Is housing a product? Is it a tradable good? Or should it be subject to different rules than those of the market economy? A very specific question, but there were as many answers as there were parliamentary groups in the chamber yesterday General Council And it is that the amendments presented by P.S in the law on the unfreezing of rents that was approved yesterday generated a controversy between councilors that went far beyond the amendments itself, anticipating the debate that was to follow.
In answering this questionif I may, lies at the heart of the parliamentary debate of recent years a Andorra. If we go by the free market and capital rulesone should be able to do what he likes with his property if he is the owner, but the defense of the common good and, even, the constitutional postulates, have forced the Government to intervene on private property. Something that many have applauded, as is logical for those affected by the housing crisis, but that many others have seen as a communist practice that violates any right to property.
With such polarized positions, both al advice as in the street, it is difficult (if not impossible) to make any law that serves to make everyone happy. In fact, the easiest thing is that, in the end, if the measures maintain some control but at the same time unfreeze prices, they end up pleasing no one, neither owners nor landlords. From the Government and the majority, however, were very clear yesterday that the new regulatory framework is completely balanced. Minister Marsolhe even flaunted it, saying that if the no one liked the law is that they had probably managed to find the middle ground between all points of view…
In the manuals on how to do politics in the 21st century we should start to reserve a place for this new and curious way of seeking parliamentary consensus: en instead of trying to achieve them in a positive way pleasing a little to all parties, look for widespread discontent. Wow, if everyone is going in the opposite direction on the freeway, it’s not me who entered the opposite lane, it’s that I’ve reached a middle point of balance with the world. The new equidistance, the nirvana of disagreement.
If for some the law was the culmination of balance, for others it marked the definitive turning point. From the PS, Baron said that it certified the end of Andorra as we know itwhile Escalé, for Concordia, defined it as the culmination of years and years ofa misguided policy on the part of the orangesmarked by the opening to foreign capital and the demographic imbalance caused by having become a low cost country.
Much of the chamber, starting with the Counselor López of DAwas of the opinion that the country’s underlying problem is a lack of supply, a finding that obviously gave rise to various interpretations and solutions. While some like Escalé opted for work for unity as a people and to slow down, therefore, the arrival of foreign population, others shared their usual outrageous proposals. This is the case of the counselor Carine Montané Raynaud (let’s spell the name correctly, just in case), which spoke of the need to make smaller flats (more, still!?), to work in favor of co-living and to bet on “flexible furniture”. For those who don’t know, let’s talk about furniture that is easy to assemble and disassemble and that adapt to various spaces and realities if you have to move. Wow, a kind of furniture similar to what they sell in a Swedish chain and that has nothing to do with custom-made furniture, from noble woods like mahogany and worked with handmade musical instruments that we all have at home.
The other solution of the minister ofAndorra Go ahead they were the expulsions for the big mouth: in the event that a child commits a fault, that he and his whole family are expelled. Because, of course, the mistakes are only committed by the children of immigrant families and, with that, we are sure to do a good job cleaning. The classic speech what a mix immigration and crime and that it is becoming more and more common in some sectors attracted by low-level populism.
Nothing new under the sky of advice in this legislature, with the same ups and downs of the last few months and that always end whether it’s good or bad. Perhaps to vary the usual script a little, the counselor Escalé vto want to show himself as a man of sense now that he is leading the polls and made a proposal that he himself called unsexy: to focus on the opposition of ideas so that people, from home, find that the parliamentary debate makes more sense than producing Instagram clips with media interventions and decontextualized that only seek likes.
If we return to the initial question, the head of government he responded by stating that housing cannot be managed as a pure and hard product, but that nor can it be acted upon unilaterally and defending that the disengagement was from the free market, not from sheltered housing. I don’t know how many people will like Espot’s statements and the law itself, but it is certain that the future of many citizens of the country and the electoral results of the 2027.
