Small opposition filed motion urging government to accept RAft
During the second round of the delibaration of the Raft (Rijkswet Aruba Financieel Toezicht) law, the Parliament of Aruba was presented with a motion from the side of the Accion21 faction, MAS and independent parliamentarian Mr. Santos Do Nacimento, the independent parliamentarian Mrs. Gerlien Croes took the flip-flop posture.
On 22 August 2023 during the first round, he supported the first motion to agree to a Kingdom Law (Rijkswet) and two weeks later on 7 September 2023, he did not sign the second version of the motion but at the end of the night voted pro-choice. This is clearly an indecisive position. Negative feedback on the Raft: The Rijkswet Aruba Financieeltoezicht (Raft) consensus found several negative feedback, including: – On 10 March 2021 the Council of State of the Kingdom gave an advisory opinion on the Raft proposal, whereby the Aruba Parliament expects the Netherlands to give the necessary attention to the various points of concern that have been raised. To this day, the Dutch do not seem to have taken these points into account
– On 10 March 2021 the Advisory Board gave an advisory opinion on the Raft proposal, recommending that the government of Aruba pay the necessary attention to certain points that are important when reaching agreements with the government of the Netherlands regarding the Raft
– On April 29, 2022, the Parliament of Aruba discussed the Raft in a closed meeting. A large majority was concerned that the RAFT would put Aruba’s Parliament in jeopardy, because by the time you accept this Raft, it is the Tweede Kamer (House of Representatives) and the Dutch people who will decide the life and future of Aruba! And so the Parliament of Aruba can no longer make use of its budget right. Inequality of the Raft
– Unlike our sister islands of Curaçao and Sint Maarten, at the time of accepting the Rijkswet Financieel Toezicht (RFT), Kingdom Law for Supervision in 2010, they received dispensation of their national debts. Due to the same type of law that the Netherlands imposes on Aruba, the Netherlands does not want to talk about dispensation; in fact, without giving a reason why
– Unlike Curaçao and Sint Maarten, which are always financed through the Netherlands, receive a 3% interest from their government revenues. So for Aruba, it would be 3.2% if we accept the Raft. If you don’t accept it, you will have to pay between 6% and 8%. Is this a real help that the Netherlands wants to give to Aruba?
– The Netherlands requires Aruba to have a surplus in its budget and all surplus should be given to pay debts. But compared to Curacao and Sint Maarten, they just need to have a balanced budget to be able to approve the lending by the Netherlands
– The Raft that the Netherlands wants to impose is based on only 15% of Aruba’s national debt, whereas 85% of our debt is to international banks and for 37 years they have never demanded a payment arrangement of this kind
The reality of a Raft – From the advice of the Evaluation Commission 2021 Supervision and management in the sign of growing (evaluation of RFT for the years 2018-2020). Here we can point out that in Curacao and Sint Maarten, the financial supervision currently implemented on these two islands has undesirable effects on long-term social-economic development
– The General Audit Office of Curacao released its report on August 29, showing how devastating the economic situation in Curacao is. In conclusion, given the content of the Raft that the Netherlands is imposing on Aruba, it is not possible to agree with this bill as it is presented at the moment. The same MEP, RAIZ and AVP with a total of 16 votes in favour passed the motion urging the government to continue negotiations with the Netherlands