Analyzing the developments in opinion and thinking in the last few days regarding the ongoing negotiations between the Government and the Netherlands regarding the refinancing of our debt with the Netherlands, I remain concerned. Urging or wanting to demand that the government simply accept RAft as a condition is incomprehensible. This is already the case if we just look at the trajectory and posture demonstrated by the Netherlands.
But let’s put those aside and analyze the impact that certain norms anchored in the concept of law could have on our country. Not only did the MEPs’ faction come out to point these out, but also the Dutch Council of State, Aruba’s Council of Advisers, the Evaluatie Adviescommissie that evaluated the RFT (financial supervision law of Curaçao and Sint Maarten) and the experience of our island brothers with RFT.
The Dutch Council of State correctly indicates in its advisory (No.W04.20.0423/I/K p. 4) that the rules stand in the way of making investments in our country. In addition to ensuring that they are realistic, achievable and without negative consequences, the long-term impact on our country must also be taken into account. Because the reality is that regulations lock in the ability of our economy to grow by limiting the possibility of making necessary and important investments. To strengthen our economy and make it one more robust, durable and sustainable, we need to make our country less dependent on tourism. To achieve this we must create new economic pillars by investing in diversification.
This is hampered by regulations because the necessary investments cannot take place. This regulation negatively impacted the economic development in Curaçao and Sint Maarten. So it is incomprehensible that the Netherlands wants to continue to impose such rules on Aruba as well. Based on the advice of the Evaluatiecommissie 2021 . Supervision control in the growing sign (evaluation of the Rft Curaçao/Sint Maarten for the years 2018-2020) the islands indicate that with supervision it is realized that there are actually undesirable effects on the development of a long term socio-economic strategy. Various reasons are presented, for example, that the norms are reviewed year after year and therefore they do not offer the necessary margin to make important and necessary investments that in the future must be taken care of for the income. Be careful and desired. Nor do the standards take into account consumer spending as well may have their structural economic returns or for a few years as may be the case with education. In Europe there is agreement that the budget must be in balance or in surplus. Sin However, this goal should not be achieved immediately, but rather by EU countries
They must show that they are working toward that goal. It is better to keep track of what is desirable and best for the country in the long run, rather than annually checking whether it complies with the rules. In my opinion, this should apply equally to Aruba and other islands. It is clearer to be careful about the conditions within which this has to take place.
For these very reasons I believe that it is important to take into account the different advice that is on the table and that it is the ideal time to evaluate LAFT and RFT before seeking to impose a supervision that is aware of its challenges and negative and undesirable impacts.