Eva Maydel is the Vice-Chair of the European Parliament Delegation for Relations with the United States. She is the parliamentary rapporteur on Bulgaria's readiness to adopt the euro after the release of the convergence report.
She gave an interview for the show "120 Minutes" on bTV.
Is what happened in Sofia over the past week relevant? The debates that gave rise to the president's idea and, accordingly, the refusal of the speaker of the parliament to allow the referendum to be considered. What is the response in the European Parliament? Does it threaten Bulgaria's adoption of the euro in any way?
I think that on this topic, both in Bulgaria and here, it is very clear what happened. A democratic instrument like the referendum is being used in exactly the opposite direction of democracy. Why do I say this? The President made this statement and proposal just two weeks before the release of the convergence report, which is the last step that we need to hear before continuing our preparations for adopting the euro from January 1, 2026. This is an abuse of a democratic instrument, because we all know that there are actually groups, part of society, who do not want the euro to be adopted in our country.
They do not want Bulgaria's closer integration into the European Union. I think the abuse is that the President is using this democratic instrument for personal and party purposes. This is where the abuse lies and it is clear to all of us that this is first and foremost an internal issue for Bulgaria, but our country, not entering the eurozone, is wanted by people who want to separate Bulgaria from membership and from the way it is a full member of the European Union.
You know that at the same time there are many people who are worried, they do not have enough information. You know that in today's world, social networks lock everyone in bubbles of our own stereotypes and we only receive information that the algorithms have previously felt corresponds to our way of thinking. There are many people to whom it needs to be explained. Do you think that politicians missed opportunities and wasted a lot of time, underestimating the need for a campaign, for example?
These are two different topics. It is one thing to want to change the process by which Bulgaria confidently moves. And another is the way in which we communicate important public topics. Whether it is membership in the eurozone or another topic. These are topics that politicians, part of the political society in Bulgaria, but we see this in other countries of the European Union as well, use to divide our societies. And yes, then the way in which traditional politicians communicate should be much clearer, much more accessible. But politicians also sometimes have to take responsibility for standing for certain political choices.
The way in which Rumen Radev was elected is a political choice of a part of the political forces in Bulgaria to stand, to support him, to take pictures with him, even though, here we see, he is taking actions and decisions that are not democratic and do not support the development of Bulgaria fully and fully in the European Union. We see that now these parties are taking another side, but when they had to determine where they sit, they did not do so. That is why I think that the topics and the issues are different. Just as there is a political part to the way communications reach people in terms of dividing society, of course, technology companies and platforms have a role in this, but it is different from the political role.
What is your feeling as Vice-President of the Commission for relations with the US? Does Trump at all recognize the institutional architecture of the EU, given that he has not officially met Ursula von der Leyen for more than a few minutes so far. And even though he was called fantastic a week ago, that did not stop him from calling Europe worse than China again this week.
There are several things. When we talk about institutional architecture, President Trump has repeatedly shown his disagreement with this type of institution. Whether it is European institutions or international institutions. He would like to conduct his communications in a different way. Here I think Europe is adapting well. What does he mean? When it comes to the conversation about tariffs between the European Union and the United States, the European Commission is in constant communication with President Trump's administration. At the same time, on other topics we have good communicators, such as Macron and Meloni, who actively defend and uphold European interests. In other words, the European Union is not just a commission. And we have seen this in the last few months. In fact, the European Union is sitting pretty united right now on every topic. Europe is ready to impose tariffs on American goods worth 100 billion. This is information that has not been officially announced, but is being discussed here.
What is important to explain about the tariffs is the way the Trump administration is looking at them.
At the moment, they think they have a deficit with Europe. But if we take into account that services are not included, then we are actually almost in balance in the way our trade relations are. But it is quite advantageous for the administration not to take this into account. After all, we are currently negotiating. Tariffs, as disadvantageous as they are for the US, are equally disadvantageous for us. And ultimately, consumers pay for them. They are not paid for by politicians who express their positions and ideas. And I believe that President Trump's administration knows this. However, that is precisely why I think that Europe is showing and coming out of a position of strength. It says, if we continue on this path, we are ready. Why are we ready? And why do we actually have this deficit? Well, because Europe offers quality goods. Goods that the American consumer and its well-developed economy want to buy.
But Trump would say Europeans don't buy our cars? What the EU is offering the administration is to find a better balance. First, we are ready to say zero tariffs on every single good. That would put Europeans on the table buying more American gas as well.
Something that would equalize this deficit without once again including services as part of the trade balance. So there are different options on the table. Here is something important that we need to mention. If you remember, during President Trump's election campaign and his first days in office, he said - I will solve these problems immediately and immediately. Right now we see how many months have passed and in fact with very few countries what the right solution should be. We are also seeing a reversal of positions and a constant change in rhetoric.
But the real bazooka of Europe at the moment lies in potential actions against technology companies, many of which are based here. Already, Elon Musk's company - X, was fined $1 billion. Do you expect similar measures against other big companies like “Google“ and “Meta“, not to mention all of them, against all these mastodons operating in Europe?
I have also made my position clear to the European Commission. I do not believe that the disputes we have with American technology companies should first be part of the conversation with “Meta“ and then become part of the trade war. Why is that? Because they are too important and the way they affect our societies. Just as you said at the beginning - their impact on our societies is too great to reduce to just fines. What do I mean? At the moment, the way the EU's power is seen with technology legislation is that the EU imposes fines. We also want to change habits, we want to change the way these technologies are created. They have to be more secure, they have to be safer. They have to stand up to the way European societies develop.
Give me an example of a major threat right now to the way these tech giants do their job. An example related to business models that threaten our security.
A few weeks ago we saw what happened in Portugal and Spain. This was not dictated by an attack from artificial intelligence, but something similar can happen with the use of autonomous systems. And that is precisely why it can happen much more terrible. But it was not an attack from artificial intelligence, but something similar can happen, which cannot be fixed in such a quick way, as Spain and Portugal did. This can happen when systems are autonomous, when they decide that they can make their own decisions and we give them the opportunity to make their own decisions and do it in the wrong way. And that is precisely why it is important that we also develop our artificial intelligence, but according to our European rules, which are rules of the values that protect our democratic order. That is precisely why we have built such a strong Europe, because our companies, no matter in what direction, we have not stopped them, but we have set clear rules.
How far can you continue with your industrial goals like this and where do you need to put limits? By arming itself and looking at its security in a different way, can Europe rely more on its local industry or continue to buy in large quantities from the American military industry?
For me, this is to some extent the easy question. The more difficult question that Europe must answer, and I have asked the European Commission to analyze where we are, are we completely dependent on other countries and member states. In most cases, the United States. Where are our strengths and how can we invest in those parts of technological development or the defense industry where we can produce more or impose our standards. And where we can not be dependent, but we need to develop our capabilities. These decisions must be made on the basis of clear data. Otherwise, it seems that Europe is allocating funds and trying to fill every single gap. The good news in this topic and in this area, however, is that Bulgarian industry can take advantage of these opportunities and I am sure that it will.