12.4 C
Bucharest
October 2, 2020
EDITORIAL

51 shades of the Romanian Parliament

Around 10 days ago, President Iohannis enacted a law that should have been one of the few “well done things” which we are threatened with since more than two years, and which should directly support and be in the exclusive benefit of the Romanian people and national economy – 51 percent of Romanian products on the shelves of all the hypermarkets in the country.

At first glance, everything seems to be wonderful and advantageous, making you say “well, finally!, there’s somebody who’s thinking at the real ‘national interest’, not only at the national interests that are strictly political or in the benefit of the big personal business octopus of one or another in Romania or abroad”.

But, as it happens in more than 99 percent of the situations of this kind, the law on promoting and selling food products of internal origin hides inside it a real Trojan little horse. Not say goat, which necessarily has to be sacrificed, obviously to their detriment.

Accidentally or not, I know from very trustful and direct sources he way in which this law came to life, first as a legislative initiative, as well as its steps to the moment of enacting it by the chief of state.

Before saying a few words about its true political “paternity”, which is far from the one officially stated and known by the most of Romanians, I would like to mention that this law, as any other law which is initiated, designed and delivered to the Romanian people in the last 27 years, is completely hit and decentered by all kinds of lacunar details, which would have been essential for the law to be a real national benefit and a success of any political part of the moment.

First of all, this law wanted to be a profoundly protectionist one.

In the most fluent and autochthonous terms, the law aimed to promote the Romanian internal food production and to give a chance to the Romanian producers to have an equal competition, or at least a competition closed to this equality, on the internal market, compared to the external import of goods and products of the same kind.

This was an excellent idea, but it wasn’t ended or designed on practical grounds, adapted to the real nature and regulations of the common market in which it happens for us to be.

And this is because the status of the Romanian producer related to the internal market and the way he has to legally be oriented to the competitive area on this market should have been regulated before any other things, in order for the law to have the desired consequences.

We know very well that until today Romania doesn’t have a well-made up legislation, finalized and stamped in the matter of the local food and consumer goods producers’ possibility to associate themselves in cooperatives, guilds, or in any other kind of working groups to provide them with a legal basis for operation and protection.

The mentioned law speaks in very vague, almost inexistent terms about this extremely important matter.

In other European countries like Italy, France, Belgium etc., the working cooperatives made up on the idea of guild represent a powerful filed, extremely well defined from the national and economic traditions of those countries, bringing corresponding benefits both to their states and to the citizens.

One of the important stipulations of this law, which is also confusing, refers to the “short chain” of goods’ circulation from the producer to any of the entities representing the final point for the products sale on the market.

Here, everything becomes even more complicated and foggy, regardless of the shortness which the legislators wished for the chain or for the producers.

Allegedly, this “short chain” would create tax exemptions and commercial additions which otherwise would be unavoidable for the producers and also for the beneficiary, namely for the consumer.

But nowhere in the law is explicitly mentioned what this expression (“short chain”) really means and what is its real purpose and route, with all its fiscal and legal implications.

Thus, a real cascade of suppositions, speculations and fears related to this law has already became to fall, certainly with generally good intentions, but ended in a totally messy way, having no precision and causing even more confusion on a market which is already confused.

All these rightful suppositions, speculations and fears, are coming not only from the press, but especially from the Romanian people, as it should be, since they are the real beneficiaries of the law and those being directly interested and entitled to know its real consequences.

Where, in the law, do explicitly appear the amendments on the way in which the producer is protected and stimulated towards the foreign competition on the internal market?

Where do we find the stipulation of the consumer protection? Who will finally really pay, besides the products arrived on the short, medium or long chain, fees, additions and taxes for the shelf in the stores or for the stand in the market, or the broken pots in a political manner in the head of the eternally confused and blind citizen?

Besides, where international agreements are available, there are no two ways about it!

And that’s the way things works about the agreements that Romania has as an integrated state into the common market, with its internal producers and with politicizing wishes and ideals totally dedicated to the country and to the people.

And because we spoke about politicking and political actors creating each time another national pre-electoral episode with patriotic theme and grandiose theater scene as laws, we should say that the real paternity of this law seems to belong to a PSD senator and to his colleagues.

In one way or another, finally, this law ended up being teleported in a mysterious way in the Liberal parliamentary group’s drawers, as it happens for more than twenty years in the legislative jungle from the Romanian Parliament, where the guerilla war between Left and Right is a matter of life and death, a matter of laws, motions and replies directly impacting only the Romanian voter.

The enacting we’ve assisted to on July 11 this year was, in the backstage, a complicated thing because, initially, President Iohannis was about to reject the law on… let’s say, more or less fair and well oriented grounds to the laws of competition and common market. But in the end, the whole story had a circumstantial electoral look, flanked by notions like “my party” and the technocrat Government annexed to the presidential requests to this ghost-party.

Do not understand that PSD’s initial interests on initiating this bill and on making it viable would have any sacrosanct or strictly patriotic origins.

But I find alarming that this kind of “playing tig by fooling others” or “look, there’s PSD’s law… but it’s actually PNL’s law” is done in the Romanian Parliament, besides many other weird things, which otherwise wouldn’t have any connection with the welfare and interest of the people or of the Romanian state.

The conclusion for this law with popular and traditional nature shown on the Romanian hypermarkets’ can be only one: if once at 30 years is happening that the politicians try to make a gesture of making good things for the Romanian nation and state, maybe they should be even more concerned on the real interests of these laws designed for Romanians and less on the electoral and political pride, games and interests that are behind these laws.

And they should do it on the short chain if it’s possible, without any supplementary additions to the burden and poverty level of the Romanian people.

Related posts

Gruia Dufaut Law Office: Measures targeting the economic and the labour and social protection sectors in the context of COVID-19 crisis

NINE O'CLOCK

Future of the EU as seen by the citizens

State of the Nation Address by President of Kazakhstan Kassym-Jomart Tokayev: Constructive Public Dialogue As A Key To Growth

NINE O'CLOCK