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

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

It is not true that we cannot leave the European Union

See this European Parliament video that we can leave

On 4 October the leaders of the European Union countries are going to meet in Rome to discuss a draft of the new Union Constitution that was prepared by the Convention that was chaired by the French ex-President Valerie Giscard d’Estaing.

It is not expected that great changes be made to the draft, and many defects that the Constitution has are going to remain there.

When the European Union had decided that the time has come for the Union to have one Constitution in one document instead of the many treaties that today form the Union, it was said that the new Constitution should be written in a manner that it would be understood by everyone, not as it is today where many cannot understand what meaning should be given to the European Union treaties.

But critics of the new draft Constitution all agree that it was just the same written in a manner that many of its parts are difficult to understand except by legal experts, and some parts of it can be given more than one meaning.

When it was decided that a new Constitution be written for the European Union, it was said that it should give back to the EU member countries many of the powers that the Union had grabbed with time, and which could be more effectively done by the governments of the member countries.

This did not happen in the new Constitution although it says that what can be done better by the governments of the member countries rather than the Union should be left in the hands of the member countries.

All the critics agree that with the new Constitution the Union is going to have more powers and not less powers than it has today, and that this means that the Union grabbed from the member countries more powers than it has today and which up to are still in the member countries governments’ hands.

There are some sectors where both the Union and the member countries have powers to make laws.

But member countries can exercise these powers once the Union does not decide that it makes laws in these sectors.

This shows how the union is superior and comes before the member countries.

Some countries, like the United Kingdom, had accepted that a new Constitution be written for the European Union with the hope that thus the continuous process whereby the Union becomes one big state be stopped.

All the critics of the European Union agree that the new Constitution strengthens and not weakens the process of the creation of a single big state by integrating more the member countries.

After all the creation of a single big state was the beginning of the aim of who dreamt with the European Union, the Frenchman Jean Monet.

Jean Monet is considered as the founder of the European Union even though it was not so called before.

He used to insist that the nations of Europe should be led to the creation of one big state but without the people of the European countries becoming aware of what was happening.

According to Monet, this process of the creation of a single big state instead of many European states had to be implemented step by step and not suddenly.

Every step that was to be taken towards the integration of the countries of Europe had to be hidden behind an economic aim and its political aim was to be hidden.

In this manner Monet used to insist for the setup of a single federation, or a federal state of the states of Europe where it will not be possible to go back to allow the member states to be free as they were before.

In the beginning of the life of the European Union (or Common Market as it used to be called) the agreement between the member countries was after all to be decided with the consent of every country.

In this manner al the member countries had the same voice notwithstanding that they did not have the same size and the same population.

With time, this principle started to be chipped until today there is in the union many things that are decided by majority and the country that does not agree, just the same has to accept what had been decided.

Now the new Union Constitution is adding sectors where things are decided not with everyone’s consent, but by qualified majority, not simple majority.

The European Commission, and more so its’ President Romano Prodi, is insisting that everything must be decided by a majority.

But for the time being this is not going to be accepted.

Just the same that is where they are going, and in the future little or nothing is going to remain to be decided by the consent of every Union member country.

That is why the EU critics say that it may be that the member countries may have a voice to speak, but will not have the strength to stop that with which they do not agree from being implemented.

The critics of the European Union and its new Constitution insist that there is a big anomaly in the union that the new Constitution made worse instead of fixing it.

The appointment of the members of the European Parliament is made by means of elections in every member country.

That which is next is going to be held in June next year.

But in every Union member country, elections are held for the appointment of members for its Parliament, members that are sent to the European Parliament.

The critics reiterate that this arrangement means that members of the Parliament of a country decide on those things that are not decided by the European Union, and the members of the European Parliament should not speak about things that are decided by the national Parliaments of the member countries.

So there are two Parliaments that decide matters of the same people and the members of the two Parliaments may be representing a different majority.

A an example, the majority of the European Parliament may be right wing and conservative, while the majority of the Parliament of a member country would be left wing or socialists.

This will lead to those sectors of life in a country that fall under the European Parliament to be decided according to conservative and right wing beliefs, while those sectors of life of the same people that fall under the power of the national Parliament will be decided according to left wing or socialist beliefs.

This mix up is in the heart of the structure that the European Union has, and which the new Constitution does not fix, but increases it.

In the 18 September edition of l-orizzont an incorrect writing appeared about CNI and the CNI Chairman, from a source that is expected to be more serious and correct.

It was written that at the peak of the storm prior to the Referendum and the Election, the CNI Chairman abandoned it and that the CNI had vanished.

These two allegations are false.

The CNI Chairman, although he did not continue to occupy this post, had always continued to be active to the last day of the Referendum campaign.

The CNI continued to the last moment of the Referendum campaign contributing writings in newspapers, organizing public meetings, producing television programmes on Smash TV, taking part in popular television programmes (that someone else had boycotted), carried out a cartoons campaign against EU membership in The Times (that someone else did not even dream about), took part in every discussion programme for which it was invited on television, on radio, and in public.

All this was done apart from the great number of foreign distinct personalities that were brought to Malta to hold public conferences.

For all this work, none from the CNI were paid, and many contributed money from their own pockets to pay for the expenses.

After the Referendum, the CNI could not continue as an organization taking part in the electoral campaign because the CNI has as its members both Labour and Nationalist supporters who want Malta to remain independent and free.

This notwithstanding, members of the CNI found the means how, not as CNI members, to take an active part in the Election campaign.

Not less than four were election candidates and another one, not on behalf of the CNI’s, spoke in not less than 38 public meetings prior to the Referendum and the election.

One should be reminded that while the IVA movement had the total support of the Nationalist Party, the CNI was not given similar support. Indeed, frequently the CNI activities were boycotted by the media and the CNI had to pay for the promotion expenses.

Following the election, the CNI showed that it did not vanish.

It remained consistent and serious in its line and purposes for which it was set up, even when someone else is doing everything possible to convince that he should change his policy.

Apart from taking care of this page on l-orizzont every forthnight, the CNI is broadcasting a programme every forthnight on Smash TV and asked to be given the same facilities of the new propaganda programme in favour of the EU on PBS so that the CNI can broadcast the truth about the Union and not only propaganda.