The eight senators from the Canary Islands of the PSOE, among whom I am honored to be representing Lanzarote and La Graciosa, were publicly accused of dealing a death blow to the Canary Island banana by supporting a particular vote of our party, within a bill of urgent measures for agriculture and food, all seasoned in networks, with photo included, of the qualifier of guilty of voting against the Canary Islands. They only lacked the "wanted" or putting a "target".
The above would not go beyond a mere anecdotal burden, derived from the ostentation of the position and the exercise of it, if it were not because such statements are false, as is also the correlate of facts of what "is reported". Thus, I have considered it necessary to make the following remarks with the sole purpose of the reader drawing their own conclusions.
In the first place, it is not true that, with the particular vote of my party, amendments presented by CC and ASG were rejected. And this, for the simple reason that, although it is true that the senators of both parties presented identical amendments and literally copied a text from Asprocan, on pages 2 and 3, before the Committee on Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries of the Senate held on November 26, none of the two made it alive to the plenary. Let me explain.
The amendment presented by ASG lapsed due to the absence of the senator from La Gomera to the Committee, and the one presented by CC not defended by its senator Clavijo, who also did not attend, was withdrawn by him an hour before the bill was debated in plenary, these colleagues from the Senate being curiously the ones who have exercised their legitimate criticism of our action with the greatest belligerence, so it is up to them to explain, if they were so interested in the banana, why they did not defend or withdraw their amendments, beyond their last interventions in the plenary.
Secondly, it is true that what was discussed in plenary was an amendment resulting from the intellectual authorship of the PP and Ciudadanos and that had successfully passed the procedure of the report in Committee, being, therefore, the only object of democratic controversy in the plenary.
Well, at this point, it is also necessary to undress the parliamentary tactics of the PP in this matter, since what could be described as simple becomes twisted when one has witnessed what happened or after reading the minutes or viewing the point of the agenda where the so-called banana issue was discussed, because what did the PP do? Well, vote in favor of maintaining its amendment, that is, the one of Asprocan, but, in turn, vote against the total of the bill. Do you understand? No, right? Well, that's what happened to all of us present. In short, it voted in favor of including an amendment in a normative text to, minutes later, vote against that text, that is, against the amendment they were trying to incorporate. Pure coherence!
Thirdly, I highlight the role of Asprocan and its relationship with the senators from the Canary Islands of the PSOE. Until the day of the writing of this article, I confess that no one from this historical organization has contacted, at least, the one who subscribes.
The first news I had about the matter debated was the day before the vote, when I learned of a letter addressed to the minister, which caught my attention that they emphasized the fact that having learned of the particular vote of the PSOE after the celebration of the Committee, previously calling it incomprehensible, the minister was urged to request from the parliamentary group "not to act against a sector acting deliberately against the amendment and approved".
I did not understand what fear could be harbored if the amendment had had broad support in the Committee, unless the letter had another objective that I do not think pertinent or convenient to explain now in order to achieve a rapprochement of positions, especially when I saw that strangeness reinforced after the public reaction of Asprocan after the celebration of the plenary, which in a letter sent to the media, began with "what happened today is unheard of", "we do not know the reason for the change of opinion of the groups that supported the sector last week and that today have supported the opposite cause. Draw your own conclusions".
Having limited the above, and that for me is already part of the past, I believe that, in the future, we are compelled to protect our banana sector fundamentally to work "all" without looking for sterile headlines in order to clear the Ministry the following doubts that it may have:
1st. Why is it convenient for the banana producer not to be obliged to indicate the price in the contracts?
2nd. Why is it convenient for the banana producer not to be obliged to ensure that the agreed price covers their production costs?
3rd. Why is it convenient for the banana producer to be able to apply abusive or unfair practices in the marketing of the banana?
4th. Why is it not convenient for the banana producer to prevent the application to said product of commercial practices that mislead about the real price or quality thereof, or that the product can be marketed destroying its value along the chain?
And I say this because the correct answers to these doubts would be the guarantee to justify the exception that Asprocan intends for our banana sector in the still unapproved modification of the Food Chain Law, from where this debate should never have left and, therefore, where, consequently, our common effort should focus on the defense of the banana sector, since it has been shown that, sometimes, shortcuts lead you to the wrong places.
Fco. Manuel Fajardo Palarea, senator of the PSOE for Lanzarote and La Graciosa.
