Comment on DOS-2026-0628-0001
Andrew CaldaroneOpposeIndividual
Summary: An individual is protesting the inclusion of coinage in the proposed Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with Albania and Romania. The commenter argues that coinage was intended for wide circulation and trade, and that including them in the MOUs is an over-reach that ignores the legality of trade within the EU.
I am writing to protest the inclusion of coinage in the proposed MOU's with Albania and Romania. These items freely travelled throughout the Mediterranean and Eastern Europe for centuries as they were made for this function. Most Romania issues from Celtic times circa 200BC were imitations of Greek and Bulgarian types that were made to facilitate trade with these neighbors! It should be obvious that many would travel far to the south of Romania in ancient times. They were also made in mass quantities for this purpose. The same can be stated for Albanian coinage. As such, I would argue that their inclusion in the MOU at all is an over-reach due to their original purpose and commonality. But beyond this, with Romania - as part of the EU - exporting coinage and other antiques throughout the EU is completely legal. They sometimes get sold and legally exported to countries outside of the EU. But, somehow, they can be confiscated by the USA and returned to Romania? This is pretending that the laws of the EU governing these transactions are irrelevant.