They have come to an agreement, at least for now. This is how we can briefly describe the situation in the ruling majority. The rotation of the highest post in the state is successful for party compromises and coalition culture. The topic in "The Interview" commented the new Speaker of Parliament Raya Nazaryan from GERB-SDF.
Milena Kirova, BNT: Ms. Nazaryan, were the elections in Pazardzhik and rather the election results just an occasion to talk about reformatting and implementing this rotation or was there an old, smoldering tension?
Raya Nazaryan, Speaker of the National Assembly: Indeed, the results of the elections in Pazardzhik coincided with the new political season and this naturally gave rise to a number of topics. One of them, of course, is to review the relationships within the coalition, to take stock of how we will continue to respond to the challenges that the new season will have, such as the budget issue. And, of course, let's open the big question - how will we ensure this majority of 121 votes, with which we can guarantee any policy.
Of course, in the course of these talks, an old question was also opened, which was postponed, since it was never urgent, namely, that no political decision has been made regarding the position of Speaker of the National Assembly, given which we united around the idea of the rotation mechanism and to date it is consolidated in the political union, the expression of which is the agreement on joint governance. As you saw for yourself, it went extremely smoothly, without any tension and without in any way disrupting the work and agenda of the National Assembly.
Something else impressed us this week - Yordan Tsonev from the MRF was already present at the statements of the council on joint governance. The MRF has repeatedly stated that they do not want positions, they would rather hold talks about specific policies, but if ministers, individuals, positions are the ones who bear personal responsibility, then policies are the ones that set the direction in the state. How is the direction determined in our country - on the principle of shared responsibility or does someone prevail?
In a parliamentary democracy, everything is a matter of parliamentary majority. Without a parliamentary majority, there is no government, no budget, no election of regulatory, control and supervisory bodies, no implementation of any policy. We really think that we have shown political maturity and wisdom and have shown that we can maintain complex majorities and I do not think that we can be reproached for maintaining stability in the country in a very complex international environment.
Of course, this parliamentary majority currently consists of 4 parliamentary groups and when there is a Council for Joint Governance, it is most natural and most appropriate for representatives of all parliamentary groups to be present, at least so that they know the topics, directions, analyses, conclusions. The sharing of responsibility should be clear, as well as that this support that is given is for specific policies.
Am I to understand that there is no formation whose word is heard more?
Decision-making has been written down from the very beginning in our agreement for joint governance. There, three representatives from the three parties vote. And, thank God, so far we have hardly had to vote. We always make decisions unanimously. But otherwise everyone is welcome to give their opinion and analysis, since everyone has different experience and we are experts in different fields.
Do the DPS not have the right to vote?
They do not have the right to vote, that's right.
On Saturday in our studio, the former Speaker of the National Assembly Natalia Kiselova stated that it is not about the principle of "get up from your chair so I can sit down", but rather about policies. Was there a bargaining chip in implementing this rotation and were these the BSP policies in the budget?
I really do not see any connection between the social policies of the BSP colleagues and the Speaker of the National Assembly. By your logic, would you believe that currently, if the BSP had a Speaker of the National Assembly, they would support and express right-wing policies and, accordingly, now, without a Speaker, they would support their left-wing policies?
But was there a step back for some of the points set out in the budget?
The policies, especially the social policies, that our BSP colleagues are committed to, were clear even when we were negotiating a coalition. And these policies are consolidated as priorities in our joint government. So there is no surprise here. We were aware of this even in the budget that we adopted this year, in March, and we followed these directions even then. These are the commitments that we must fulfill among ourselves in order to have trust in each other.
Are we expecting midnight sessions for the state budget again? And when should we expect it to be submitted?
Thanks to the fact that Bulgaria currently has a regular government, the budget will be submitted before the year to which it refers. Which is one of the major priorities for which the coalition was created. In reality, from now on, within the next few days, the three budget laws are to be considered by the Tripartite Council, after which the Council of Ministers will adopt them and submit them to the National Assembly. From there, the specific parameters of the policies will become clear and we can begin the specific debate.
But from the discussions so far, from what is clear, there will be no significant changes in the policies, neither in terms of revenue nor in terms of expenditure. The budget will be balanced according to the national legislation that has been drafted and we could define it more as conservative than as reformist. The midnight sessions are usually for the votes on second reading and especially on the big budget, the others go faster and they are a matter of organization.
It could always be on one day that the presentations of the reports will be held, as well as the debates themselves, and on another day that the vote itself will be held, since there are always many proposals between the first and second votes. In order for the deputies to know in detail and clearly what we are voting on, it is good that this be on a fresher day, so that this process can proceed normally and without problems.
Why did this slight delay in the presentation of the final parameters of the state budget happen? In order to test public opinion and that of the social partners, unions, and employers on certain points, I give you an example with the two percentage points increase in the pension contribution.
I think that we have not had a budget that was adopted so timely and paid when it was planned - just before the start of the budget year to which it refers. And in this sense, there have been no tests. Naturally, we discuss every single detail in the Joint Management Council and in accordance, of course, with the European Commission, because this is already our obligation. There have been no tests, and before there are specifics on the budget frameworks, on the financial framework of the state, I believe there is no need to comment.
And are we ready for the eurozone? And how would you act if you had to, for example, make a decision on a referendum? Under Natalia Kiselova, it did not come to a presidential referendum. If you were in her place, what would you do?
The legislation and systems in the country have been brought into line, in readiness for the transition to the single European currency. Our budget is in euros, which means that from January 1, 2026, both the state and the Bulgarian National Bank will be able to go through this process quite smoothly and without problems.
Of course, any technical issue on this topic is entirely within the competence of the executive branch. And as for the referendum, this request of the president was completely unconstitutional. And I am sure that he himself is aware of this, since the Constitutional Court itself has a ruling in this direction. And any lawyer would have acted in exactly the same way, namely, with an order to return the president's request as inadmissible.
And on this issue, I can say that Ms. Kiselova was not alone in discussing and making the decision, because we discussed it together, we analyzed the legislation, so that we could act in the most correct and lawful way.
And then you worked as a team with her?
In the coalition, we have our respect, we have our trust. We have gone through an incredible number of challenges that I think I don't need to mention - how many times there was a vote of no confidence, this situation with the referendum, the decision of the Constitutional Court, which completely reformatted the composition of the National Assembly, and so on. So I think that all these challenges have made the coalition more united and we treat and rely on each other with more respect.
This week, the focus in the National Assembly was also the topic of "Lukoil". Following the comments not only in our country, but also abroad, it turns out that at the moment every country is trying to cope on its own. Is a derogation the only possible salvation for our country?
Each country negotiates independently, because it has a number of specificities. Every country, of course, that has such assets. As an example, I will give you Hungary, which works with Russian oil, while Bulgaria has not worked with Russian oil for a long time. But since the announcement of these sanctions, the Bulgarian government has been in contact and has held all the important talks, both with the American side and with our European partners, i.e. with the European Commission, with OPEC and all the important embassies.
These negotiations continue and within literally a few days, perhaps by Wednesday, there will already be specific decisions to be taken, announced, prepared and submitted to the National Assembly, so that Bulgarian interests can be protected as much as possible.
Is a derogation one of these decisions?
One of the options being negotiated is this, but of course there are different nuances, how exactly it should happen, so that it is maximally protected and the market is secured. You saw that on Friday we made a decision at the National Assembly, by which we limited the export of diesel and aviation fuel. Of course, this decision is a preventive measure, which is given by an act to the director of the "Customs" agency to assess what quantity should be exported so that there can be peace on the domestic market. And yes, there is fuel. People should not worry, there is fuel, both in the refinery that processes it and in the tax warehouses and a department in a completely different place is the state reserve.
The criticisms of the opposition were mainly aimed at whether there is enough fuel. But since you also mentioned the president, and he increasingly seems to be talking about his party, yesterday he answered a journalistic question - "the people want it". Are the other formations worried? Are you worried about a new formation, led by President Radev, whose sociological polls give him a high rating?
There was something else, much more worrying, in President Radev's statement on Saturday. He said that a group of people were collecting funds on his behalf for a presidential party and declared them fraudsters. I urge him, of course, if he has not already taken the appropriate measures, to file a report with the competent authorities, because these are serious unlawful acts within the meaning of our Criminal Code. And if we pass over this topic in silence, it means that we are becoming accomplices in something that should not exist. And I believe that his administration has already taken a position.
As for the very idea of a presidential party - it is appropriate to say that as long as Mr. Radev is president, he has no right to form a party. Since he is no longer president, he can do everything, like any adult Bulgarian citizen.
The National Assembly took away or rather limited the powers of the head of state, when it comes to appointing the heads of services? Why was this done? Because the president's name is Rumen Radev or because the parliament no longer wants us to live in a state of "acting officials"?
According to the Bulgarian Constitution, these powers are no one's. According to the Constitution, these powers are also stipulated in law. And since the Constitution itself stipulated that these powers be determined by law, it means that they were intended to be an act of a political decision, i.e. of a ruling majority.
So nothing was taken away from anyone. Separately, the new order provides for another procedure, which is much more public and transparent. Because there is no more public body than the National Assembly, which, when conducting procedures, always listens to the candidates, provides extremely broad information about their experience, quality, and competencies. The society itself can participate in this process by asking questions, which gives a different vision of who the heads of these special services actually are.