WELCOME TO THE CNI WEBPAGE

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

TELL YOUR PARLIAMENTARY DEPUTY THAT YOU WANT MALTA TO REGAIN INDEPENDENCE AND FREEDOM

In the first month of this year Malta will have paid the European Union €4,340,000

The European Union ordered that in 2011 the Maltese and Gozitan people pay it €68,000,000

€186,000 daily stolen from your childrens mouths

We shall save the Shipyard from the capricious EU

Engineer Lawrence Ciantar, who for some time was a member of the Shipyard Council, Head of Enemalta, and occupied many other important posts, last week made a strong appeal to save the Shipyard, and for this purpose suggested the set up of a task force of knowledgeable persons, with executive powers.

It will be fitting if the representative of the European Commission informs it of the article by Mr Ciantar so that the Commission will understand what disaster it has made with the plan called the restructuring plan for the Shipyard, that it imposed to accept that our country becomes a member in the Union.

“the so-called restructuring programme was nothing else except an exercise of workers reductions to reduce the current expenditure. No investments were made in modern tools and machinery to increase the efficiency and quality of work. There was no training for employees in new technologies and particularly in management.

The reduction of apprentices entries, so much needed so that the Shipyard continues to develop, has much weakened the Shipyard potential for the coming years.”

Mr Ciantar mentioned many factors that led the Shipyard to a disastrous situation.

“for some time the industrial relations ended up in a state of frustration, that led to a great lethargy among the management and workers.”

“although different proposals were made, there was little effective enthusiasm for the Shipyard to be strengthened.”

“the running of the Shipyard was effectively entrusted into foreign management hands. Apart from this, some of the contracts that were won by the Shipyard were passed on to foreign contractors who employed foreign workers. Thus these contractors enjoyed the profits, and the work experience also went out of the country, while the Shipyard suffered the losses. This situation had a strong negative impact on the Maltese workers moral.”

Mr Ciantar warns that a few workers cannot be allowed to cause damage to the interests of the mass of the workers.

“the majority of the workers are people who do their duty well. Many were the ship owners who expressed satisfaction for the service and the work that they were given by the Shipyard under the hands of Maltese workers.”

After insisting that strong determination and resolution is required from everyone for the Shipyard to be saved, Mr Ciantar suggested that:

“In the present circumstances a task force with executive powers should be set up formed by competent members in shipyards work with the scope of analyzing the running and the procedures that regulate contracts and work and introduce disciplined practices on all activities, both managerial, as well as work. The proficiency of the Marketing Team should be strengthened with competent and professional persons.”

“The Shipyard administration should include a strong element of qualified Maltese managers, and leave space for the services of foreign experts, where it is required. The work of foreigners should be reduced slowly to make better use of Maltese workers.

The apprentice scheme should again be implemented for the Shipyard. Extensive research should be made on which work sectors the Shipyard can diversify and spread its activities. The possibility of the Shipyard to team up with a strategic partner to explore new markets should be examined.”

Mr Ciantar did not hold back from saying that the Shipyard had and still has potential to be commercially viable and

“it will be a great mistake if that which had been built by our forefathers on a span of hundreds of years, our generation will be the one that destroys it.”

Lack of the EU social conscience

The policy of unrestricted free trade that the European Union embraces is defective, mistaken and damaging for the common good of the country.

A country that imports products that are sold cheaper than similar products made in the country, will be helping the consumers of these products by paying lower prices for them, but then will have to tax the consumers to have funds to pay the granting of social assistance to the workers of the country that end up without work because the products that they produce in the country will not be sold.

That which the consumers save in lower prices, they will pay in higher taxes.

Because the amount of money spent on the buying of imported products, leaves the economy of the country and ends up in foreign hands.

But if this amount of money is spent on products made in the country, the amount remains in the economy of the country and in the hands of the people of the country.

What is better for the common good of the people, that they pay lower prices and have more unemployment, or pay higher prices but will not have unemployment and pay less taxes ?

A country where traders have a greater power and voice, chooses a policy of greater importation.

A country that wants that first and foremost everyone will have work and lives decently, chooses a policy of protection for the country’s local production.

If we then look at the question from an important aspect – the social one – there is no doubt that socially it is very much better that the products will be higher priced, but everyone is working, than the products sell for less, but there will be a number of families that depend on social assistance for their living.

The capitalist and liberal policy of the European Union does not consider the social aspect of the matter as the most important.

But whoever wants the common good, cannot forego from giving the greatest weight to the social aspect of the people of the country.

The European Union is showing this shortcoming in the proposals that it is making for the reduction of the emissions of carbon dioxide by the

These increase the espenses and make these industries less competitive when compared with those of countries outside the Union.

According to the European trade unions these proposals will lead the mentioned industries to close in Europe, and increase those outside the Union that will not have the same expenses, and just the same they will emit the same amounts of carbon dioxide.

The European trade unionists are trying to explain to the European Union that while it insists that the mentioned industries, in the Union countries, make the necessary expenses to decrease the carbon dioxide emissions, the Union should impose duties on the products of similar industries outside the Union that do not take the same measures to reduce the carbon dioxide, so that the imported products do not take the market of those European industries.

With the amount of duty collected, the European Union will be able to make other projects in favour of climate protection and enhancing the environment.

But until now, the European Union bigheads do not want to know and they do not care for the loss of employment of these workers with these industries.

This is evidence of the lack of the Union social soul, and also of the its lack of thinking.

The EU is killing industry in our country

The European Union is split on the policy of importation of products made outside the Union.

Some Union countries whose big enterprises closed the doors of their factories and opened others in countries outside the Union, from where they import the products to be sold in the Union markets, wants the Union not to make any restrictions, neither of duties nor on quantity, on the importation of products.

Other Union countries that have maintained their enterprises open, want the Union to limit importation of similar products as those of their enterprises, made outside the Union.

We have many examples of this fight.

We have a Dutch company that makes electrical lamps in China, insisting with the Union to allow importation in the Union of their lamps from China, while a company in Germany that makes electrical lamps is insisting with the Union to limit the quantity of lamps that enter the Union from China.

A little while ago some Union countries that produce shoes, to protect their industry, encouraged the Union to stop the importation of shoes from Asian countries.

The same was done by the Union countries that produce textiles and clothing.

Also a little while ago, European steel enterprises insisted with the European Union to investigate their complaints that steel enterprises in Asia were taking their markets by selling their steel at a lower price than it costs to be produced.

Also a little while ago France insisted with the Union that the EU should protect its enterprises by controlling the sale in the Union markets of products made in countries that are not ready to grant the same facilities for the importation of products made in the Union.

All this witnesses that the European Union commercial policy of an open market free of any protection for European enterprises, is a policy that is making a disaster of the Union manufacturing industry.

The industry in Malta suffered great damage with the European Union commercial policy imposed on our country with membership in the Union.

Our country dismantled all protection that it used to give to industry in our country, and many factories suffered losses and had to close down.

This was with great losses of work of hundreds of workers, and great losses of capital that was invested to establish the factories and enterprises.

That is why our country’s Federation of Industries is giving up and uniting with the Chamber of Commerce, because importation is killing our country’s industry.

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