top of page

European Union, WHO and NATO

 The European Union (EU), the World Health Organization (WHO), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)


Europe, as a liberal model for the free movement of people, goods and capital, is an absolute necessity in our time.

Unfortunately, the mainstream parties have transformed the EU (and are still doing so) into a centralist, bureaucratic and planned “superstate”.

The EU tackles issues over which it has absolutely no say (for example, a certain Luxembourg commissioner wanted uniform civil law in the EU), and this violates and erodes the sovereignty of the various Member States.

The redistribution of debts between Member States should not be an objective of Europe either.

In short, the EU as it exists today, run in a completely undemocratic way, with a huge appetite to want to control and regulate everything, has quite simply failed.

The transformation of an economic union into a single centralized state has never been desired by European citizens and will never obtain a majority in a referendum (as the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty impressively demonstrated in 2005 – with the exception of Luxembourg).


We say YES to international cooperation,

YES to an economic union,

but NO to a European central state.




The EU as it exists today is no longer reformable and must be dissolved, to make way for a new democratic union between sovereign states. The union does not need a parliament either: this is why there are national parliaments, as well as only a few administrations for the responsibilities which are exercised at the supranational level: customs, traffic of goods and capital, market of free labour, etc., and all this under the control of the respective governments and parliaments.

This is why we are also going to participate in the 2024 EUROPEAN ELECTIONS: not to join the system, but to help fight it from within.

Other international organizations are also subject to criticism.

Luxembourg has always been neutral. The fact that our country was twice occupied by the German army during the two world wars led us to give up our neutrality and become a member of NATO.

But the North Atlantic Alliance focused on the Cold War against the “Eastern Bloc”.

It is probably in this context, too, that our country was hit by a series of bomb attacks in the 1980s.




After the collapse of the Communist bloc, a discussion on the merits (or lack thereof) of NATO's continued existence should have been held

But, on the contrary, it expanded into Eastern Europe and, with the inclusion of more and more former Eastern Bloc states, Russia came under massive pressure.

Many internationally renowned specialists have repeatedly warned against this trend, unfortunately in vain.

Today, NATO accounts for well over 50% of global defence spending.

Countries like Switzerland, on the other hand, have always practiced a policy of neutrality in foreign policy with great success. They see in it the guarantor of their independence and, ultimately, of the guarantee of peace in Europe.

According to this principle, a neutral country cannot participate in a war between two other countries.

There is no taking sides, and sanctions should in principle be decided by the United Nations and not by another organization.




Unfortunately, Switzerland has violated this principle in the issue of sanctions against Russia, which is leading to internal political tensions.

We believe that a serious discussion must be held to decide whether or not Luxembourg should remain a member of NATO and return to its former position of neutrality following the Swiss model.


This is all the more justified as Luxembourg invests gigantic sums in armaments, especially under pressure from NATO.

Our country has been put under pressure to invest 2% of our GDP (GDP, not budget) in defence spending: based on our GDP in 2022, this would represent 1.56 billion euros, which is equivalent to 7% (!) of our national budget.

Instead of senseless and dangerous military spending, we prefer to invest this money in the essential tasks of the state: fighting poverty, housing, health system, education, infrastructure and internal security!




Another example of how international organizations can degenerate over time is the WHO, the World Health Organization.

Today, this United Nations organization is 80% financed by private donors, who can also determine the objectives linked to these sums and thus actively influence the WHO.

The largest donor is the private foundation of Bill and Melinda GATES. We can therefore say that Bill Gates ultimately decides what is healthy, what makes people sick, and which diseases are fought (and which are not).

The WHO can also determine which diseases are considered pandemics and which are not. This happened, for example, on July 22, 2022, when monkeypox was declared a pandemic.

Even for the H1N1 flu (later known as Corona), the OECD parliamentary meeting found that, via the WHO, the interests of the pharmaceutical industry were probably influencing policy decisions.

This situation seems unacceptable to us and should not be financed by tax money. This money is better invested in medical research in our own country.

bottom of page