Lawyer Petar Slavov before FACTS: Only Peevski or was it a problem of the "assembly"... (VIDEO)

Democratic parties that were in the “assembly”, are currently keeping their messages. That's weird. The question is, have they learned their lessons from the “assembly” and why they should not have participated in this government. They had to keep their word, because they announced themselves against prominent personalities and they were expected to fight against people from the “Magnitsky” list. Their behavior should not have given them the opportunity to become the spokesmen of this last government, to change the Constitution in this outrageous way and without consulting the people. This is what he announced to Lili Marinkova in the "FACTS" studio. and the show “Conversation“ lawyer Petar Slavov.

“It seems to me that these lessons have not been learned, because the other day I listened to how they explained to us that a new similar non-coalition could be considered in the 50th National Assembly, if Peevski did not participate in it. That only Peevski or it was a problem of the “assembly“… Was he at the root of the things that were happening, of this outrage that we were watching. Why was it necessary to create this governing formula at all? This was something that should not be allowed. Both in the last parliament and in the previous one, the parties claiming to represent the democratic community had made a commitment to dismantle the “Borisov“… They did not have the moral right to participate in such a non-coalition”, Petar Slavov also shared.

“Their task was to go and say that the expectations of the Bulgarian citizens who support them are against Borisov, GERB, etc. There were also times when they were the first political force, actions and reforms were expected from them. They should have said they had a few things to do and if they supported them, fine. And nothing more. They should not have entered into unregulated relationships with GERB and DPS. Such things I expected to hear and see actions, but I saw the exact opposite, added the lawyer.

See more from the conversation in the VIDEO.