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
Everyone agrees on the necessity of friendship and cooperation between the countries of Europe to prevent destructive wars between themselves.
What not all agree about is that this friendship and cooperation should lead to a centralized bureaucratic union that becomes one state to rule national states and make regions out of them and no longer sovereign, independent and free countries.
The treaty that establishes a Constitution for Europe, that the leaders of the EU countries (including the Maltese leaders) solemnly signed in October 2004 in Rome, was drafted with the aim of advancing the establishment of a new EU state, superior to and above its member states.
This is clearly stated in one of the first articles of the treaty that states that the laws that the European Union makes are superior and above all the laws of the member states of the Union.
Many object to the manner in which the EU has developed in time into one state, or better still a “super state” that takes decisions that are not necessarily agreed to by all the Union member countries, while when it was set up, the decisions had to be taken by the consent of every member country.
This development raised the greatest objections for the Union in all its member countries.
This was surely one of the factors that forced the majority of the French and the Dutch to vote NO in the 2005 referenda about the Constitution of the European Union.
The opposition to the European Union and for membership in the Union appears to be increasing and spreading to all the countries in the block, including our country, and perhaps mostly in England.
In England, two members of the House of Lords who have long been EU critics have now declared themselves against the UK’s membership in the Union and became members in the UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party).
The two members, Lord Pearson and Lord Willoughly, left the Conservative Party and became members in the UK Independence Party.
There are other prominent members in the House of Lords that are against the UK’s membership in the Union.
There are the ex-Labour Party Minister Lord Stoddart and the ex-Chairman of the Conservative Party Lord Tebbit.
There are different members in the House of Commons, both Labour as well as Conservatives, that openly and consistently speak in favour of the UK leaving the EU.
In the last election for the European Parliament, the UK Independence Party succeeded in electing a number of its deputies and they don’t stop criticizing the Union wherever they talk, even during meetings in the European Parliament itself.
The British who have been members in the EU for more than 30 years have still not adopted the Ewro instead of Sterling.
The same did the Swedish and Dutch who did not change their currency with the Ewro, who both had a majority of people who voted against the adoption of the Ewro, notwithstanding that the main political parties encouraged them to vote in favour of the adoption of the European currency.
The economic results of the three countries proved the people right and not the political parties because the three countries are better economically than the countries that had changed to the Ewro.
It is a common phenomenon for many countries of the Union that while the main political parties are totally in favour of the EU, the majority of the people are either against the Union, or indifferent to it.
This results from the fact that more than half of all the people of the Union, except in the case of Malta, do not go to vote in the elections for the European Parliament.
A percentage of those who go to vote support eurosceptic candidates and those who are harsh critics of the Union.
It’s not without reason that many do not support the European Parliament and consider it a human circus and no parliament at all, where no real debates are held and it neither makes laws.
The Parliament is an example of an enormous abusive waste of money collected from the taxes of the people of the member countries.
For 2007, we the Maltese are going to pay the EU more than Lm22 million from the taxes collected in our country.
This results from the Budget presented by the Government in the Maltese Parliament last November.
It’s not without reason that many ask:
why do we vote for five members of the Eropean Parliament, when we already vote for 65 members of the Maltese Parliament and 5 are not chosen from the 65 to represent us in the European Union?
For the Maltese nation the problem of lack of work should be the main economic problem.
The lack of work should not be a problem only for those who are without work, but for all society.
A society where not all who can work finds work will be hindering the wealth that is lost from being made by those who do not work, apart from the contempt to the human dignity of those unemployed.
The wealth of the nation increases with the work of individuals.
The more there are people working, the more wealth is created. People who do not work translate into lost wealth for the nation, because work is a source of wealth.
A country, like Malta, which does not have resources other than the human ones, would be hindering the creation of wealth if it does not utilize one hundred percent the only resource that it has, the work of all.
Therefore, apart from the social requirement, even from the economic perspective the country has the need to implement a policy that assures work for all.
With great shame, the EU economic policy, that our country has to follow, is against the principle that the government should ensure work for all in the country.
The Union insists that the market should be left free to create work and employment for all those who can work.
The results of the EU economic policy are millions of jobless people in the block countries for a number of years.
The EU policy that prevents the government of a member country from giving financial aid to private and public enterprises so that they will be able to keep in employment workers and their employees is a mistaken policy.
The EU is also mistaken when it does not allow the government of a EU member country from financing projects that create work for unemployed people.
If a government, instead of paying unemployment benefits to those who are unemployed, pays the same amounts of benefits (less the government contributions for social security) in the form of financial aid to an enterprise for each worker and employee that it keeps in its employment, which without that financial aid could not keep in employment, the government would not be spending anything more.
But at the same time, the government will not be losing from receiving the social security contribution of the workers and employees that are kept in employment, receive VAT on the difference between the wages that continue to be paid and the unemployment benefit if they had to be paid, and can also receive income tax of the workers and employees that are kept in employment on the strength of the aid given by the government to enterprises.
Although a government can ensure full employment in the country by spending the same amount that otherwise it will have to pay in unemployment benefits, the EU does not permit it to adopt a policy of direct aid to private and public enterprises and the financing of projects to employ people.
Because the Union insists that aid to enterprises hinder market competition and also insists that it is not the government’s job to create projects toemploy people.
The EU is happy to leave millions of people without work for a long time as long as its economic and free market policy remains untouched.
That is why we are justified to accuse the EU that it embraces a policy not only without a social soul, but even anti-social.
We accuse it that after all it is guilty of the suffering that millions of unemployed workers suffer and for the contempt of the fundamental human right to work.
In our country, thousands of workers and their families are victims of this wrong EU policy and pray that justice be done to the block, or better still, that we get rid of the European Union itself as soon as possible.
Many think that the change of the Maltese Lira with the EU currency, the Ewro, is going to make it more difficult for Malta to leave the European block.
Because they think that when our country does not remain a member in the EU, it will have to change again from the Ewro to the Maltese Lira.
They think that this change will cause damage to the Maltese economy, apart from meaning a great expense to print again the Maltese currency and to change the bank accounts from the Ewro to the Maltese Lira and the automatic machines that give you money with cards.
But this reasoning in not totally correct, because the change from the Ewro currency to the Maltese Lira will not necessarily cause damage to the country’s economy, as it is also not true that the change from the Maltese Lira to the Ewro is in itself going to be beneficial for our country’s economy.
This reasoning is also not correct because when Malta leaves the EU it does not necessarily mean that it will have to change from the Ewro to the Maltese Lira.
The country can if it wants and if it is to its benefit continue to keep the Ewro as its legal currency.
If the country does not want and it is not to its benefit to do so, no one is going to keep it from changing the Ewro into Maltese Liri.
The Ewro paper notes are the same for all the EU member countries.
They are not like the Ewro coins that are minted with our country’s designs.
That is why the Ewro paper notes in the hands of the Maltese people will be changed just the same as other paper Ewro notes in the hands of every other citizen of every EU country.
The Ewro money in the hands of the Maltese will remain of the same value as the other Ewro value in the hands of the people of the European Union when Malta shall no longer be part of the block.
We can see how this is true if we take the example of the American Dollar that we may have.
Although the American Dollar is not a legal tender in Malta, whoever has American Dollars can buy whatever he wants with them by going to change them at a bank and be given their equivalent in Maltese Liri.
If the Government makes the American Dollar legal tender in our country, you can pay and be paid directly in American Dollars.
The same will happen when the Government makes the Ewro a legal tender.
We are going to have some time during which one can be paid and pay in our country both in Maltese Liri and the Ewro.
After some time, only the Ewro will remain legal tender in our country.
The same measures can be taken by the government if we do not remain in the EU.
It can keep the Ewro as a legal tender in Malta and the EU can do nothing to prevent us from continuing to use it.
The EU cannot even change the rate of exchange of the Ewro with the Maltese Lira once the Maltese Lira will no longer exist.
What happens as regards legal tender in our country when we are outside the EU depends totally on what will be to our advantage to do.
Thursday, 15 February 2007.
e-mail: cnimalta at yahoo.co.uk
Thank you for visiting our website
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
Thank you for your help