There should be no extremes in the assessments of the investigated mayor and deputy mayor in Varna and Sofia before the court has ruled. This is the opinion of the Speaker of the Parliament Natalia Kiselova on the program "Speak Now" on BNT.
According to her, however, the thesis that "when you are in opposition, you should not be touched" should not be maintained. Kiselova also commented on the vote on "We continue the change" in the last vote of no confidence, in which the deputies voted together with the petitioners against the cabinet.
Watch the entire interview of Nadya Obretenova with Natalia Kiselova:
Nadya Obretenova: Ms. Kiselova, two consecutive rejected votes of no confidence, today's and the one on the financial policy of the cabinet, which was followed by the admission of our country to the eurozone. Has the horizon of the government of the "Zhelyazkov" cabinet been extended?
Nadya Kiselova: I think that the ambition that was stated in January, not only until Bulgaria's admission to the eurozone, but for a longer mandate, not to say a full one, so this is another step or obstacle that has been overcome and we are moving forward. The tool of no confidence is an opportunity for the opposition to enter the focus of attention. I have the feeling that they have started to have a vote of no confidence in each minister in order and thus draw attention to themselves. This takes time, but on the other hand I think it keeps the government and the majority on their toes, so there is a positive side, apart from, of course, the lengthy plenary sessions.
Today we saw how the deputies from "Continuing the Change" voted "for" the vote of no confidence. Do you think that this change that has occurred will in some way rearrange the voting in the plenary hall on other bills?
Of course, this is a decision of the deputies from the parliamentary group to vote in this way. I hope they will think about it, because on certain issues, submitting a vote of no confidence is an end in itself and they should rather read the reasons carefully.
The leading news for Bulgaria this week is the adoption of the euro from the beginning of 2026. In your opinion, does this completely complete our European integration?
Since European integration is a process, not a one-time action, Bulgaria's entry into the eurozone is entry into the core of the member states and it will pose new challenges to every government. So, in the future, there will be issues on which we will have to be pro-European, so to speak, to prove Bulgaria, so this is a step in the right direction. There are others to come.
Do you understand those who are worried about what you hear in the voices of people protesting against the euro? There are similar voices inside, in the plenary hall.
I understand them, this is part of the political debate. The question is - what is the alternative that can be proposed? My personal understanding is that Bulgaria is within the best place in which it is possible to be a member at the moment and this guarantees us in the turbulent geopolitical broth that we are tied somewhere, to something more stable. So the pro-European future of Bulgaria, I think, is currently without an alternative, because, you see, the opponents of entering the eurozone are already talking about leaving the European Union altogether. And it is good, when a certain slogan is raised, to realize what the consequences are, and not the usual, by doing something and then looking for what could have happened if we had not made a decision. So, I understand them, but I do not accept the alternative they offer.
On the day of the vote on Bulgaria's admission to the eurozone, we heard very good words from Commissioner Dombrovskis about the country's financial stability, but also one recommendation - that Bulgaria continue with reforms and in no case stop or give up. Do you include anti-corruption legislation among the reforms?
This has been a problem for more than decades, so it is normal for it to be the focus of the work of the National Assembly. If we follow how the idea evolved, at first it was to be fought only with administrative measures, now criminal law measures have been added to them. This also led to a change in the philosophy of both the law and the method of formation. After discussions with colleagues, we assessed that the changes should be minimal and reflect the decision of the Constitutional Court from last year, in connection with the majority with which the commission is elected. The other issues are to make a working and new selection, which the nomination committee, within the meaning of the Anti-Corruption Act, so that the composition can be renewed. Because after it came into force, more than a year and a half, the body has not been formed. So this is the minimum we are doing.
Do I understand correctly that you support the election of the members of the Anti-Corruption Commission by a simple majority?
The word "support" is inaccurate. I maintain that there should have been no move to a qualified majority at all, because the Constitution has provided for qualified majorities not just for bodies, although it was introduced for the inspectorate and for members of the Supreme Judicial Council. The Constitution provides for qualified majorities for important, strategic decisions for the state.
Yes, but the opposition is now saying: "With this simple majority, the ruling party, with the support of "DPS - New Beginning", will choose a convenient commission". Will you choose a convenient commission?
What else can they say? The only thing I have always wondered, both as an expert in my previous role and now as a member of parliament, is why an issue should be raised that clearly needs to be resolved in a certain way? And if we can, this will, of course, be possible through a nomination committee. Let's see who the candidates are. We don't know who the people are yet, but they will already be stigmatized. And this is one of the reasons why a large part of the people who are invited refuse to participate, because they suspect what will be said about their candidacies.
You called "DPS - New Beginning" " "partners in misfortune". Why? Did their support make the government dependent on the will of a parliamentary group, on a parliamentary leader?
Usually this is the narrative that is imposed. But if you look more closely, you will see an evolution in the views of the MPs and the parliamentary groups more generally. On one side are the parliamentary groups and MPs who do not want elections. On the other side are those who want to go to early parliamentary elections. So the partnership is for those who support the government and not to go to early elections.
Are there many votes for going to early elections? What do you observe? Are the votes of no confidence a demonstration of this?
Categorically. The colleagues who sign the requests for a vote of no confidence and who then participate in the discussions categorically say it to themselves: "Our goal is to overthrow the government and go to early elections". They declare it and think that this is something that should always be provided for behind every request.
And in the latest report of the European Commission regarding the rule of law, it is noted that Bulgaria must demonstrate resilience and perseverance in investigating corruption-related cases. Why is there so much talk, Ms. Kiselova, about corruption? It is exposed in some very noisy investigations, and then the cases do not have the same fate in court.
What resilience can there be when for 4 years we periodically went to early elections? In order to have resilience, that is, for the authorities to have a sufficiently long-term horizon...
You mean that the prosecutor's office is influenced by...
I'm not just talking about the prosecutor's office. If we get into a conversation, we will see what the change in the order of the authorities that collect data that will later become evidence looks like. Not only by giving investigative functions to the Anti-Corruption Commission, but also to bodies that are in the National Criminal Procedure Code. Taking into account the political situation is not something that has happened today. And it is normal that where there is no political predictability, there will also be a weakening of efforts. If I had to summarize it this way, in my opinion, the retention of this government will also lead to a change in the next report next year. Because what year are we currently taking a picture of? 2024. And the government is from 2025.
In this sense, comment on something specific. And that is the investigation of the last 48 hours of the "Botash" case and the interrogations and searches of Rosen Hristov and Denitsa Zlateva.
There was data or a signal and a preliminary inspection was started, based on which investigation. Until materials are presented to the prosecutor, these are procedural actions that cannot be commented on.
The contract with "Botas" has been widely commented on, what is your opinion?
This is different. Because when a specific person's home is inspected and searched, then we are looking for separate criminal liability. The other question, and it is already more serious, is how necessary the contract was, whether it was the only possible one and what the consequences were, can it be renegotiated, so this also has a more general economic and political aspect. So, to comment on procedural and investigative actions in relation to specific people, yes, if they have violated the rules and a crime has been committed, to bring them to criminal liability. But the question of whether Bulgaria should continue to accumulate debts under the contract is an issue that the government is making efforts to renegotiate. And there I think the Minister of Energy should be supported.
The mayor of Varna, the deputy mayor of Sofia, became the subject of an investigation with suspicions of corrupt practices. "We continue the change" They saw in this political persecution. Please comment on these questions as well.
The attacks, as my colleagues call them, on mayors are the latest. If we go back, in previous months there were statements from other parliamentary groups that their mayors were being attacked. When someone is elected, he is already everyone's mayor. And since they have no immunity, they may be subject to criminal proceedings at any time, that is reasonable. That is possible. Let's not be before the court. Let's see what the prosecutor's office will present and whether the criminal prosecution will already be followed by more serious actions. Until then, while it is subject to preliminary checks, I think we should not be so extreme in our assessments. And that when you are in opposition, you should not be touched cannot be maintained as a thesis. I personally did not accept that the Anti-Corruption Commission should have investigative functions. But that was one of the arguments for fighting corruption. The same colleagues who are now accusing of repression. So, when you have created certain legislation, you must be clearly aware that it can be applied to you as well. That is why we must be careful.
Let's go back to the euro. By your decision, you did not allow the issue of the referendum proposed by the president to be discussed in the plenary hall. As of today, how would you act, considering the approvals, but also the criticisms that you received?
You said "decision". In fact, it is about an order as a legal act. Over time and after talking with many people who both support and criticize, and from the distance of these two months that have passed, I think I did the right thing. This is one of the things that will certainly be an act of my public position in the future. But I think one thing should be said in conclusion - this was an act that I consulted not only with my parliamentary group, but also with other parliamentary groups, before it was made. To make it seem like I sat down and decided something on my own sounds a bit naive.
The Constitutional Court is about to rule on the issue of whether, as the Speaker of the Parliament, you are competent to assess the requirements under which a national referendum is allowed, by rejecting a proposal made by an entity authorized by law. Did the question posed in this way by the President make your institutional dialogue more difficult?
The body that makes the decision to hold a national referendum is the National Assembly. Under the terms and conditions of the law. And then, when the terms and conditions are by law and only the National Assembly can rule on a national referendum, in this context I think we should also look at all subsequent efforts. Because there was another effort to pass a resolution to hold a national referendum earlier this month.
The issue of the RSM is particularly sensitive for our neighbors, especially after the vote in the EP. You touched on it to some extent during the visit of the speaker of the Albanian parliament. How can we convince Skopje that the conversation between us is more important than a dispute that is unproductive?
The conversation about the integration of the Western Balkans is a conversation that Bulgaria has been leading for more than decades, and I think that we are the first to have reached out to the RSM in every difficult moment. We made no claims regarding recognition, nor have we made any claims regarding the name. This was seen by all unprejudiced people, and when the fire broke out in Kochani, Bulgaria was the first to come forward with medical specialists. These human and statesmanlike actions, I think, show what our attitude as a state and society is towards our neighbors. However, there is one issue that is very important and remains somehow aside. After an agreement has been concluded between the RSM and the EU in the person of the European Commission, this is no longer Bulgaria's problem. This is an issue that our neighbors must deal with. The arguments, you see what emotional outbursts part of the political elite is going through, to claim that we are the people who are stopping them, are incorrect. I hope that when the election campaign is over, because they have local elections coming up, they will see, when they look back, that we are the ones who supported them the most. Our understanding of both Albania and the RSM is that they should be part of the EU. Albania is a country in which we have a Bulgarian national minority. They are making very serious efforts and were initially together, but after seeing the persistence of the elite of their and our neighbors, they decided to continue alone, since they are running much faster on the European path.
The opposition sometimes asks for your resignation as chairman on various occasions.
Whenever there is a request for resignation, I always check if the reason was me. Very often, however, and this, I think objective observers will see, is more of a political attack, and there are such attacks against every president who is supported by the majority, so in this context I accept most of the requests.