The Constitutional Court slapped associate professor of constitutional law. This opinion was expressed to the Bulgarian National Radio by former constitutional judge and professor of constitutional law Prof. Plamen Kirov, after the Constitutional Court ruled on the request of the head of state Rumen Radev that the parliament consider his proposal for a national referendum on the adoption of the euro.
The Constitutional Court told us that the Speaker of the National Assembly cannot put himself in the place of the National Assembly itself and cannot decide issues within the competence of the parliament as a collective representative body, he pointed out. According to him, Assoc. Prof. Natalia Kiselova "has clearly realized that this action contradicts the Constitution".
Such petty tricks and procedural tricks cannot prevent the parliament from making a decision, emphasized Prof. Kirov, but added that "no one can oblige the parliament to make a decision to hold a referendum".
If Radev's proposal is not returned, then the Speaker of the Parliament, implementing the Constitutional Court's decision, must distribute it to committees, which should prepare a report, a draft decision and have it discussed in a plenary session and voted on, Kirov explained.
"There must be a final act of the National Assembly."
The law provides for 45 days for a campaign before a referendum by law, the former constitutional judge pointed out. In his words, there is no time for such a referendum.
"These 45 days, assuming that the parliament decides to hold a referendum, when will they expire? After the New Year. It is obvious that there is no time to hold a referendum on such an issue. Given that there is a monolithic majority, there is no drama here. There is political talk."
For now, the president is winning. The big loser is the former Speaker of the National Assembly, believes Prof. Plamen Kirov.
"The problem is not the fear of the political elite. The political elite is not afraid. The model of direct democracy is wrong with us. The Constitution does not indicate a single issue on which a referendum is mandatory and everything depends on the will of the National Assembly. If the constitutional text were more categorical and listed topics on which a national referendum is mandatory, then there would be nothing for the members of parliament to judge. There would have been a national referendum on the relevant issues. Now there is none, because everything depends on the people's representatives. Well, there is no majority that would abdicate and instead of resolving an important political issue, send it for arbitration to the people. That is why there will never be a meaningful referendum in our country. We did not hold a referendum on EU membership or NATO membership, we did not hold one and will not hold one on entering the eurozone."