conspiracy analyst Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005 Posts: 2279
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 8:50 am Post subject: Break-up of Belgium=Prelude to Break-up of UK |
|
|
Unionists in Belgium explain how the break up of the country will dissolve certain rights guaranteed by people. In Britain we have the opposite being done. Rights are maintained in Scotland as reported in yesterdays Independent and are being taken away in England. A campaign is then made basically to push for Scotland going it alone. Coupled with Prescotts attempt at creating a Northern Parliament and the BBC's move to Manchester we are heading for the break up of the UK. This will have an effect of creating tiered regions with different standards for health, pensions, education provision as are evident now.
BELGIUM
"No to the break up of our rights and the country!"
Every day, Belgium sinks deeper into crisis. Three months after the
June 10 legislative elections - while the leaders of the victorious
political parties try, in vain, to form a "coalition government" -
this crisis threatens to break up Belgium itself and all the federal
social conquests, particularly Social Security.
Behind what the international press presents as a "communitarian"
conflict, there is in reality all the policies of social destruction
that the European Union and the capitalists defend. The intervention
of the working class united in and with its organizations is the only
force, in these conditions, capable of offering a way out. It is with
this perspective that the following appeal was launched by 10 Flemish
labor activists and 10 Walloons labor activists.
To the workers, to the youth, to the trade unionists:
The moment is serious. What is at stake in the current political
crisis are our social rights!
What force can end this march to dislocation and the destruction of
our rights?
>From the north to the south of the country, they are in the process of
conditioning the people for the break-up of Belgium.
What is the goal of all this?
All of the declarations of the bosses call for a radical undermining
of the rights of workers. Since the beginning of the "negotiations"
following the June 10 elections, there have only been violently anti-
social projects on the table. These projects come as much from the
partisans of the regionalization and separatism as from those who
claim to want to maintain an important federal power.
The president of the FGTB, Rudy De Leeuw, was right to say: "Who will
benefit from a big communitarian reform? I am still waiting for
somebody to show me how such a reform would serve the interests of the
workers. If they break up Social Security, poverty will increase in
Walloons; but in Flanders, too, the gap between the rich and the poor
will rise. I do not see any advantage for the Flemish economy. Most of
the Flemish proposals for a state reform come from the Flemish
employers. These folks rarely mobilize for social improvements. When
the VOKA calls for regionalization of unemployment benefits and pre-
pensions, you can well imagine what it is going to
collect." (September 4, 2007)
Careful, we're in danger! Wages, collective bargaining contracts, the
right to work, and Social Security are threatened. That is why it is
the duty of the leaders of the SP and the SP.A to refuse to associate
with a "reform of the State" that would go against the objectives of
the FGTB. The union would benefit greatly from bringing together the
leaders of these two parties to demand that they pronounce together,
clearly and publicly, this perspective.
Neither the plague nor cholera
Today, those who prepare for the break-up of Belgium want to make us
choose between the plague and cholera: Either a governmental agreement
to break up our social rights, while pretending to "save Belgium" (for
a short period: the country would not survive a long time if the
federal social rights are dismantled) or the immediate break-up of
Belgium, with the effect of directly getting rid of our social rights
guaranteed nationally.
That we have reached this point is the result of the policies of
social regression dictated by the European Union and the European
Central Bank, which is subordinate to the American financial markets
in crisis, as the recent news demonstrates.
All the parties willing to "negotiate" are situated on the respect of
the demands of the European Union. Already, the essence of the laws
voted on in Belgium are only the transcription of European directives.
For years, we have seen a serious social retreat in Belgium, as in all
of Europe. Today, the European Union, as a relay for the financial
markets, wants the governments to go even further and get rid of all
the social conquests. But this objective comes up against the Belgian
working class.
Of course, the workers have suffered blows, but they have not lost
their strength - close to 3 million workers are unionized in our
country. That is why the current political offensive aims to dismantle
the working class to more effectively dismantle its rights.
In our opinion, the same people who want to break up the unity of the
Belgian working-class and its conquests are the same people who,
throughout Europe, threaten the existence of nations, which are the
framework in which all the collective and social conquests have been
won. Are we exaggerating?
Asked by Le Soir (August 14), a researcher of the Institute of
International and Strategic Relations (Paris) responds to the
question: "Why does the European Union not react against these
separatist drives?"
The researcher responded: "The European Union has a rather ambiguous
attitude. This movement of ethnic secession does not really handicap a
liberal Europe, which is nothing other than a big market. It does not
see this as an important obstacle. Š At the end of the day, the result
will be the break-up of social and national cohesion."
Bart de Wever, of the NVA, confirms this analysis by responding to a
question of the Telemoustique weekly (September 5), which asked him:
"Do you want to see Belgium disappear?"
De Wever responded: "In my opinion, it has become superfluous in our
European context, without which I would not support the autonomy of
Flanders. Belgium will dissolve very slowly, like a pill in water,
because the era of borders is past and because it is wedged between
the power of regions calling for autonomy and the supranational
structures in Europe. Now that the Euro has replaced the Belgian
franc, there is no more natural barrier to this natural evolution."
What force can end this drive to dislocation, the destruction of our
most essential social rights?
We note that the leadership of the FGTB clearly has taken a position
in defense of the federal social rights. The leadership of the CSC has
been led to do the same.
The very existence of the FGTB as a national union federation,
bringing together into one organization the workers of Flanders,
Walloons, and Brussels, incarnating the unity of the working class of
Belgium, is a conquest.
In these conditions and because the moment is extremely serious, we
feel that the leadership of the FGTB has a major responsibility. It is
up to it call for a mass mobilization to prevent a disaster.
We address all the leaders of the FGTB to say: Call on the workers to
take to the streets, call for a huge national demonstration in
Brussels, uniting the workers of Flanders, Walloons, and Brussels (and
propose that the CSC join), around the demands:
- No to the break-up of our social rights and the country!
- Defend the unity of Belgian working class!
- Maintain all the federal social conquests!
As the FGTB demands in its May 2007 memorandum:
- The collective labor contracts should remain national!
- The same right to work should cover all the workers of the country!
- Social Security, with its unemployment, health, and family aid, must
remain federal!
There can be no doubt the workers and youth would respond massively to
such an appeal. This is the only path to stop this march to
dislocation and the destruction of our social rights.
First signers:
Eddy Baert, délégué ACOD Iris ;
Micheline Bruyninckx, déléguée BBTK (Dexia) ;
Jeanine CHAINEUX, vice-présidente CGSP-administration régionale
Verviers ;
Philippe de Menten, membre du comité exécutif de la CGSP enseignement
Bruxelles et du bureau exécutif communautaire de la CGSP
enseignement ;
Fayçal Draïdi, délégué syndical SETCa ;
Yves Eeckman, militant SETCa ;
Marc Goblet, président de la régionale FGTB de Liège-Huy-Waremme ;
Geert Haverbeke, délégué BBTK Dexia ;
Rudy Janssens, secrétaire fédéral CGSP ALR, région de Bruxelles
capitale (à titre personnel) ;
Philippe Larsimont, ex-délégué SETCa métal Liège ;
Raymonde LeLepvrier, secrétaire régionale SETCa Namur ;
Dirk Lodewijk, employé ABVV Liedekerke, adjoint au maire de Liedekerke
(sp.a) ;
Jan MARTENS, secrétaire BBTK Antwerpen ;
Serge Monsieur, vice-président CGSP Vivaqua ;
Jos Muris, délégué BBTK bij Veolia ;
Bernadette Mussche, secrétaire BBTK-SETCa BHV ;
Olivier PALMANS, délégué principal CGSP Télécom-Aviation ;
Antoine Ruggieri, président de la commission pensionnés-prépensionnés
métal FGTB Liège, ex-permanent FGTB Cockerill ;
Henri-Jean Ruttiens, permanent syndical SETCa BHV ;
Rik Steeland, membre de BBTK Kortrijk ;
Francis Stevens, secrétaire adjoint BBTK BHV ;
Michel Vandermaesen, délégué BBTK Citroën ;
Jan Vanderpoorten, délégué principal ABVV/FGTB Audi ;
Hubert Van der Voorde, délégué BBTK Dexia.
This appeal was launched by the Committee for Unity
CONTACT: Yves Eeckman - Rue Georges Raeymaekers, 13, 1030 Bruxelles -
yves.eeck...@skynet.be
-----
The motion adopted by the federal committee on pensions of the FGTB
As a proposal of Antoine Ruggieri (president of pensions committee of
the metal sector) a motion was adopted, which declared the following:
"Š We note that, every day, the political situation gets worse and
they are leading us into a wall. We cannot wait any longer to defend
what it has taken us a life to win (Social Security, the right to
work, collective conventions) nor to defend our immediate demands (for
example, linking social payments to living standards, which would
allow us to lively in a dignified manner and not drown in precarity).
Consequently, we address the leaders of the federal FGTB to ask them
to organize, as soon as possible, a big federal demonstration (as a
common front, if possible, or, if not, with FGTB alone):
- To maintain federal solidarity and, thus, oppose - as demands the
manifesto of the FGTB - any regionalization of Social Security,
collective conventions, and the right to work.
- To maintain the unity of working people, from the north to the south
of the country, faced with bosses who want to divide us in order to
better liquidate our rights.
- To defend the list of demands of the FGTB, particularly linking
social payments to living standards, which is more urgent than ever in
light of the degradation of the purchasing power.
September 24, 2007." |
|
conspiracy analyst Trustworthy Freedom Fighter
Joined: 27 Sep 2005 Posts: 2279
|
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2007 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | SNP lays out plans to leave the UK
By Brian Brady, Whitehall Editor
Published: 28 October 2007
The Scottish First Minister, Alex Salmond, will today lay out a plan to establish his party in power and take Scotland out of the UK within three years.
The Scottish National Party leader will tell delegates at their conference in Aviemore that the leaders have adopted a "three-stage approach to government", which they hope will culminate in a referendum on independence in 2010.
The SNP has spent the past week squabbling with Westminster over a spending settlement it claims compares poorly with the amounts granted to the Labour-Liberal Democrat coalitions that ruled Scotland after devolution in 1999.
Mr Salmond claims the comprehensive spending review, announced by the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, this month, granted Scotland only an extra 0.5 per cent for next year compared with 11 per cent annual increases in recent years.
Mr Salmond is trying to use the spending battle as a central plank of the case for full independence over the next three years.
In his first speech to the SNP annual conference since the party won the Scottish parliamentary elections in May, he will claim he has managed to set the direction for his administration, "giving the people of Scotland confidence... and a sense of a new purpose and ambition for our country".
An SNP spokesman last night said the second stage of the strategy deals with delivering on promises, starting with next month's Budget, which will set the spending framework for the next three years.
Conservative leader David Cameron was reported last night to be backing a plan to strip Scottish MPs of the right to vote on English matters at Westminster.
To have your say on this or any other issue visit www.independent.co.uk/IoSblogs |
Quote: | Scotland 10 England 0: Scottish Nationalists proclaim the benefits of devolution
By Jonathan Brown
Published: 27 October 2007
The Scottish Nationalists were in jubilant mood yesterday as they gathered for their annual party conference in the mountain resort of Aviemore. They are riding high in the opinion polls and seem intoxicated by 160 successful days in power.
Yesterday, Alex Salmond, the First Minister, was given a standing ovation as he poked fun at the Labour Party – which this year lost its first election in Scotland for half a century – before launching into a flurry of eye-catching policy pronouncements which included a £100m investment in colleges and universities.
"I am sure the country will excuse us over the next few days if a wee bit of celebration creeps into our proceedings," Mr Salmond said, to cheers from the conference faithful.
These are rare old times for the SNP. Having seized control of the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood by a single seat in May, they have enjoyed an extended honeymoon buoyed by a series of populist measures. Since the summer, the minority government has moved to scrap deeply unpopular road tolls on the Forth and Tay bridges and abandon the £2,289 "graduate endowment" charge, which is paid by Scottish university graduates to fund tertiary education.
Today, the SNP is claiming, Scots can look forward to comforts from cradle to grave undreamed of by English citizens south of the border. Children benefit from smaller classes and healthy free meals, while being spared the burden of heavy debt faced by graduates down south.
The Scottish health service is vastly better funded than its counterpart in England, with more new hospitals, shorter waiting lists, free prescriptions and the provision of cancer and Alzheimer's treatments considered too expensive elsewhere in Britain. For the elderly, there is free public transport and free personal care. Indeed, the good times apparently being enjoyed north of the Tweed are casting a shadow over the English shires.
At Prime Minister's Questions this week, Graham Brady, the Conservative MP for Altrincham and Sale, asked Gordon Brown; "Why should my constituents pay more tax so that the Prime Minister's constituents pay no prescription charges?"
Mr Brown, whose Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency is the 27th-safest seat in Parliament, hit back by pointing out that, since devolution, it falls to the Scottish Parliament to decide how to spend its budget. But, as the SNP continues to up the ante by providing Scots with social benefits unknown south of Berwick, the headaches for the Prime Minister – and for Alex Salmond – will only worsen between now and the next election. The notorious West Lothian Question – first posed by Tam Dalyell in the 1970s to highlight the anomaly that Scottish MPs in Westminster voted on English issues but the reverse did not apply – has found a new edge, as many Scots are happy to acknowledge.
According to one Scottish political official: "The SNP's activities are stoking up 'disgruntled of Englandshire' against what are being portrayed as the 'whingeing Jocks'. But the reality is that, if they want the same things done in England that we have, then it's up to them to get their politicians to do it. We want to make devolution work. We will have no truck with these nay-sayers."
The arguments, which will be well-aired this weekend in Aviemore, have only just begun. The amount of money Scotland receives from Westminster is laid down under the Barnett formula agreed almost 30 years ago, which allocates central government funding to the various regions of the UK. The pot is limited so, if Scotland chooses to match English and Welsh spending on health and education, it will be forced to make cuts in other areas such as transport, law and order or the environment.
According to Mr Salmond, a Labour government wounded by its losses in the Scottish elections is turning the screws on its old fiefdom. "We must expect Westminster to make life difficult for Scotland," he warned delegates yesterday. "I don't think they are sitting round the cabinet table and cheering us on."
But Mr Salmond is starting to face problems of his own as he prepares for next month's Budget. His triumphant party conference was nearly overshadowed by claims that the SNP was set to break an electoral pledge to recruit 1,000 more police. The SNP also believes the latest settlement in the Comprehensive Spending Review – in which Scotland was promised its Westminster handout would rise to £30bn by 2010 – is "extremely bad". Mr Salmond, who is pressing the case for full independence, believes Scotland will lose about £357m under the deal. He is particularly angry that Scotland misses out on the profits from North Sea oil, which is currently nudging $86 a barrel. But according to Professor Richard Harris, director of the influential Glasgow-based Centre for Public Policy for Regions, a fully independent Scotland would struggle to match what it currently receives from London, even with the proceeds of Brent crude. He says the country would run at a loss of about £1bn a year, which would have to be covered by borrowing.
Both the SNP and the previous Labour–Liberal Democrat administrations have fought shy of exercising their devolved power to vary income tax by 3p in the pound, considering it too politically and economically risky. CPPR analysts calculate that individual Scots still receive a 27 per cent higher share of identifiable government expenditure than people in England, 13 per cent more than the Welsh but 9 per cent less than the Northern Irish. This is despite the fact that the gross domestic product per head of population in Scotland is only 4.5 per cent below that of the UK as a whole. However, Scotland continues to lag behind its southern neighbour in a number of key indicators such as life expectancy.
"Scotland is a better place in absolute terms to live now than it has been for many years," said Professor Harris. "But, in relative terms, has Scotland caught up with the rest of the UK? The SNP government would say no."
For Annabel Goldie, the leader of the Scottish Conservatives at Holyrood, devolution was a turning point for the nation but there are creeping fears that certain elements of the body politic are working to stoke discontent south of the border.
"The heat should be taken out of the debate and the calm facts should be put in place," she said. "At the end of the day, there is only one anomaly created since devolution – and that is the West Lothian question which Gordon Brown refuses to ask, let alone answer."
A brief history of the Union
* 1688-1746: Jacobite uprisings aimed atrestoring the Stuart lineto the throne.
* 1 May 1707: Act of Union is passed.
* 1746: Bonnie Prince Charlie is defeated by royal troops at Culloden.
* 1800s: A road-building programme in Scotland, designed to ease passage for troops, brings about economic regeneration.
* 1934: The National Party of Scotland and the Scottish Party join to form the Scottish National Party (SNP), winning seats at Westminster in 1945 and 1967.
* March 1979: A referendum in Scotland narrowly backs the Union.
* 1980s: Margaret Thatcher uses Scotland as a guinea pig for unpopular policies, such as the poll tax.
* September 1997: Tony Blair takes office promising to bring in devolution. 74.3 per cent of Scots vote for a 129-seat parliament.
* 12 May 1999: The new parliament convenes.
* May 2007: The SNP becomes the largest force in the parliament.
* August 2007: The SNP announces plans for another referendum on independence. |
|
|