Daniel Smilov's comment:
President Rumen Radev's proposal for a referendum on adopting the euro next year has finally revealed its true nature: it is a last-minute attempt to sabotage the country's membership in the eurozone. Many are calling on Radev to simply admit his true goal. But in fact, he doesn't need to.
From a technological point of view, since it is clear that such a referendum will not be approved by parliament, the president had hoped to challenge the refusal before the Constitutional Court. All of this would take a month or two, and the Constitutional Court's decision could drag on for even longer. This would prevent or at least delay a decision by the EU Council on Bulgarian membership, which would in fact postpone it by at least another year. In addition to the notorious convergence report on Bulgaria's fulfillment of the conditions, the Council's decision on admission to the eurozone is also based on a recommendation from the Eurogroup countries. It would be enough for such a recommendation not to come due to the complications surrounding the referendum proposal for Bulgaria to be postponed.
So, if the country had entered into procedures for the NA to formally reject the president's proposal and appeal it to the Constitutional Court, regardless of the development of events, the sabotage would have achieved its main goal - Bulgaria's remaining outside the eurozone for an indefinite period.
The unconventional decision and its implementation by Kiselova
Against this background, the majority parties - or a majority of them - took the unconventional decision not to allow the president's proposal to be considered by the NA. The idea seems to have originated from GERB, but its implementer was Assoc. Prof. Natalia Kiselova - the Speaker of Parliament. The inadmissibility of the President's proposal gave her reason to leave it without consideration by Parliament. Part of the idea is that since there is no decision by the National Assembly, there will be no appeal to the Constitutional Court.
Such a clever response to President Radev's provocation has its problems, however. In a normal situation, it would be right for the National Assembly to respect the President by formally rejecting his proposal. It is also debatable whether the actions of the Speaker of the National Assembly correspond to every letter of the law and especially to the Rules of Procedure of Parliament. But the main thing is that Kiselova's actions in this case are based on an extremely sound and principled basis:
1. She - as the Speaker of the National Assembly and a constitutionalist - has a special responsibility for verifying the constitutionality of the acts of the National Assembly. The President's request actually forces the National Assembly to make decisions on unconstitutional policies. Kiselova has the right to discretion and to prevent such provocations;
2. If the majority in the National Assembly does not agree with her decision, it can remove her. In this case, the president actually cements Kiselova in her post, at least temporarily, because a large majority in parliament approves her actions on Radev's referendum;
3. Ultimately, even if the Speaker of the National Assembly rejects the president's request, the responsibility for the decision lies with the majority: if it does not share it, it can take the necessary actions, including removing the speaker;
4. Radev's proposal for a referendum is undoubtedly unconstitutional. It is no coincidence that the Secretary for Legal Affairs Krum Zarkov resigned from his post because of this presidential move. In the 2024 Constitutional Court decision on the "Vazrazhdane" referendum There is a comprehensive argumentation as to why the National Assembly cannot postpone Bulgaria's membership in the eurozone given that we meet the criteria for membership. In short, the moment the convergence report establishes that Bulgaria meets the criteria, the legal obligation to enter the eurozone is triggered for us. This report, which we requested completely legally and legitimately, will be released in three weeks. The signals are that it will be positive, which means that Bulgaria meets the conditions for membership. In any case, if a referendum had been held in a month or two, it would have been unconstitutional, insofar as it would have been in contradiction with valid international and European obligations of our country. That is, Radev consciously wants something that he knows is unconstitutional in principle;
5. Kiselova staked her professional reputation to oppose an unconstitutional provocation, which does her honor.
What is particularly dangerous about the presidential sabotage of Bulgaria's membership in the eurozone is its (pseudo) democratic motivation. The people had not had a say on the issue of the euro and the president wanted to give them a say, you see. The argument that the Bulgarians did not have the opportunity to speak out on the issue of membership in the eurozone is curious. In the last four years, citizens have spoken out seven times on the issue of governing the country in parliamentary elections. Seven times they produced large parliamentary majorities of political representatives who clearly declared the euro as the main strategic goal for Bulgaria, which must be achieved in the shortest possible time.
These seven elections are a unique exercise in the history of democracy. They are also absolutely sufficient democratic legitimation for the country's membership in the eurozone. Seven parliamentary elections within a few years are, from a political point of view, a more weighty argument than a referendum, which would most likely end with a small margin in one direction or another.
Direct democracy is not more powerful than representative democracy. Both forms guarantee legitimacy. Seven parliamentary elections in a short period of time mean a lot in terms of the legitimacy of a given position.
This is the real legitimation of our accession to the eurozone
In fact, it is much more important that since at least 2005 Bulgaria has had large parliamentary majorities in support of the euro than an isolated referendum in which a decision would be made in one direction or another (and probably by a small margin). Incidental polls before the popular vote have their weight, but they cannot be compared to a strategically and systematically expressed attitude over two decades. The eurozone is not just an isolated management issue – such as the construction of a nuclear power plant, a landfill or a dam. This is a systemic problem for the governance of the country, which is related to the overall strategies of the political parties in Bulgaria. Therefore, the fact that these parties have generated large majorities in favor of the euro for decades is decisive. This is the real legitimation of our accession to the eurozone, and not the possible results of an incidental referendum, which will be used mainly as a preparation for Russophile populism in Bulgaria.