Central Council of MRF elected new leadership of the party.

The new Vice-Chairmen of the MRF are:

- Lutvi Mestan;

- Hristo Bisserov;

- Rushen Riza;

- Filiz Hyusmenova;

- Aliosman Imamov.

The new members of the Central Operative Bureau are:

- Ahmed Dogan;

- Younal Loutfi;

- Kasim Dal;

- Emel Etem;

- Lyutvi Mestan;

- Jordan Tzonev;

- Dzhevdet Chakarav;

- Remzi Osman;

- Hasan Ademov;

- Ramadan Atalay;

- Filiz Hyusmenova;

- Kamen Kostadinov;

- Aliosman Imamov;

- Ayrush Hadzi;

- Yankov Yankov;

- Dzheyhan Ibryamov;

- Mustafa Karadaya;

- Hristo Bisserov;

- Rushen Riza;

- Tuncher Kardzhaliev.

Dear delegates to the 7th National Conference of MRF,
Dear guests from the country and abroad,
Your Excellencies,

From a political point of view this report is quite specific. The subject of reporting is not a three or four year period, as is the traditional practice, but eight years of activity. Because the Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF) participated in the governance of the country in two consecutive mandates.
In addition to this formal reason for a more detailed analysis of the last decade, there is yet another temporal framework which presupposes such an approach. Twenty years from the transition to democracy and a market economy have passed and 20 years from the establishment of the MRF.
In our most recent history, the history of the transition is identified with the history of democracy. We all know, however, that the transition is the traveled road to democracy, but still is not democracy itself.
In such times of transition politics is the living connection between the past and the future. Even when politics is a complete negation of the past, it also depends on the mutual relation between history and the vision of the future.
The history of transition is a history of the reforms we have made in the various spheres of the state and society, and their resulting effect in our present social, political, economic life and values.
In other words, our socio-economic and spiritual state today is a sort of living synthesis of the goals we have had as a vision for changing the totalitarian status quo, the means we have used in terms of policies and legislative measures, and the results we have reaped in our joint reformist activity.
After all, the results of twenty years are also grounds for a general estimation of transition – as successful or unsuccessful, normal or abnormal in terms of difficulty, duration, general effectiveness, moral price and so on.
It is clear to everyone that such a general estimate of the transition constantly floats around in society, and it is that the transition was too hard and long, one for which society paid a very high price. Without doubt this estimate is addressed at the entire political elite of the country, which built the political and economic foundation of Democracy in the course of twenty years.
Of course, it is not the job of a politician to make a profound analysis of the Transition and one that is an end in itself. Because in politics everything is politics and there is always a risk of retrospective shifting of events and facts according to the private political interest of the analyst.
What is important for a liberal political party like the MRF is to answer the question “Where to now?”
This seemingly elementary question is the focal point not only of all failures of transition, but also the most topical problems on the agenda of the country. And this question is not only a question of the MRF; it is a question--lament of the state and a large portion of society. Because it is related to the completion of a relatively full cycle in the transformation of society and the state, including with our accession to NATO and the EU as part of this process.
“Where to now?” is not only a reproach, but a question-accusal of everything political, which is related to the transition.
This question is an instinctive reaction of society to the fact that today democracy is just as vulnerable as it was in the first years of transition. Since the content and meaning of this question clearly shows political deficit of the national vision of the future, let us turn it into analytical optics and try to make a summarized political scanning of the entire transition.
What springs to the eye from this point of view is shocking: with the idea of a “velvet revolution” (of Dr. Zhelev), the “way to Europe”, the political pluralism, the freedom of speech, the articulation of the subject of human rights and freedoms, affixed in the fundamental provisions of the New Constitution, the political reform of the state and the socio-economic structure of Society were achieved in general terms. And this exhausted the need of a national vision for the development of the country.
Political reform also set out the guidelines of Democracy’s foundation of values but it, alas, was born in a hybrid and encapsulated form and it seems its development ended with that.
Along with the restitution and mass privatization (1995) the paradigm of interest appeared on the terrain, one that substituted the necessary reforms for Democracy for a fight for power between the sides of the bipolar model, summed up in the dichotomy of “communism – anti-communism”.
In this fight for power, each of the sides worked either for the preservation of separate segments of the status quo as the socio-economic foundations of the party (in this case the left), or strove towards the establishment of new economic structures, again with the same aim (mainly the Union of Democratic Forces /UDF/).
In this sense, the so-called Right Project as an alternative to the previous regime had tactical goals and tasks, but did not have medium-term and long-term objectives for the overall reform of society. During the entire transition Bulgaria never had a right project with the motivating power of a political cause in the real sense of the word, one that could serve as a strategic model for the development of the country in the new Euro-Atlantic conditions. (I underscore that private property, the market economy and competition are only a condition and a means, not a long-term strategic objective.)
The same is true of the left. In the conditions of transition, the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) failed to produce a socialist project for the development of the country. A review of its various programmes from the point of view of the National Vision of the country’s development rather reveals a desire to preserve the social and economic status quo or to slow down its formation. On different planes they repeat one and the same thing: for example, how in the conditions of wild capitalism the poor become even poorer and the rich - richer. And in connection with this what is usually offered are actions that alleviate the social price. In addition, the myth of the social state is unfortunately associated for more effective imagery with the Scandinavian model, while the counterpoint is the threatening proclamation of the Latin American model as a natural development of Bulgaria’s post-communist market “model”.
To avoid any doubts about retrospective shifting in favour of a certain thesis, I would like to remind the delegates and the guests of the National Conference of essential indicators of the dominant social attitudes of that time:
- In the initial stage of the Transition, people spoke of democracy but the concept of “capitalism” was still a political taboo. This role was usually attributed to "Soviet perestroika”. The immanent connection of democracy with its private property, market economy and competition not only was not realized and accepted but there were also serious reactions against them. The views of Democracy were reduced mainly to free elections, the fall of the Bulgarian Communist Party (BCP) from power, political pluralism and the freedom of speech.
There is also such narrowed understanding of Democracy in relation to human and minority  fundamental rights and freedoms in the country: rights and freedoms boiling down to the freedom of religion, restoring the names of the forcefully renamed Turkish minority in Bulgaria and close-mouthed “acknowledgement” of the people repressed by the totalitarian regime in the country.
But not only did the prevalent portion of the public not see conditions for democracy in human rights and freedoms. The right itself, in the face of the UDF, did not have an unequivocal understanding on this matter, as for example the MRF was not allowed to participate in the so-called “round table”, While our official request for inclusion in what was then the structure of the UDF was rejected with the recommendation for us to join one of the UDF parties which, I think, were 16.
In this context it is appropriate to say something of the genesis and development of the “MRF project”.
The idea of the MRF was born together with the so-called Regeneration Process as its anti-thesis and underwent various metamorphoses of a “resistance movement without arms” in the years before the fall of the regime. The apogee of the illegal resistance movement was the organization of the “May events 1989”, which was the most large-scale organized anti-communist undertaking in Bulgaria, as a result of which 12 people were killed, many were repressed and over 360,000 were forced to leave for Turkey. There is no doubt that the May events in 1989 accelerated the fall of the regime on November 10 the same year. Two weeks after the partial amnesty of political prisoners on December 22, 1989, i.e. on January 4, 1990, the MRF became a political fact.
Initially the “project MRF” was only related to the restoration of fundamental human rights and freedoms related to ethnic and religious identity. And the view of the role of the MRF ended with the resolution of this problem. In relation to this, we debated for a long time whether to remain an independent political subject or to blend with one of the liberal parties in the centre-right spectrum. As always, however, life proved stronger than our desires and assumptions.
I have asked myself many times how the transition to Democracy and a market economy would have developed if there was no MRF, or at least if we had become part of the UDF in the very beginning of the 1990s. To this day I do not have an unequivocal answer to these questions. It will probably be the same in 20 years, but I am sure of one thing – if this had happened, today the MRF would not be holding its 7th National Conference in the capacity of third political force during the entire transition.
The relatively difficult restitution changes and the manner in which the belated privatization took place created conditions for insecurity and injustice in Society.
It is particularly important to note that the privatization of the public sector, regardless of how it was carried out, as mass privatization and with vouchers (through the notorious worker-manager companies in 1995), or in cash-market form (after 1997) aimed to establish party enterprises and was essentially carried out as party privatization. Privatization was rather a process of financial and economic entrenchment and had nothing to do with timely and effective reform to create an economic base for the development of the democratic process in the country. Meanwhile, our national media, already sensing their future role as fourth power in the new socio-political structure of society, only in passing affixed the subject that privatization was a legitimate theft of the work of two generations of Bulgarian citizens and that was that. That is precisely why in the first ten years of the transition the country was in the position of “parade rest” in terms of economy and values.
Of course, in its very essence Transition is a transformation of one socio-economic system into another and necessarily presupposes objective indefiniteness of economic principles and spiritual values for a certain period of time. When the doomed old still works while the new is taking its first difficult and tentative steps, a murky political time is objectively created. And murky waters by definition do not work to the benefit of public interest. They create a situation of existential hopelessness, legal helplessness and concern in everyday life. Society stands on the brink of demoralization and this becomes its natural state, while the lack of a Vision for the future additionally implies hopelessness and lack of alternative of a given social state.
The permanent impression is created that everything is possible because all are villains and thieves from the common table. In such extremely exacerbated social sensitivity the leading attitude of public expectations looms as a quest for retribution and restoring the sense of justice. Even out of spite and in spite of the supremacy of law.
Should we add to what has been said that the bipolar model, instead of producing different alternatives of the vision about the future of the country, constantly reproduced the “image of the enemy” with a particular stress on “who gets whom”, we shall get an at least elementary idea of the driving forces of the Bulgarian transition.
What is more, in the conditions of the bipolar model, the opposition of “communism-anti-communism” in the first ten years or so arrogantly ousted the national vision of the development of the country. Even the ideas about NATO and the EU, in the long run, became a reality on this plane. And what is most interesting is that about a dozen years later, i.e. these days, both sides of the bipolar model constitute the image of the enemy in the face of the MRF in a different manner.
By the way, playing the ethnic card has always been one of the main political trump cards during the entire stage of transition. But before we became part of the EU and NATO the ethnic card was concealed and muffled because of the MRF’s great contribution to the peaceful transition and the national capitalization of the Bulgarian ethnic model before NATO and the EU.
After our country felt more secure in the system of NATO, and consequently of the EU, nationalism exploded and began to show its most disgusting form of detestation and hatred of everything related to the MRF.
For a long time the bipolar model was the political emblem of transition. Probably the researchers of the Bulgarian transition will succeed in reconstructing it as genesis and development.
From the point of view of the really objective policies during the time of transition, the bipolar model was cabinet-made and set down in political space as a political scenario for the survival of the left. Whether it was a political deal or not I will leave analysts and historians to explain. But in any case the historical approach to this political phenomenon should answer one important question: why did the fledgling politicians affix themselves on personification, not on the very political structure of the public institutions, which is by definition the real bearer of the status quo?!
In the conditions of a bipolar model and the related political pendulum, the MRF was an unpredictable figure and therefore a dispensable political subject in the scenario. Because in its role of political balancing figure it had a stopping effect for the development of the various confrontation models of political conduct.
In spite of that, the MRF is a subject of responsibility as a political balancing figure. The political guilt of the MRF is that it was semi-closed in its liberal system of values and mainly cooperated and/or observed, without being sufficiently active, in order to undertake the political responsibility for the outcome of the battle between the “model Zhan” (of the left) (1994-1997) and the “model Ivan” of the right (1997-2001), which even then were aptly defined as the two faces of one and the same phenomenon: “All the power to the Soviets!” And that is what happened: the “case of Zhan” repeated itself in the “model of Ivan”, who instead of greater freedom served us a restored form of command-cum-administration technology of the parties and the State.
That was precisely when the substitution began. Instead of a national vision the factory of populism began working full-tilt. Thus populism replaced the Vision of the future. Quasi-models instead of Vision!
In the political context of this extreme swing of the political pendulum, the belated and party-warped privatization had a detrimental effect on the formation and development of the domestic market, particularly on market regulation of the production and trade in goods and services. The grey sector settled permanently in it and for a long time discouraged enterprise and external investment interest in Bulgaria. The collectability of taxes, fees and excise duty, and the calculations of the revenue section of the republican budget for a long time lay on extremely idealized forecasts about the real economy because double accounting became a daily practice in it.
Ten years after the beginning of transition, over 90% of the production facilities of the country were 35-40 years old and there was no way to resist the aggressive competition of foreign companies, While the policy of protectionism was precluded by the new rules of an open market economy. Today the expression “buy Bulgarian only” sounds a bit naïve. But then it sounded as a cry for help for the newly-emerged Bulgarian entrepreneur, who with a patriotic attitude wanted to save the Bulgarian economy.
The King, Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, appeared in such a situation of expectation of strategic foreign investors.
The great question about the country’s national security was related to Bulgaria’s preparation and inclusion into the collective security system of NATO. But the attitude of society to this essential problem of the State was not unequivocal and underwent great fluctuations of incoming and outgoing tides. For example, during the crisis in Kosovo, the approval of the policy conducted on the part of society was only about 30%.
In spite of that, for part of the right-to-centre political spectrum for a certain time the idea of NATO had the function of a national Vision about the future. The idea of NATO, in addition to national security, also meant prestigious association with the Euro-Atlantic community and directly or indirectly confirmed the attitude of the country’s External Savior…

Dear guests and delegates to the 7th National Conference,

MRF will have its seventh National conference on the eve of the twentieth anniversary of its foundation on 12 December at 12 o’clock in 3rd hall of The National Palace of Culture.

 All leaders of international liberal organizations in which MRF is full member sent their greetings to the delegates and the guests. The president of liberal international Hans Van Baalen congratulated MRF on its active participation in the international liberal family.

In her message Annemie Neyts, the Chairman of the liberal democratic and reformist party (ELDR) focused on the participation of the party in two consecutive governmental mandates which in a very successful way prepared and realized Bulgaria’s admission in the European Union.

Guy  Verhofstad, Chairman of the alliance of liberal and democrats for Europe, reminded of the remarkable success of MRF over the last two decades and of its ability to gain the support of more and more voters with every passing year.

Greeting sent and Olli Rehn - Commissioner for enlargement in European Commission. In his message he wish  “all the best for this important and interesting congress”.

The former leader of ALDE group Graham Watson will make his personal message. The same will do other delegates from several other friendly parties from all over the world.

At the meeting that took place on the 5th of December in hotel “Dedeman Princess”, the delegates elected their new leadership. The Central operative council (COC)  consists of the Chairman of Youth of MRF  and a group of 13 members.

1. Dzheyhan Ibryamov	Chairman of Youth of MRF
2. Gyunes Mahmoud	Vice - chairman of Youth of MRF
3. Ridvan Ismailov	Vice - chairman of Youth of MRF
4. Stanislav Anastasov	Vice - chairman of Youth of MRF
5. Ikmal Dzhomova	Vice - chairman of Youth of MRF
6. Abidin Hadzhimehmed	Member of COC
7.Mustafa Ahmedov	Member of COC
8. Turhan Karakash	Member of COC
9. Fatme Adem	Member of COC
10. Ilhan Kyuchyuk	Member of COC
11. Seval Mustanova	Member of COC
12. Zelver Kassabova	Member of COC
13. Ayhan Etem	Member of COC
14. Radoslav Revanski	Member of COC

In October 2009, Dzhevdet Chakarov - MRF  was elected vice-president of  Liberal International. Liberal International (LI) is the world federation of liberal and progressive democratic political parties. LI was founded in 1947 to strengthen liberal protection from totalitarianism, facism and communism. It has since become the pre-eminent network for promoting liberalism, individual freedom, human rights, the rule of law, tolerance, equality of opportunity, social justice, free trade and a market economy.

MEPs FILIZ HYUSMENOVA AND PROF. VLADKO PANAIOTOV - ALDE, MRF, DIRECTED A QUESTION OF PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE TO STAVROS DIMAS, EUROCOMISSIONER FOR THE  ENVIRONMENT, ABOUT WHETHER AND HOW THE HEALTH PROTECTION OF THE EUROPEAN CITIZENS IS CONTROLLED. THEY ALSO ASK ABOUT THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE CIANIDE INSTALLATION FOR EXTRACTION OF GOLD WILL BE PERMITTED TO BE BUILT IN THE CENTER OF KARDJALI (BULGARIA), DESPITE THE PROTESTS OF ALL PEOPLE. THE TWO MEPs HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED BY MANY VOTERS BECAUSE IN THEIR VIEW THE PRODUCTION AND PROCESSING OF POLYMETAL ORES ON CIANIDE TECHNOLOGY IS TO START DESPITE THE FACT, THAT THEIR HOUSES ARE SITUATED ON LESS THAN THREE HUNDRED METRES FROM THE INDUSTRIAL SITE.

Guy Verhofstadt, ALDE group leader in the European Parliament, commenting from Brussels on the outcome of the second Irish referendum on the Lisbon Treaty said:

"Today is a beautiful day for Europe. With the Irish YES, all the citizens of Europe, directly or indirectly, said YES to the Lisbon Treaty. Today is the first day of a new future for Europe, united, democratic, effective and strong. "

With this new Treaty the European Union will be able to tackle important problems such as the financial and economic crisis in a more European, coherent and effective way. We will be able to speak with one voice in the world and to provide the answers our citizens need."

"Europe is not the cause, but the solution to the problems we are facing today. This is why we started the reform process eight years ago with the Declaration of Laeken - to make a larger Union also a more effective, democratic and transparent Union."

"Now is the time to bring this process to an end and begin the hard work our citizens expect of us. I now expect that everyone takes up their responsibility so that the Lisbon Treaty can enter into force as soon as possible. "

"Finally I wish to congratulate and thank all the people who campaigned in favour of the Treaty, especially the Ireland for Europe platform and the Irish government, who both did a wonderful job."

Andrew Duff (UK, Lib Dems), ALDE spokesperson on constitutional affairs added:

"By ratifying the Lisbon treaty the Irish people have ensured that their interests and aspirations will always be articulated where it matters, at the centre of European affairs. Ireland has clearly and decisively added its weight to the building of a stronger, more effective and more democratic European Union.

"Now all 27 countries have taken their own democratic decisions to back EU reform. No further delay can be tolerated in bringing the treaty into force as quickly and efficiently as possible."

My Liberal Democrat colleagues in Ireland, led by Pat The Cope Gallagher, Marian Harkin and Pat Cox, have played a leading role in the long tough fight to counter untruths and to fight nationalist prejudice. They are all heroes."

Filiz Hyusmenova:

- Vice-Chairman - Committee on Regional Development;

- Substitute -  Committee on Employment and Social Affairs;

Metin Kazak:

- Deputy chairman - Subcommittee on Human Rights in the Committee on Foreign Affairs;

- Permanent member - Commission on International Trade;

- Substitute - Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs;

Prof. Vladko Panayotov:

- Permanent member - Committee on Environmental Protection, Public Health and Food Safety;

- Substitute - Committee on Industry, Research and Energy.

AHMED DEMIR DOGAN	Chairperson of Parliamentary Group
LYUTVI AHMED MESTAN	Deputy Chairperson of Parliamentary Group
YUNAL SAID LYUTFI	Deputy Chairperson of Parliamentary Group
KAMEN KOSTOV KOSTADINOV	Deputy Chairperson of Parliamentary Group
REMZI DURMUSH OSMAN	Deputy Chairperson of Parliamentary Group
YORDAN KIRILOV TSONEV	Deputy Chairperson of Parliamentary Group
ALIOSMAN IBRAIM IMAMOV	Member of Parliamentary Group
ARIF SAMI AGUSH	Member of Parliamentary Group
BELGIN FIKRI SHUKRI	Member of Parliamentary Group
BYURHAN ILIYAZOV ABAZOV	Member of Parliamentary Group
CHETIN HYUSEIN KAZAK	Member of Parliamentary Group
DELYAN SLAVCHEV PEEVSKI	Member of Parliamentary Group
DURHAN MEHMED MUSTAFA	Member of Parliamentary Group
DZHEVDET IBRYAM CHAKAROV	Member of Parliamentary Group
ELIN ELINOV ANDREEV	Member of Parliamentary Group
EMEL ETEM TOSHKOVA	Member of Parliamentary Group
EMIL KIRILOV IVANOV	Member of Parliamentary Group
ERDOAN MUSTAFOV AHMEDOV	Member of Parliamentary Group
GEORGI VELKOV KOLEV	Member of Parliamentary Group
GYUNAY HASAN SEFER	Member of Parliamentary Group
GYUNER FARIZ SERBEST	Member of Parliamentary Group
HASAN AHMED ADEMOV	Member of Parliamentary Group
HASAN ILIYAZ HADZHIHASAN	Member of Parliamentary Group
HRISTO DAMYANOV BISEROV	Member of Parliamentary Group
ISKRA DIMITROVA MIHAYLOVA-KOPAROVA	Member of Parliamentary Group
KASIM ISMAIL DAL	Member of Parliamentary Group
KORMAN YAKUBOV ISMAILOV	Member of Parliamentary Group
MITHAT MEHMED TABAKOV	Member of Parliamentary Group
MITHAT SABRI METIN	Member of Parliamentary Group
MUSA DZHEMAL PALEV	Member of Parliamentary Group
NEDZHMI NIYAZI ALI	Member of Parliamentary Group
NIGYAR SAHLIM DZHAFER	Member of Parliamentary Group
PETYA NIKOLOVA RAEVA	Member of Parliamentary Group
RAMADAN BAYRAM ATALAY	Member of Parliamentary Group
TUNCHER MEHMEDOV KARDZHALIEV	Member of Parliamentary Group
TUNDZHAY OSMANOV NAIMOV	Member of Parliamentary Group
YANKO ALEKSANDROV YANKOV	Member of Parliamentary Group
YUNAL TASIM TASIM	Member of Parliamentary Group

It is a great pleasure to be here with you this afternoon. And I want to start by congratulating Ahmed Dogan. Ahmed has chaired your party for nearly twenty years and he has overseen the great progress it has made - From a Turkish minority party struggling against legal challenge - To a robust movement with wide appeal across Bulgaria's communities. As you may know, yesterday was Ahmed's birthday. Both he and I are Liberal party leaders: so I know the birthday present that he would most appreciate - Go out there and achieve a great result for the MRF in this June's European elections. And then again in your national elections shortly after. Because Bulgaria needs the MRF. In the wake of revolution, Ahmed Dogan founded this party to fight for the liberalism, democracy and justice that benefit every Bulgarian citizen. And your record is impressive. 8% of the vote in 2001, 14% in 2005, 20% in the European elections of 2007. This is a party that has shown its grit, broadened its base, and prepared itself to lead Bulgaria into a peaceful and prosperous future. To reform the judiciary, to counter corruption, to take the brave steps that have led to EU membership - These things do not come about by accident. They happen because men and women of principle have stood strong and made them happen. And that is the record of the Movement of Rights and Reforms, the radical voice of Bulgarian government.

Of course there is more to do. More reforms that will ensure a better future. At local level, at national level, and at European level too. But that requires leaders with experience, judgment and a successful track record. Continuity is key, and that is what your party provides.  In 2007, Bulgarian citizens elected MEPs for the first time. And they returned four MRF Members to the Liberal and Democrat Group. Over the past two years Filiz, Mariela, Metin and Vladko have done your party and their country a great service. They have been tenacious and tireless in their work, fighting for a Liberal Europe. And they have worked on key parliamentary committees that are forging Europe's future: The economy, the environment, foreign affairs, civil liberties, regional policy, women's rights. Certainly, Bulgaria benefits from the work they do. But the rest of Europe also benefits from the Bulgarian perspective they bring.

 You know, when I was a young man, I stood where you stand now. I was ambitious for myself, for my party, and for my country. Politics excited me because it posed challenging questions, difficult choices and endless opportunities. I attended rallies, I spoke at meetings, and I strode the streets of Scotland, drumming up support for Liberal politics. The outward-looking, optimistic, broad-minded policies that you believe in and which Bulgaria needs today. And I believed then what I know to be true today. That the great challenges of our times are not national issues - They are international problems requiring multinational solutions. Can Bulgaria's economy prosper alone? Can Bulgaria save the planet from the catastrophe of climate change? Can Bulgaria prevent the movement of criminals across the continent? Of course not. These threats do not respect national borders, and they cannot be fought from national silos. Bulgaria needs - we all need - a strong and Liberal Europe that thinks big and acts smart. So when you are campaigning on the streets of Sofia or Plovdiv or Burgas, or whichever city, town or village you come from, tell people this: That they should vote in June because the European Union is on their side. And give them the evidence to back it up.Tell them what Europe is doing on the economy, the environment and on law and liberty too. Tell them how Europe reacted to recession by guaranteeing savers' money and keeping the banks in business. By negotiating a stimulus package that is pumping two hundred billion Euros into the veins of our ailing economies. And by working for radical reform of global finance at the G20 to ensure that this never happens again. Reforming the rules, backing up businesses, generating jobs - these are Europe's stepping stones across the river of recession. On the environment, tell the people that Europe is paramount. Today eighty percent of green law has its roots in Europe. And we need that law. Because climate change is coming – as surely as night follows day. Last December the EU hammered out a new deal to combat climate chaos. The furthest-reaching international agreement yet made. Member States must cut their carbon emissions by 20%. They must switch at least 20% of energy from fossil fuels to renewables. And they must do so by the year 2020. We had protests from the Poles, irritation from the Italians, and grumbles from the Germans. But we overcame those complaints. We vaulted over the vested interests. And we struck a deal to protect the planet. Does it go far enough?  No it doesn't. Europe should aim for a greater goal - a 50% cut, an 80% cut, a carbon free Europe. But the climate change package is the most far-reaching international deal yet reached. It is a vital step in the struggle to keep the air in the Rila Mountains clean, the levels of the Black Sea constant and the health of Bulgaria's citizens intact. And it puts Europe in pole position to lead the world in a new green deal at the Copenhagen Climate Conference later this year.

 So tell the people that Europe is vital for both economy and ecology. But tell them also that it is Europe which is striving for their security. Creating an environment in which criminals are caught, but liberties are cherished. To those who believe that crime can be countered at national level, we say this: You are living in another world. Our communications are sharper, our transport is faster, and our borders are more porous than ever before. A criminal can be half way across Europe before the policeman has his boots on. By definition, you can’t fight cross-border crime with national measures. If we want security we have to work together. That’s why I piloted through Parliament the European Arrest Warrant - To extradite suspects with speed and keep our citizens safe. And let me tell you, I’m glad I did. Today, it takes just five weeks to extradite a suspect from another European country. Before the Arrest Warrant, it took at least nine months. But of course, these things don't just happen by accident. They've happened because people have fought for them. ALDE has fought for them. The MRF has fought for them.

Where we have encountered resistance from the protectionist left, or the reactionary right, we have stood firm and made the progress we sought. So there you have it. On the economy, on the environment, on law and liberty, you have a potent message for the next European election, now just ten weeks away. Europe is necessary, ALDE is effective, and the MRF will work for you – But only if get the message out there - Only if you persuade people of the need to vote - Only if you persuade them that their best future is in a Liberal Europe. That's the way to increase the size of the MRF in the European Parliament, and the size of the ALDE Group as a whole. When I became Leader of that Group, it had just fifty Members. Today, we have a hundred. The largest third party - and the largest Liberal Group - that the Parliament has ever known. And I am confident that when we come back in July there will be more ALDE members than ever before. Because history is on our side. The protectionist policies of the Socialist left are backward and bust. And the nationalism, fear and intolerance that have too often driven the right won't cut it in an educated and enlightened age. Liberals believe in a society that is fair, free and open. Where we strike a balance between the fundamental values of liberty, equality, and community. And where no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.

The modern world is changing. Fear is giving way to hope, tolerance is replacing prejudice, and opportunity abounds. The battles of the future will fought on Liberal territory - So we need tomorrow's generation to ensure that we win the fight today. And that means you. With 20,000 members you are the biggest political youth group in Bulgaria. You are the largest Liberal youth movement in the whole of Europe. And as members of LYMEC and the International Federation of Political Youth, your principles are clear. The future of Bulgaria, the future of Europe, the future of Liberalism rests with people like you. Twenty years from now, people here today will be sitting instead in local government, in the National Assembly, in the European Parliament. You will be blazing history's path and shaping a Liberal new world order. But only if you fight to make that happen. So I am asking you to make this summer the moment in which your Youth Movement advances the Liberal front. With two elections within one month, turnout this summer will be crucial. If young people stay away because they assume that the good guys will win, then the good guys almost certainly won't. Because apathy is the greatest enemy of progress. Instead, do this: Leave here today, and start pounding the streets, knocking on doors, and posting your leaflets. Spread the word, build the momentum and motivate the people. The MRF has been a reforming presence in government and a modernising force in Bulgarian society.

 You know, I was among those who fought long and hard for Bulgaria to join the European Union. And your party was one that took the tough choices that made that happen. It is your achievement and you deserve credit for it. So fight your future, set the Liberal agenda, and use these elections to seize your chances in the European Union. Twenty seven countries, twenty three languages, one big opportunity to build a better Bulgaria.

Graham Watson visited Bulgaria on the 30th of March at the invitation of The Youth Movement For Rights and Freedoms. He discussed the ten priorities of the European liberals in 2009 as well as the clear vision for the policies and the values which the euro liberals from ALDE will try to achieve during the next mandate.

In his lecture Watson expressed satisfaction from the merits of The Movement For Rights And Freedoms concerning the governing of the country icluding the reform in the judicial system and the fight with coruption. According to him the Movement For Rights and Freedoms will be even stronger after the elections for national parliament in Bulgaria.

''Ahmed Dogan established this party in order to achieve liberalism, democracy and justice which is in favour of each and every Bulgarian citizen. This is a party which showed determination and was ready to lead Bulgaria to a peaceful and prosperous future", pointed out Graham Watson.

He also pointed out that Bulgaria needs strong centrist power as he reminded of the dangers of the foundation of extremist parties which are based on  hatred and do not lead to progress.

''I am very pleased to see that even though Bulgaria is influenced by The World Economic Crisis, it keeps on scoring economic growth even though it is not as significant as it was a few years ago. I think that this means that the reforms underaken by the governing coalition in Bulgaria are appropriate and effective", added Watson.

The Eurocommissioner Andris Pibalgs talked for about an hour with Ramadan Atalay on Tuesday. They met during the plenary session of the European Parliament in Strasburg. Atalay stated that he wanted to put emphasis on the support of the 40th National Assembly regarding the demands of the Bulgarian Government for cooperation and financial support for the energy projects. Our country has put forward concrete projects for the anticrisis plan of the European Commission.At the time of the meeting of the leaders in Brussels it became clear that the EU had allocated the sum total of 5.6 billion euro for additional financial and social protection for its members.

The meeting that was made possible by Vladko Panaiotov, a Bulgarian deputy from The Movement for Rights and Freedoms, was appraised by the supervisors as a positive sign for the unity of action of the parliament  in Sofia and for their common will to receive adequate financial support. Bulgaria's capabilty of handling the damages caused by the Russian-ukrainian gas crisis was again underlined during the conversation with Pibalgs.

The Commissioner, responsible for the Energy in the party of Jose Manuel Barozu was asked by Ramadan Atalay to satisfy the demands of the Prime Minister Sergey Stanishev for additional compensation for 3rd and 4th reactor of Kozlodui APS (Atomic Power Station) which were untimely closed. On Saturday the Prime Minister declared in a video conversation from Brussels that he had introduced a well-grounded demand for Bulgaria to receive financial support for the two blocs in the APS even after 2009 just as Slovakia and Lithuania, for instance, had agreed to longer periods for compensations. "Barozu
found the demand of Bulgaria reasonable", Stanishev commented a few days ago.

Ramadan Atalay and Andris Pibalgs discussed the concrete project in the realm of Energy on Tuesday in Strasburg as Atalay assured him in the unity of action of the institutions in Bulgaria.

Ramadan Atalay extended an invitation to the Eurocommissioner Pibalgs to visit Bulgaria.

Vice-Chairman of the National Assembly. Younal Loutfi, was elected Vice-Chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe /PACE/. This happened at the opening of first part of the session of PACE in 2009 in Strasbourg on 26 January 2009.The Vice-President of the Movement for Rights and Freedoms was born on 8 April 1944 in Harmanli and Graduates "Turkish Philology and Oriental Studies”  at Sofia University. Speaks French, English and Turkish. MP in all parliaments since the democratic changes: 7 Constitutional National Assembly and consistently in the 36th, 37th, 38th, 39th and 40th National Assemblies. Deputy Chairman of Parliament in the last four terms of the legislative authority of the Republic of Bulgaria. Head of Delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe of the Bulgarian side. Younal Loutfi is one the founders of the Movement for Rights and Freedoms.Younal Loutfi was voted  for four years. He is a member of the Bulgarian delegation in the organization since 1991 and is its leader since 2001. Younal Loutfi was vice president of PACE in 2003.
The main topics on the agenda of the session, which will continue until 30 January, the consequences of war in the South Caucasus, the situation in the Gaza Crisis  and the global financial crisis.

On Thursday in Strasbourg Prof. Vladko Panayotov - MEP -  ALDE, MRF met and discussed with his British colleague Geoffrey Van Orden before lunch eventual opening of III and IV reactor at Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant. The two members of the European Parliament had established their joint seeing for their conditions, having allowed Bulgaria have requested from their European commission their reconsideration, of the writing about nuclear power plant in the agreement on our affiliation to EU. “Bulgaria should and can take advantage of the fact, that gas crisis occurred during the Czech presidency of the EU, which looks very favorably on nuclear energy and its presence in the energy mix in Europe, stressed Jeffrey Van Orden. Prof. Panayotov urged to cooperate in the Commission's request to grant financial support for the construction of alternative gas routes.
Whatever the outcome of the current crisis ,to achieve in the short term, must find a lasting and radical solution for energy independence, and both were unanimous union.

"I left unanswered the most important question: when will be restored gas supplies to Bulgaria", Bulgarian European Parliament asked Prof. Vladko Panayotov - ALDE, MRF, hour and a half after the beginning of extended extraordinary meeting of the Foreign Policy in the European Parliament in Brussels.

Prof. Panayotov explained emergency situation in Bulgria - schools closed, freezing hospitals, women, children, elderly in distress in a kind of prewar situation. When will be released millions of European hostages, asked the MEP. 

When you put gas in Russia, the first quantities will be sent to Bulgaria, said the chief of Neftogaz" Oleh Dubyna.

Focus: Mr. Atalay, What compensations can Bulgargas demand for the damages that were done as a result from the suspension of gas supply to Bulgaria?Ramadan Atalay: In this situation we are left with no choice but to try and do something as quickly as possible in order for the gas supply to start functioning the way it did before the crisis. Later on Bulgaria will ask for the missed opportunities but only if the guilt of the supplying country is proved.However, it would be fair if the country asking for the corresponding taxes succeeds in proving that the other country is to blame, that is to say, Russia must be proved guilty to be made to pay the corresponding compensations to Bulgaria. Here are the clauses which can be discussed in short. The director of Bulgargas is the one who should shed light on these clauses if that is allowed.

Focus: Do you mean to say that if it turns out that Ukraine is guilty we may not get any compensation because Bulgaria signed a contract with Gas prom?

Ramadan Atalay: In all likelihood both countries (Bulgaria and Ukraine) must express their pretensions to the third country. The latest information that I have is that it is Ukraine that diverts certain amounts of gas from Russia and by so doing it blocks the corresponding pipelines. If, however, Russia has stopped gas supply, then Bulgaria must direct its pretensions to the supplier, that is, Gas prom.

Focus: But how is Bulgaria going to understand who is to blame?

Ramadan Atalay: This is why it is said in all contracts that we have to go to court and there there are many procedures by means of which you can prove who exactly is to blame.

Focus: Which court deals with this problem?

Ramadan Atalay: It is the court that should deal with this. No one else can cope with this problem. Still, the main issue right now is to make our utmost for the gas supply to start working properly. You see that EC does already react because they are worried about the decreased amount of gas that the countries have to use.Focus: The President insisted that the real amount of gas in the storehouse must be established because the opposition claimed that Peter Dimitrov, the Minister of Economy and Energy, did not give correct data about the amounts of gas in the storehouse.

Is it true that the amount of gas left in the storehouse is exaggerated as the opposition claims because they said that the real amount of gas amounts to 500 million cubic meters?

Ramadan Atalay: We must not be talking about what the opposition or the ruling parties did, because I think that at this very moment we must be united because the crisis is very serious indeed.

The amounts of gas left in Chiren coincide with those that have been stored and Bulgargas has data about that. Idon’t think that there is even one minister having more exact and clearer information about that. If Bulgargas has given data to the minister and he has announced

them then they must be like these: Chiren has gas amounting to 500 million cubic meters. And the claim that there is more gas that is necessary for the pushing out of these 500 million cubic meters is a fact as well. But it would be best if Bulgargas takes these technical data. 

I wouldn’t recommend the opposition to try to derive some kind of political dividends from this critical situation because the guilty country is situated outside Bulgaria.

Let us be united for once!

Focus: Was the situation we fell into predictable because this conflict was looming large in the course of time and it seems to me that our country might have done something to prevent the suspension of gas?

Ramadan Atalay: I would compare this situation with an earthquake. Is it predictable? But is the earthquake predictable? I have a ready answer and it is that it is not possible to say when this can happen because it does not depend on us. Can anyone ever say that the supplier will reestablish the delivery of gas? If we start guessing and pricking up our senses in fear that the supplier can stop the delivery of gas we won’t be able to live normally. As you can see Europe provides gas for Russia. At least 43 per cent of the supplies are from Russia. Did they predict, did they have information that Russia or Ukraine would act in this way?

I assume that what they all (The Representative Authority) did including the business establishment Bulgargas is in the framework of this situation of crisis. I am convinced that all customers of gas know what the situation is because I can see that they are taking adequate measures. It would be wrong if the opposition starts trying to derive some dividends from this situation.

Focus: Are you for or against the suspension of the politicians’ vacation?

Ramadan Atalay: I am for the suspension of the vacation. At 14 o’clock on Friday there will be a meeting of the Energetic commission where the Minister of Economy and Energy will be heard to explain about everything that is of interest for the other deputies. Even if the supplies of gas start functioning normally it would not be useless to listen to what the minister has to say. He will explain each and every action of his and will also provide information for those alternative fuels that according to the contract with Bulgargas every energetic business establishment must have as a variant.

I got acquainted with the reasons of the European Commission (EC) to suspend the accreditation of the two agencies. My initial negative reaction is now being supported by reasonable arguments. In July the reason for the suspension of the resources was that Bulgarian administrative capacity was weak and there were also suspicions of abuse and conflicts of interests in the distribution of money. EC even claimed that there were no real results from the fight with corruption. The argument for the non-renewal of the accreditation of the two agencies is the lack of results in these areas.

The measure undertaken by the Commission is far too severe. What the government has done for the last months is an explicit answer to the reproaches towards us. The status of the agency was changed. It was structured so as to be under direct subordination to the Prime Minister.  There were also many auditors present. They were invited to make sure that the resources would be impartially and legally used. Just a few days ago a Bulgarian court decided on a verdict for the case about “The Republic Road Infrastructure”. The type of work was changed which was also admitted by the Counselor of the Director of the European office OLAF.

What has already been done is an explicit reflection of her political will and that is exactly what should be taken into account. It is unacceptable to assess the future measures included in the long-term plan of the government to improve the work of agencies. The decision of EC contrasts unpleasantly with the background of another decision made by it that was connected with the transferring of 9 billion euro to the economies of the countries next year and, on account of the financial crisis, that decision was accompanied by simplification of the rules for the use of the money.

There will be a hearing on the territorial rapprochement in the European Parliament and the Commissioner on Regional Policy, Danuta Hubner, will also be present. I will use her presence to get to know details about the measure that is unprecedented for our country and also learn her point of view about our further work.

Mr. Graham Watson, MEP, ALDE Group

MRF and the National Movement for Stability and Progress are the two Bulgarian parties in the Liberal family. Are you satisfied with their work?

Except Filiz Hyusmenova who has led the MRF Delegation in ALDE from the moment Bulgarian Observers joined the European Parliament in September 2005, all our Bulgarian Members are newcomers to the House. Their arrival half way through the mandate put them at a disadvantage with parliamentarians from the other Member States and they had to hit the floor running to make up for lost time. Looking at their legislative work I can see that they do not fall behind the rest of our Group. On the contrary, next to the everyday workload they actively promote EU policies in their constituencies and organise various events here in Brussels. Filiz and other Members of the Group have offered them guidance and support they are now professionally contributing to all aspects of our work.

MRF has organized a couple of key events in Bulgaria to explain the benefits from the EU membership. What other initiatives are in the pipeline?

We are planning many new initiatives in which I and other Liberal colleagues will participate. These events will aim to promote the liberal policies and our priorities for 2008 which is also the European Year of multicultural dialogue. Throughout the almost two decades since its creation, the MRF has defended and promoted the tolerance and understanding between different cultures and ethnicities and we want to build further on its achievements.

The National Movement for Stability and Progress has split and a number of MPs have left the parliamentary group to form a group of their own in the Bulgarian Parliament. Would you comment on these developments?

These are internal political processes which do not affect NMSP's European representation. Bilyana Raeva is one of our most active Members and is an excellent Ambassador of Bulgarian Liberalism. I hope however that this internal process is nearing its end and the NMSP will use the time ahead to consolidate its position, formulate a strong programme for the 2009 elections and hopefully earn greater representation in this House.

It is a year since Bulgaria joined the EU but people do not think that their lives will improve. What steps can we take to improve the standard of living?

The governing coalition was formed with EU accession in mind which it achieved through consistently working away at the problematic areas. Meglena Kuneva played a key role in ensuring that Bulgaria's membership was not derailed. Next to this great ambition, your government has made progress in stimulating the economy which continues to grow at rates well above the European average. The introduction of a flat rate tax played a key role in encouraging trade, industrial production and foreign investment.

Areas which concern the daily life of every Bulgarian and where proactive government policy is needed are education and health care. It is true that reforming these sectors is costly and painful but to guarantee comfort and quality more needs to be done.

Finally, to have a better life people should feel safe and have trust in the judiciary. The government should go on the offensive against crime and corruption and not because Brussels expects it but because the ordinary Bulgarians deserve it.  Every so often a fresh Bulgarian scandal is paraded in Europe - instead of exporting such problems in search for mediation you should be dealing with them in Sofia in a prompt, fair and transparent manner.

What do you think of the visit of Vladimir Putin last week during which a number of key contracts were signed? Is Europe worried by Bulgaria's close economic partnership with Russia?

Bilateral links with third countries cannot be a source of concern as long as they strengthen our position as a whole. The EU has an awkward relationship with Russia because of the state of the Russian democracy and its tendency to bully rather than cooperate with smaller countries. As long as you do not put yourselves in a dependent position, closer economic ties with Russia can be beneficial for all and in developing the European energy policy - a process in which I hope Bulgaria will play active role - Russia should be taken into account as a major energy supplier.

What do you think about the pipeline "South Stream" which will transport gas from Russia to Italy through Bulgaria and which was agreed during Putin's visit?

After this visit, Bulgaria was labelled by some "Russia's Trojan Horse" which is unjustified. It is Bulgaria's right to exploit its strategic geopolitical position on the Balkans and try to become a focal entry point for energy supplies from beyond the EU. However, this project should not jeopardise the work on the Nabucco pipeline which will carry to Europe natural gas from other countries than Russia. Ukraine and Belarus have both experienced the other side of Russian cooperation when Moscow turned the gas taps off midwinter disrupting also provisions for Europe. To guarantee security of supplies it is imperative to avoid heavy dependence on Russian fuels and South Stream should be regarded as a compliment and not an alternative to Nabucco.

The work on another project - the oil pipeline Bourgas - Alexandroupolis - is about to begin.  Environmentalists in Bulgaria protest against it and there is a wide-spread disapproval of this initiative. What is your view?

As far as I understand, an assessment of the environmental impact of the project is needed before it gets a go ahead. I expect the Environmental Ministry to strictly follow the procedure, to listen to all concerned parties and come out with an objective opinion. A wide campaign might be needed to inform the public of the project and address the concerns. As this is a major regional project the EU will be following its development which will put additional leverage on the Bulgarian government to act responsibly.

Bulgaria is threatened by a crisis of the energy supply (electricity) The energy minister has stopped the export of electricity and warned that a power cuts might be needed. Last week the government announced it will seek to reopen the III and IV units of the nuclear power plant in Kozlodui which were close prior to accession. Do you think Brussels will be supportive?

Not only Bulgaria but the whole of Europe is entering an age of energy insecurity as our energy needs are growing and is clear that our supplies are insufficient. I think Bulgaria should do more to explore green alternatives such as wind-, hydro- and solar energy. Nuclear power should be part of the energy mix of tomorrow but it is unwise to rely solely on it. 

Filiz Hyusmenova has requested a meeting with me to discuss the Kozlodui situation. Once I have seen documents backing the government plan and addressing the safety concerns I can take a clear position. The European Union should not be seen as a forbidding authority adverse to Bulgaria's national interest. The key word in all your dealings with Brussels is dialogue, you should be here presenting your case, arguing your point, lobbying for your country.

Ahmed Dogan: Thank you. Dear ladies and gentlemen, I first take the opportunity to thank all the people who voted for us and all our most active party members. The ones who managed to find a formula to succeed and the ones who could not and failed. I congratulate them as well! The MRF has grounds to make a deserved analysis of local elections 2007. Naturally, the main problem is the basis. The basis for local elections always lies in the previous local elections. The MRF is first political power in 61 municipalities, 10 districts. Of course, the index of the councilors is quite impressive – as a growth over 200 we have 209 councilors. The mayors of town councils are more than 200 as well. This is an indication for an actual growth, for the development of our party. Naturally, we have suffered losses as well. In seven municipalities we fought against ourselves. In two of them we lost. As I pointed out to you last time during the first round, this was an act of an inadequate nomination and every party has to make a precise analysis of these realities, naturally, when we make the general evaluations of the big picture of local elections 2007.

Besides the buying of votes we are very much disturbed by a phenomenon that is reviving, that is reproducing itself. This is the creation of conditions, of prerequisites for an ethnical vote when one party and one political subject have no other arguments, they use ethno-arguments. This phenomenon bothers us, ladies and gentlemen. In a number of municipalities and districts this was the main political paradigm for the run-off. At this stage we will not make any comments. Probably we will have extensive teams who will supervise such processes and situations. Naturally, every party has to make its own analysis as to what it has lost and what it has gained.

We are developing, we have grown, we have lost regions known as such, we have compensated with new regions. At this stage the MRF, taking as a basis the 30 from the previous local elections 2003 has won in 6 more municipalities, 6 plus the 5 coalition ones. I allude to the fact that the municipalities might turn out to be more and in fact obviously already this is becoming a tendency. We talk of party nominations and not of coalition nominations. Of course, the voter always weighs up how much power to give to which party from the stand point of the present day realities. Our share in local authorities is significant, in terms of voters we are the third political power, in terms of councilors we are the second political power, and in terms of mayors and town councils, since there are no final results yet, we are the first or the second political power. This determines the frame of responsibility of a given political power. Our colleagues primarily on the basis of quantitative indices make extrapolations for a parliamentary vote and for other such votes. I think that they deeply misinterpret the realities. In 2003 the MRF had a basis of 250 - 251 000 (votes) for councilors, for the party ticket, now we have experienced a growth of 100 000 – 350 000 (votes). This obviously indicates the development of the party, yet we ourselves are concerned about the tempo and rhythm of our development, since there are starting to revive in circulation arguments that are not typical for a democracy that has already existed for 17-18 years. In a sense it saddens us that in regions, in areas and municipalities which otherwise have the self-consciousness of being democratic in terms of order, in the long run when it is a matter of competition with the MFR, they do not have any other argument besides the ethno vote or the creation of conditions for an ethno vote. It is to a certain extent sad from the stand point of the democratic regimes, history, values, yet this is the reality and this is the datum, the material we deal with. Every party in our place would feel very well and we are in fact well placed, well established in the local authorities, yet there is something that already signals out some limit, some option and this option is not just any option, but rather it is connected with the democratic regime itself as a government system.

Naturally, we have a great responsibility. Based upon this vote our new municipalities are in the Burgas area in Sungurlare, in Smolian, Devin, Borino, Varbitsa, Shumen, Dospat. This is in fact the expansion, but the most precise indication for the local vote includes also the parameter of mayors of town-councils where we actually have achieved a growth over 200 mayors, as well as we have more than 200 – 209 councilors (The total number of councilors elected from the ticket of the MRF is 904).

We accept this vote as genuine. Naturally these new political forces that yet enter the game and are to master the technology of the elections, of governance, of power, it is normal for them to have higher expectations from the stand point of the realities, to take the desired for real, yet this is the material the democracy in Bulgaria comprises of. Therefore, we are inwardly confident, content, but we also have concerns from the stand point of these new syndromes, I would say, which by definition should not be typical for the Bulgarian civil society, yet they are taking place. That is it.

Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Dogan. You have the floor for questions, dear journalists. Microphone four, BTA

Reporter: Good evening, Biliana Georgieva, BTA. Mr. Dogan, you share the opinion that the local elections give indication of the parliamentary ones. Now you have achieved an expansion in the vote. How, in your opinion, will you achieve a political and geographical expansion in the next parliamentary elections taking into account the expressed uneasiness in connection with the anti MRF vote at the run-off today, for example?

Ahmed Dogan: Yes, thank you for the clear and specific question, colleague. The anti MRF vote is not our problem, but rather a problem of the civil society and of the Bulgarian civil society at that. After 18 years of democracy, if having actually fallen in a poor situation we use only ethno-arguments then this is bad for democracy itself. Naturally, the MRF will develop and will expand, this is a fact. There are different parameters and criteria for assessment of the local vote in relation to the expected parliamentary vote. Our expectations of parliamentary vote are actually optimistic as well, yet our concern remains from the stand point of the potential such ethno vote in any elections, because the so called ripe or new political forces having fallen in weightlessness, have no other arguments except the ethical argumentation.

Moderator: Microphone two, “Standard” Newspaper.

Reporter: Good evening. Nina Vasilyovska, “Standard” Newspaper. Mr. Dogan, does the coalition need a new vote of confidence and will there be a cabinet reshuffle after these elections?
Ahmed Dogan: Colleagues, the issue of pre-term elections presupposes a real alternative of the ruling coalition. There is no such alternative. There is one political force that has shown growth. After the European accession elections it participates for the first time in local elections, but if this is grounds, I think that this is quite dangerous for the Bulgarian civil society and for the country itself. Because, as I already told you last time, our least expectations, even of the very politicians of the triple coalition, were the Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria (CEDB) to at least receive 50% plus. The existing reality is not such, it is only a virtual reality. Naturally, the program of CEDB is yet to expand, it faces time and space, programming. It is one thing to want, yet another thing to be able to, and yet third to make it happen, forth to be credited for it, fifth one to be himself content with it. We are now in the first stages. It is only natural a new political force to make its entrance by rushing to the different niches of the local government, because the local government is in fact, colleagues, the generator of power in general which also includes the centralized power. They have good achievements, yet this is not enough for one to undertake the responsibility, the overall politics in the country without having plus total let say the councilors of the triple coalition, one cannot have such a claim. One should nevertheless at least have some proximity to this common bulk of councilors.

All desires for pre-term elections, possibly to create conditions for a new subject who is to appear as an alternative, to take the responsibility. I think that these are rather at the level of wishful thinking, than they are conditions for implementation.

Moderator: Microphone two, “Trud” Newspaper, Yova Apostolova.

Reporter: Thank you. The ethnical vote is really not a good signal for democracy, but as far as the ethnic arguments have any merit, there is a reason for this. And as far as the process is bilateral, what is the MRF ready to change in itself in order to disarm such campaigning? And in this context, in what government do you envision yourself in the next parliamentary elections? There is talk again about the updating of the “Liberal Alliance” with the NMSS?
Ahmed Dogan: MRF has shown during the last 18 years what it is capable of and what it does. And this has been appreciated in Europe, in the world and, at that, as an example of finding a way to resolve very complicated issues. Who needs to change is a complicated issue. We must not approach this question with inertia – if it is posed, this means there is a problem. I do not know exactly where the problem lies, in my opinion the problem is somewhere else and not in the MRF. It is not in the MRF. I am not convinced it is in the MRF. The MRF is a model on a worldwide scale, esteemed ladies and gentlemen. I have no information whether any other party has such experience in the solving and settling of similar problems. I do not have such information, but I am seriously engaged in this topic. Who needs to change is another topic. Obviously we have to change in parallel. We all develop on the go. We still do not have parameters as to what exactly this thing should be. Yet it is a fact that the Bulgarian society at a certain point, not having other arguments, shouts: “The Turks are coming!” We are not the ones to blame for this. The problem might be deeper, but we are building a democracy. We say this with a dose of grief. Let us approach conscientiously – a competition, from the stand point of policy making, being skilful at politics, resolving the problems of the regions, of the country. But when you take a stand in the corner, you have no other arguments and you say… I think that this, to say the least, is dishonest. And we are educating new generations of politicians, young people. If we imprint this attitude in their spiritual and intellectual matrix, it will not be good for the country. This is the problem. If one competes, if one is playing chess, then he ought to sit and play chess and not to draw an axe, because anyone can be the axe. Why don’t you speak up? Uncle, why won’t you say a word? That’s it, colleagues.

Reporter: OK, where is the problem in your opinion then?

Ahmed Dogan: It is in the fact that obviously even the media show attitude towards this problem. I would not want to comment this problem right here, yet the responsibility is common, colleagues. The MRF has no other chance but to develop itself. This is a solid strategy, you all see that. However, we are not an ethnic party. According to all European standards, criteria, norms we are a normal party that knows what it wants to achieve, how to achieve it, it has potential. And when you are fighting such a party, you have to have political arguments, and not irrational, historical or other such arguments, because anyone can draw some kind of argument from history.

Reporter: The MRF is not expanding its influence in the large district centers. For example, in Haskovo today there was a run-off as well and you did not win, nor in Turgovishte. There must be some other explanation than the one you gave?

Ahmed Dogan: I ask you journalists and my colleague sociologists and everybody engaged in sociometry, to take a look at what really happened in Haskovo, Turgovishte, Razgrad, Tervel and in many other places. Even the media cannot precisely notice the phenomenon which is probably dominating and is stronger than the buying of votes. The buying of votes is European phenomenon. After the Second World War it has become a typical phenomenon. Whether they offer shoes, clothes or money, it is there. We have to outlive this process. And now they started buying votes. When the business community feels uncomfortable and decides to come into power, well, then it will use this technology. This is normal and democracy itself provides such an opportunity. I think that we all went quite simplemindedly along this plane, votes are being bought and democracy is going to pieces, but there simply is no such thing happening. Democracy will persist, even with the buying of votes.

Moderator: Microphone three.

Reporter: Good evening, ’24 Hours’ Kalina Vlaykova. Mr. Dogan, I would like to ask you, was this grief you share about the anti MRF attitude in the country the reason to withdraw your candidates in several places and to give support to other candidates?

Ahmed Dogan: Colleague, when we are supportive we are regarded as quite cool, as very good, as democrats. When we come out on the mat to fight we are the worst possible people. This is the problem. In the last 18 years we made an attempt to overcome this situation, yet this phenomenon is reproducing itself even in a mutated form, in an even worse one. Naturally, our philosophy is to be the wiser ones, the more experienced ones, not to react, yet to be wise is not a duty. Therefore, I tell you this with grief, this situation cannot go on. If it goes on like this, we can come up yet with other versions for democracy. I will be immediately asked, however, what are the models and so forth. I am not ready to give you an answer. But this is not democracy. If democracy includes such an element, anyone can irrationally race in some direction without foreseeing what will happen. Then what is the matter in hand?

Moderator: Microphone one, Darik Radio.

Reporter: Darik Radio, Angel Ivanov. You spoke of the business community, Mr. Dogan. That is why I refer to the dress rehearsal some business formations held on a local level during these elections. And I ask you, in your opinion do the party leaders keep a sufficiently tight rein on the circles around their parties as of the present day? Might it not happen so that at some next elections these companies, these circles could come out of control and demand the power more acutely and directly?

Ahmed Dogan: Thank you for your question, colleague. When several years ago I described to you the circle rather as an X-ray photograph, you accused me in particular and the MRF that it was us who just about create such circles. What you see at present is a circle in action, only we have the advantage to always see them (the processes) obviously ahead of others (as a tendency) and then are blamed for this thing. The buying of votes in practice means that the business community has awoken and wants real power, and local power at that. We cannot do this in another way, except with circles of companies which are at consensus or have common interests at a municipal level and at a regional level. And we see this in a spread out form. This was the X-ray photograph we took via the circles, and you accused us as though it was us who created these circles. No! We do not buy votes. Our rules are different. Our philosophy is different.

Moderator: Microphone three, last question, Bulgarian National Radio, Gergana Hrischeva, “Horizon” Program.

Reporter: Mr. Dogan, could you tell us specifically how you will resolve the problems of the regions, of the local authorities in the places where the MRF won in terms of these election results? And, if possible, tell us whether you believe that the local authorities in Bulgaria are ready to work with the European funds, and particularly whether your candidates for mayors understand that winning projects is not done simply just because we have become members of the European Union?

Ahmed Dogan: I am sorry, colleague, you are obviously not informed with regard to the readiness of our team to absorb European funds for the very region. At this stage I can tell you quite distinctly that during the last 17 – 18 years the MRF has gained extremely wide experience in local government. To us the local government is more than power in general. It is a school for the production of on site personnel. From the stand point of the present day capacity of the country in the absorption of the European funds, I am sure we are one of the readiest teams. I have in mind project readiness. However, I turn to you as colleagues. Of course, journalists still think that the European funds are sacks full of money that arrive someplace and are distributed in some way – in an incriminating way, in principle. There is no such thing. All our most active personnel have been trained and are being trained and the training is ongoing and now our new mayors will pass through the strainer of qualifications and re-qualifications. We know what results we seek from these European funds. The European funds are a virtual reality, colleague. If one is not ready if one does not have the capacity, the capacity of an expert, the capacity of an administrator, this virtual reality and will remain virtual. The European funds are a compulsory principle, they are an opportunity, and we are ready and will take advantage of this in solving the specific problems of the regions and of the people in these regions. Therefore, most probably during the parliamentary elections, the next ones, you will understand the effect of this, who and to what an extent have mastered this technology, this setting of goals and have adequately matched them with their respective capacity in the expert, administrative, political sense.

Moderator: Thank you, Mr. Dogan. I also thank you, dear journalists for the interest you have shown in our press conference. Have a pleasant evening.

Having accepted art.3 of the Project Law for electing Bulgarian representatives in the European parliament, proposed and submitted in the 39^th National Assembley in 2005 by the Council of Ministers with ex prime-minister Simeon Saxe Coburg Gotha, the 40^th National Assembley of European Bulgaria didn’t show european attitude but rather straightforward one of discrimination to its citizens.

The adopted text is a gross infringement of art. 26 and art. 42 from the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria and art.17 from the Treaty establishing European Communities (EEC), read as follows:

Art. 26. (1) Irrespective of where they are, all citizens of the Republic of Bulgaria shall be vested with all rights and obligations proceeding from this Constitution.

(2) Foreigners residing in the Republic of Bulgaria shall be vested with all rights and obligations proceeding from this Constitution, except those rights and obligations for which Bulgarian citizenship is required by this Constitution or by another law.

Art. 42. (1) Every citizen above the age of 18, with the exception of those placed under judicial interdiction or serving a prison sentence, shall be free to elect state and local authorities and vote in referendums.(2) The organisation and procedure for the holding of elections and referendums shall be established by law.

Art. 17 (1) (EEC) Citizenship of the Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a Member State shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship of the Union shall complement and not replace national citizenship.

(2) Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby.

Art. 17, line 1 from the EEC establishes EU citizenship. In practice, it means that any person who holds the nationality of an EU Member State is automatically a European citizen.
Articles 17 and 21 of the EEC Treaty define consequences of the European citizenship. Part of the rights in these articles referred to granting active and passive electoral rights in the  European parliament and local authority’s elections.

In this light, similar restrictions cannot be imposed on EU citizens. However, if such restrictions are imposed on Bulgarian citizens the parties that have supported this restriction act must take the political responsibility for having allowed Bulgarian citizens being in more unpriviliged position than other EU member states’ citizens. Quite a paradoxical is the fact that Bulgarian citizen has namely the right to elect, for instance, a German MEP, because in line with the EEC Treaty after acquiring EU citizenship Bulgarian citizens are granted the right to vote for and stand as a candidate at municipal and European Parliament elections in whichever Member State an EU citizen resides and is not allowed to elect for a Bulgarian MEP.

Art. 42 of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria restricts the electing rights only to those placed under judicial interdiction or serving a prison sentence. Parliamentary group of MRF seriously remonstrate against the result from the adoption of the restriction act, and namely conferring free Bulgarian citizens the same status as criminals.

Bulgaria extends to even where its last citizen lives. Therefore, the projection of the adopted text, a result of exhibited pseudo-patriotism, is narrowing of the spiritual territories of the Republic of Bulgaria.

In sign of remonstration against the violation act of the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria by irrespecting and restricting Bulgarian citizens’ rights, the Parliamentary group of MRF has left the plenary hall until the final adoption of the law in matter is a fact.

Sofia,

February 14^th, 2007