, and that we must leave as soon as possible.

Because it is a fact that we can leave the Union. 

For this to be achieved, all that there is to do is to convince the majority of Maltese and Gozitan people that it is in our interests to make this step forward, the same as in 2003 they had convinced us to go back to being a colony, this time not of England, but of the European Union.

When we acknowledge that we should leave the Union, we would not be saying that which we do not believe in. 

We say it because we are convinced that our people shall not continue to be in the Union cage, so that we shall be free to do what is required in our interests and not be constrained to do that which is not in our country’s interests, such as, for example, that we close the Shipyard and let factories leave our country because we cannot help them because of the European Union directives.

It is false and wrong reasoning to say that in a democracy the minority should not continue to work against what the majority wants, with the aim that tomorrow the minority becomes the majority, and today’s minority becomes tomorrow’s majority. 

That is why it is normal in a country like Malta that the majority of Maltese and Gozitans overturn that which they had decided in 2003.

Whoever is convinced that his opinions are the best for our country and has a strong will should not surrender them because it would be better for his own personal interests.

We understand that membership in the European Union is more disadvantageous than advantageous for our people. 

Whoever is convinced about this would be stupid if he does not continue to work, not to exploit the advantages, but more than ever to remove the disadvantages which are greater than the advantages, and this can only be achieved by not continuing to be ruled by the Union and its wrong policy. 

Because above all else, it is the European Union’s neo-liberal capitalist economic and social policy that is very damaging to our people.

To him who tells us that in the case of membership in the Union there is nothing that can be done we tell him that he is weak and an opportunist. 

Because council dictates that we should do all that we can to repair the mistake as soon as possible, however great the sacrifices that we have to make to do so.

When we now know that our country is losing financially with membership in the European Union, we will not be doing good to our people when we find as an excuse that we cannot leave the European Union to hide that financially we will be better if we do not remain in the Union.

We can leave whenever we want and we should leave as soon as possible for the good of our people, especially the workers. 

This is not crocodile tears, but a pledge of Maltese and Gozitans who endear independence and freedom and want prosperity for the workers.

The European Union pretends that after 31 December 2008 we should close the Shipyard if it is not in a position to continue without subsidies. 

The Union reasons that since the Shipyard is a commercial company, it should not be given state aid because it would be giving it an advantage on its competitor shipyards in the EU countries. 

This reasoning is faulty and erroneous and we should not submit to it.

We should not accept that the state does not give aid to commercial companies to continue to employ the workers since there is no alternative employment for them. 

We do not accept it not only because it is a wrong principle, but also because there are many enterprises in EU countries that are being given state aid, both financially, and also by orders for government works that do not exist in our country. 

We shall mention the Airbus case and the building of naval ships, the first as an example of direct financial aid, and the second as an example of indirect aid.

The EU cannot say that the granting of subsidies is a bad thing when the EU itself gives more than 40 percent of its funds in subsidies to agriculture. 

The EU imposed on the Maltese Government to implement its Common Agricultural Policy; that means that the Government gives part of the agriculture subsidies from taxes collected from the people. 

The EU also gave its consent so that the Government would subsidize “low cost airlines” that come to our country. 

Therefore the prohibition of the granting of subsidies is not an absolute EU principle.

There is also another aspect in the issue that should be considered. 

Many Government departments and sections do not balance their income and expenditure, and they always continue to work with funds that the Government gives them. 

We take as an example the Public Works Department with which are employed thousands of workers. 

And we can say the same for many authorities set up to do the work which was previously done directly by Government employees.

The Shipyard is the Government’s property

Now the Shipyard is also Government property, although it is run by a commercial company whose shareholder is the Government. 

If the company is eliminated, the Government remains directly responsible for running the Shipyard and for the workers who should be considered to be the same as the other Government workers.

The Shipyard workers have the right to be considered as Government workers. 

So much so, that those who were not allowed to work in the Shipyard, although they were put under another Government company, are doing Government work or work in Government departments and are paid by the Government.

If the Shipyard does not remain as a commercial company because it will be run directly by the Government, the Government would be responsible for all its costs and expenses, as it is responsible for all the costs and expenses of Government departments and sections. 

In this case, since the Government would not be granting aid to a commercial company, the EU could not say anything to it about the Shipyard, as it does not interfere with what it spends on its departments and sections.

It should not close

We do not dream that the Government would close the Shipyard because the country saves the subsidy money. 

With the Shipyard closure and 1,400 people unemployed, the expenses for the state would be greater in unemployment benefits and other social help, as well as the loss from tax on wages and social security contributions for the national social security system. 

This is apart from other important considerations, such as the social disaster that such a measure causes.

We should make it clear right now to the EU that if after 31 December 2008 we are faced with an order to close the Shipyard, we shall not accept it. 

If the choice would be between closing the Shipyard so that we can remain in the European Union, our choice would be one without any hesitation: the Shipyard remains and we will not remain in the EU.

Our people should understand that the yearly Government losses are not the amount given to the Shipyard, but ten times more than this. 

If the Shipyard ought to close because it loses a few millions, how much more should the Government leave when it loses many more millions than it (the Shipyard) each year!

We also tell our readers that each year we are losing more between our income and expenditure because of our membership in the Union, much more than we are losing with the Shipyard.

During the 50 anniversary of the treaty which was supposed to have been signed on 25 March 1957 in Rome by the leaders of the countries of the European Economic Community, which today is the European Union, many comments were made, both favourably as well as critical. 

Among those who commented we find Professor Anthony Coughlan, of the Irish National Platform who came to our country several times.

We said was supposed to have been signed because now it has been uncovered that during that solemn ceremony, they had just signed a lot of blank papers because the printer had not managed to print the treaty in time. 

But that is not the only issue about that treaty. 

Because according to Professor Coughlan, that greatest fib is that they say that this was a project that brought peace in Europe.

Professor Coughlan explained that it was the agreement in 1950 that established the European Coal and Steel Community between France, Western Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg, that ensured that a war between France and Germany will not happen again. 

He also explained that it was the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union that kept peace in Europe and not the European Union. 

After the fall of the Berlin Wall, we had wars in Europe, that of Yugoslavia and that in Chechnya.

The second comment made by Professor Coughlan is that the six countries that established the European Economic Community (now the European Union) by the treaty were countries that prior to the Second World War had colonies and that they had lost the war. 

After the war, they found themselves dominated by two superpowers – the United States and the Soviet Union. 

When they saw their empires collapse, these five countries felt the need to get together so as to be able to compete with the two superpowers, and therefore felt the need to establish the European Economic Community as a new neo-colonial empire.

Professor Coughlan also comments about the boasting of subsidiarity in the Rome Treaty. 

He says that the UE never gave back any power back to the member countries, but always continued to acquire for itself more and more power in a greater number of sectors. 

The thousands of laws and regulations that the EU has made form part of what is known as the “acquis communautaire”, and the EU imposes it on every country that wants to become a member in the EU (as happened in the case of Malta). 

In its 50 years of existence, the EU never gave back any power which it had taken from the member countries.

To the question as to why politicians work to increase the EU powers and thus reduce their countries powers, Coughlan answered that this occurs because it is in the politician’s interests to take decisions at the Union international level, rather than at the national level in their country. 

Because in this manner the politicians would not need to have national parliamentary support for what they decide to do, once what the Union decides has to be compulsorily implemented by the Union member countries. 

Apart from this, the politicians feel themselves greater by taking decisions on the 500 million Union citizens than taking decisions only on their people in their country.

Power is favoured both by politicians as well as high government officials, and at the same time, both are not sorry to see their people’s strength reduced and parliaments lose their powers and the European Union increasing its powers.

Thursday, 10 May 2007.

WE WANT INDEPENDENCE FROM THE EUROPEAN UNION

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