Bulgaria's Parliament Awaits Detailed Justification for Euro Referendum Proposal

National Assembly Speaker Natalia Kiselova commented on the proposed referendum on adopting the euro, emphasizing the need to review the reasons behind the initiative once it is formally submitted. Speaking in Nikolaevo, she noted that the proposal has not yet been received by the National Assembly, meaning the current discussion is based solely on the president's stated intention. According to Kiselova, once the proposal is officially submitted, it will be up to the parliamentary committees on budgets, finance, and legal affairs to thoroughly examine the rationale behind it. "I hope the proposal is well-motivated so that the arguments can be clearly substantiated," she said, as quoted by BTA.

Kiselova also reminded that there are two previous Constitutional Court rulings concerning the authority of the National Assembly to initiate national referendums on specific issues, including one decision from last year that specifically addressed a question related to the euro. She pointed out that the question, as it currently stands, is controversial due to the lack of a detailed explanation from the president.

President Rumen Radev announced on Thursday that he intends to propose a national referendum asking Bulgarians whether they support adopting the euro in 2026. The proposed question reads: "Do you agree that Bulgaria should adopt the single European currency, the euro, in 2026?" Radev described the referendum as a democratic test for the National Assembly, asserting that it would reveal which political forces support the people's right to decide their future and which do not.

Krum Zarkov, Radev’s legal advisor, announced his resignation shortly after the president’s statement, citing disagreement over the proposal. According to him, the referendum addresses a constitutionally inadmissible issue. Meanwhile, the only political groups expressing support for the initiative so far are Revival, Greatness, and MECH.

Kiselova reiterated her position that the proposed referendum raises complex constitutional questions and that the committees will need time to examine the justifications thoroughly once they are submitted. She stressed the importance of clarity in the arguments to avoid further controversy.