Kurti says MPs dealt with six Turkish citizens not to deal with a more important issue

In an address made just a few minutes ago on the social network Facebook, Vetevendosje Movement Chairman Albin Kurti has talked about a case that was passed on in the Parliament the very day it was being debated on the expulsion of six Turkish citizens, writes Periscopi.

Kurti believes the issue of the government's introduction of the Privatisation Fund was more important than that of six of Turkey's citizens, and accuses the LDK of giving up on the government to do so.

He says the law for the Kosovo Privatisation Agency has many problems, and as such it was not supposed to pass to the Assembly. Once again, at the end of the writing, he accuses the LDK of being only formally in opposition. He even attributes the very idea of misusing these tools to the LDK.

Albin Kurti concludes his writing with these questions: Are the LDK thinking the PDK will develop Kosovo, which is giving privatisation money to the PDK government? Or is this law a consequence of the PDK's agreements with the opposition “volley”, which I can quickly call into co-governance?

Read the following complete text:

LDK gives the government its hand to put hands on the Privatisation Fund

The last meeting of the Kosovo Assembly was Friday, March 30th 2018. It was there that MPs intensively dealt with the expulsion of six of Turkey's citizens so they would not deal with the issue -- no vote passed on the debate. However, at that same meeting, another important and free issue went through. In the second reading, quickly, overcoming two preliminary points of the agenda, the report with recommendations for the No.06/L-023 Project was voted out on meeting and changing the Law for the Kosovo Privatisation Agency (two times completed and changed earlier).

With this report by the Commission on Board and Finance, this government puts its hands into what is known as the Privatisation Fund, which is thicker than 600m euros from those over 60 waves of generally fierce and abusive privatisation. Of course, it also says that the receiveable provisional funds will return when the remaining trust fund of the relevant Social Company is insufficient for meeting credit requirements in the liquidation process, but this issue could easily become a burden only to the next government.

Amanda 2 was changing Article 1, allowing privatisation means investments in valuable letters, with the goal of regulating the treatment of “remaining “, handling the temporary “fonds” as accessing the Kosovo Republic's Consolidated Fund. At birth 4 changes Article 4, paragraph 3, saying that the timely “Funds, if any, are transferred from the Agency to the Consolidated Fund of the Kosovo Republic, to a special account in the Kosovo Treasury, which temporary funds are used for investments that directly affect the country's long-term economic development”.

At first glance, it is certainly good to enable the Privatisation Fund for the country's long-term economic development”. But there are three capital problems here:

1. Without a socio-economic and national developmental vision, you can't pretend that these changes will bring the results that we may have in order to see progress and prosperity. Moreover, what we call the country's long-term economic development “and what is the way of achieving it certainly is that there are a lot of big differences between us and maybe even within political parties. In advance, a comprehensive strategy with several new integrated laws to target the country's long-term economic development “is needed in principle. Movement V About a year ago, he proposed the Sovereign Fund Development Agency. In others we have not seen proposals.
2. At the time when we have a power of unprecedented corruption even for the region, take it and the privatisation fund and donate it to the government, you also donate the privatisation money to move away to its client structures. The government with 5 deputy prime minister, 21 ministers and over 70 deputy ministers, the government that increases its salaries after signing such harmful contracts with the Global Investment Fund, to which they pay the tax and loan installments by guaranteeing credit, market and profiting at 18.5% of internal returns, should not increase access to our funds, but to reduce life in power.
3. The law for the Kosovo Privatisation Agency has many problems, and not investing funds in Kosovo's economy is just one of them. We have seen in the past that the AKP has serious problems in decision-making. Treating the Law for the AKP and not talking about the super-power of international AKP Board members is absurd. There have been situations when these members have resisted the demand for assessing the achievements of the privatisation process, even sometimes threatening anyone who within the AKP has dared to raise the dilemma if we should continue to carry on wild and unregulated privatisation, without assessing its current effects. Today's 9th article 14th point of this law gives absolute power to international members of the AKP Board. The three international members can suspend any decision made by the Board, as if we were dealing with an agency that is filled with foreign funds, not the sale of our property.

It would not be problematic to return privatisation means to Kosovo, as long as they can be invested in projects with a higher return rate than the country's economic growth rate. This means transferring these tools to an investment fund that would only exploit the same projects in those sectors of the economy seen as economic development carriers. But that is not the idea behind that request. The problem lies elsewhere: Kosovo is borrowing at a high rate in the capital market to finance public debt. In the absence of international funding, the only option is domestic borrowing and banking, exploiting additional deposit reserves. However, in the absence of a secondary government bond market, this possibility of borrowing is taken very quickly and unable to operate with deficits. So the intermediate solution is seen using privatisation means. Of course, it will only be used for asphalt projects, at zero return rates, or negative returns rate when public procurement and strategic contract management is known.

The initial idea of misusing these tools has come from the LDK, and now this government is benefiting because it is easy to force the LDK to support it. Following the secret vote for the new BEC governor, where it opened, it was found that the majority of LDK deputies supported PDK candidate Fehmi Mehmeti, this is the second case where the LDK proves to support the regime in power and that it is only formally in the opposition. Are the LDK thinking the PDK will develop Kosovo, which is giving privatisation money to the PDK government? Or is this law a consequence of the PDK's agreements with the opposition “volley”, which I can quickly call into co-governance? ) P ERISCOPIA