People’s Movement No to the European Union
SE-414 60 Gothenborg, Sweden
People’s governance instead of superpower rule – Sweden out of EU
The People’s Movement No to the European Union (PMNEU) campaigned very actively to hinder Sweden to become a member of the European Union (EU).
Well in time before the referendum 1994 we warned against a development of EU becoming an European Union Federal State. Step by step EU is moving towards a federation. The proposal of a new constitution represent this form of state building. EU will be a superpower on the global arena like the United States.
The inauguration of the economic and monetary union (EMU) has harmonized the economic policies and EU increased its more economic power over the member states. Consequently, this has led to increased unemployment, deteriorated welfare, impaired environment and reduced consumer safety.
The EU:s common foreign and security policy has gradually been strengthened., and in principle a decision has been taken of mutual defence responsibilities. Member states which are facing an armed assault should be supported by all means of available military means. The EU and its members states shall act in a spirit of solidarity, if a member state is subjected to a terrorist attack, or a natural disaster or a catastrophe caused by humans. In such cases, all instruments including military ones at the disposal of the EU, should be used.
The immigration policy has become more restricted and inhuman. A wall has been built around the EU to protect from refugees and unwanted from outside. The controls within EU:s internal borders have in practice vanished, which has brought about increased smuggling of alcohol, tobacco, narcotics as well as trafficking.
Democracy is diminishing. A great number of decisions formerly taken by national parliaments, are now set in closed and not representative institutions of the EU. This marginalization of democracy continues, partly as veto decisions are abolished within almost all policy areas, partly as the voting regulation within the EU is changed in favour of the most powerful member states.
Thus, today the Swedish membership in the EU implies something else than officially stated in the referendum in 1994.
The new proposal of a EU constitution makes clear the development of the EU in a direction towards a centralised, bureaucratic and undemocratic federal state Within this as a background we consider Sweden shall leave the EU.
Vote the Lisbon Treaty (the EU constitution)
The people of two of EU:s founding countries, France and the Netherlands, voted in early summer 2005 in two referendums with indisputable majorities clear NO:s to the constitution. In spite of these expressions the Head of states of the EU countries deny the self-evident fact, that the EU constitution has been dismissed, as a change of a treaty requests unanimity among the member states.
With the new Lisbon Treaty, which in every matter of importance has the same content as the EU constitution, the EU ceases to be a collaboration project between member states.
The EU will be changed to work more or less as a federal state. More power, and thus loss o democracy, is moved from the member states to EU:s supranational institutions, and at the same time the most powerful member states will radically strengthen their influence at the loss of the smaller ones.
The Lisbon Treaty formalizes earlier court decisions saying that the EU legislation has superiority to member state legislation, including the constitutions. According to the proposal an EU president, an EU foreign minister, an EU finance minister and an EU prosecutor shall be set up.
The EU police collaboration, Europol, will become a federal task, and the EU police force will get authority to carry out operative actions in the member countries. The EU military collaboration shall develop into a defence alliance as well as to carry out large military interventions in other countries.
The PMNEU requests that the parliament and government formally inform the European Council that constitution has been dismissed after the votes in France and the Netherlands. If this will not be the case the Swedish people should have the right to a referendum.
No to the EMU
The PMNEU took actively part in the campaign against the EMU in 2003. The result of the referendum was a clear no to a Swedish participation. Now the task is to safeguard that the people’s stand will be respected, so that Sweden will not get into the EMU by the backdoor by accepting the new constitution. It states that the euro is the EU currency.
Unlike Denmark and Great Britain, Sweden does not have a legal binding exception from the EMU. It is very important that we request a permanent exception from the EMU in order to secure the Swedish people no to the euro. This exception should be of the British model, which gives more economical freedom to act than the Danish one.
The referendum dealt with the third step of the EMU i.e. the economic and monetary union. Sweden participates in the two first steps i.e. the free movement of capital, an independent central bank, as well as some co-ordination of the economic policies (the convergence criteria). The PMEU considers that Sweden shall not be a part of the EMU at all, as it restricts our national sovereignty within the economic politic area.
The PMNEU states that the parliament and the government should negotiate a permanent exception from the participation in the EMU.
Already before the referendum in 1994 the EU commission pointed out to the Swedish negotiators that the Maastricht Treaty contains four areas in conflict with the requirements the law of nations put on a neutral state;
- participation in a future common defence
- common policy of economic sanctions
- common supply regime of coal and steal
- common supply regime of nuclear fission material.
These were important reasons for saying no to a membership of the EU in 1994. But the pro-EU supporters guaranteed the right of Sweden to keep its neutrality even as a member within the EU. Today the doctrine of neutrality is dumped away to history. Nowadays, the establishment only talk about freedom of alliance, or more narrowly freedom of military alliance.
The proposal of the Lisbon Treaty strengthens the military collaboration within the union. The defence policy shall bring about a common defence, and certain member states may go ahead to lead this process of development. EU shall also be mandated to fight terrorism with military means outside the union. It is not sufficient that EU will become a defence alliance, EU shall also become a union, which not hesitates to send fighting troops in order to “fight terrorism” in other parts of the world.
Sweden is a part of the weapon collaboration production within the EU, binding Sweden to provide other countries with weapons irrespective of these countries are involved in war conflicts or not. This is a form of a military alliance. Sweden moves deeper and deeper into the foreign and security co-operation of the EU.
With the EU foreign politics co-ordination the Swedish voice in the world has vanished. Sweden completely subdues to the EU foreign politics, which has become founded on a strategic alliance with the United States. An extensive collaboration with the us is carried through by the mean of NATO, which now is operating outside its own territory. For example Sweden and several other member states participate under the command of the US in Afghanistan. Several member states participate in the Irak war, and are collaborating with the US in its war on terrorism. EU has taken a passive but a consenting position in relation to Israel.
Sweden becomes more and more involved in the EU and Nato’s military adventures. Sweden risks by the Nordic Battle Group to be involved in complicated military conflicts in poor countries, which on the opposite are in need of political and economical solutions.
The PMNEU states that the parliament and the government should safeguard Sweden from joining military alliances. We request that the Swedish traditional policy of neutrality should be reinstated, implying both political and military freedom of alliances. We demand that the EU:s Nordic Battle Group force is liquidated.
The large-scaled agricultural production and the big food industries within the EU are heavily subsidized, meaning that agricultural products can be sold at low prices on the world market. This systematic dumping of prices knocks out local production and ruins small peasants in the developing countries as well as in the rich countries. In the developing countries the EU agricultural policies contribute to poverty and malnutrition. PMNEU protests against the EU protectionist, large-scaled agricultural politics, and high custom tariffs towards countries outside the EU, Claims of patent regulations and capital liberalisations distort the allocation of global resources at the expense of developing countries.
EU is acting within international organisation like the WTO for enforcing the developing countries to accept structural adjustment programs and deregulations. Everything from health care, education, water supply and communication should be privatised and sold out to big transnational companies.
The EU is by the EPA:s (European Partnership Agreements) aiming at enforce 47 of the worlds poorest countries free trade agreements, deregulating completely all custom protections. This is a major threat against work-places in the public sector, which hitherto basically have been funded by income from custom duties.
The PMNEU states that the parliament and the government takes action against the protectionist agricultural and trade policies of the EU.
The superiority of the internal market inside the EU implies a hinder for a successful environmental and climate politics. Single member states are hindered to take steps in advance as this could be considered as trade obstacles. It has at numerous occasions turned out that the EU more listens to the industry than taking environmental considerations, for instance when the REACH was set up ( EU:s chemical products legislation), and when fixing discharge limits of CO2 from cars etc. The EU is approving commercial plunder fishing, even when the cod population is threatened of collapse. In the climate issue the EU is biased pushing for electricity, nuclear power and liberal solutions. Energy savings and priorities for alternative solutions are modest.
The EU:s push for nuclear power implies a serious threat against the Swedish national independence. The EU considers national natural resources, like uranium deposits, as its own property. An extensive uranium prospecting is a threat against both nature and livelihood environments.
The PMNEU requests that the parliament and the government safeguards a national energy, environmental and natural resources politics.
A more human immigration policy
The asylum and immigration policies within the EU deal primarily with controls at the common external border. The restrictive immigration policy with among other things visa and transportation checks makes it more difficult for people to ask for asylum to enter the EU. For instance, everybody who will pass the external border is registered in the Schengen Information System (SIS). Cut downs in the asylum rights violate the United Nation convention on asylum and immigration, and risk the legal security of the asylum applicants.
In addition the EU prepares a common asylum and immigration policy containing proposal to switch from minimum to maximum rules.
The PMNEU states that the parliament and the government requests the single member states should have the right to uphold a human and generous asylum and immigration policy.
Safeguard citizens civil rights
The internal and legal policies are moving in the direction of becoming supra-national. Already there is existing an embryo of a federal police corpse, Europol. A federal judicial system is under construction. There is also a proposal to set up an EU prosecutor and an EU arrest order. A Swedish citizen can already today be extradited to another EU country. In the future, even, Swedish citizens, shall be extradited for acts which are not crimes according to the Swedish laws. The EU parliament voted 2005 yes to the new law of storing all e-mails, telephone calls, sms, and internet traffic. This is in violation of the European convention of human rights, which says that “everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and correspondence” (article 8). The PMNEU states that the parliament and the government requests the single member states should have the right to carry out independent internal and legal policies, and repudiate the law of supervision of electronic communication.
Protect the Swedish welfare
Ever since the admission into the EU deregulations and privatisations have put the public sector under severe pressure in Sweden. This has implied deteriorated services for most people and inferior working conditions. Especially, women have been affected by the cut downs in public spending.
EU competition rules and the procurement directive pursue privatisation of the public sector and the abolishment of state monopolies, which for instance were set up due to public health reasons.
The member states are urged, according to the EU binding economic policy guidelines, to reduce the public expenses, lower the taxes and implement structural reforms of social benefits and the labour market. The so called stability pact put severe constraints upon the economic policy and compels member states to reduce public spending, which will induce social decline.
The proposal of a new constitution (the Lisbon Treaty) does not mention the word “public service” at all. Instead the concept of “service of general economic interests” is launched. The aim is to let private companies and interests gradually to take over public service activities.
The PMNEU states that the parliament and the government should not allow the EU to take binding decisions dealing with people’s welfare.
Defend the rights of the trade unions
In different ways the membership in the EU constitutes a threat to the trade unions, the collective bargaining agreements and the economic and social conditions of the wage earners. The EU legislation has brought about that the focal point in the labour right system has shifted from collective bargaining to pure legislation, and that collective rights are marginalised in favour of individual rights. This process weakens the position of the trade unions.
At the end of 2007 the EG Court of Justice judgement in the Vaxholm/Laval case arrived. It means extensive restrictions in the national labour rights. At the referendum 1994 the EU proponents declared that the Swedish labour market politics absolutely not should be affected. Now everyone can see what these promises were worth.
Several EU-documents underline the need of a flexible labour market. Legislation and agreements on working time, employment security and other labour conditions should be abolished or at least softened. The free movement of labour and service companies sets risks of dumping wages and established praxis on the Swedish labour market. With the enlargement of EU including relatively poorer countries in the East and Central Europe these risks will obviously increase.
If the competition from the companies in the EU low income countries is released, without the right of Swedish trade unions from the first day to demand for Swedish collective bargaining agreements, and if necessary to take strike actions, the Swedish labour market model will in a short time be ruined.
The PMNEU states that the parliament and the government should vote in favour of the national right to decide the rules of the Swedish labour market.
Strengthen the resistance against the European Union
Then PMNEU organize antagonists of the EU from all political circles as well as people with different perspectives of their EU resistance. The superior task is to take Sweden out of the EU.
The PMNEU is an anti-racial, unbound from political parties and a member-governed organization with an independent platform. Simultaneously, the PMNEU participate in setting up networks among independent organizations in order to co-ordinate the EU resistance.
We strive for collaboration with other organizations and individuals, which oppose part of the EU politics, e.g. the EMU, military defence co-operation or other steps towards an increased integration of Sweden within the EU.
We will continue to develop contacts with EU antagonists in other countries in order to exchange experiences and for mutual support. Especially, it is important to develop collaboration between the EU antagonists in the Nordic countries.
Europe is bigger than the EU – the world is bigger than Europe