MEPs elected by Bulgarian citizens are obligated to prioritize the Bulgarian national interest in all their decisions.
MEPs elected by Bulgarian citizens are obligated to prioritize the protection of Bulgaria’s national interest in all their decisions. In the case of North Macedonia’s European integration, this amounts to insisting on the unconditional implementation by EU institutions and the authorities in Skopje of the so-called 2022 European Compromise, which has been systematically attacked by the RSM in an attempt to alter the Negotiating Framework and circumvent the so-called “merit-based” integration process.
Compromise and dialogue are fundamental principles upon which the European Union operates. Equally European is the fundamental rule of advancing in integration solely on the basis of one’s own merits, and of unconditionally respecting concluded international treaties and commitments undertaken.
BGNES recalls that in 2022, the so-called European Compromise was reached, which established a framework for Skopje’s European integration. Bulgaria made significant concessions and, with clear political will and broad consensus, once again supported its closest historical neighbor in the region.
In fulfillment of the commitments made under this compromise, Bulgaria:
– immediately gave the green light for the approval of the Negotiating Framework for North Macedonia;
– ensured the ratification (October 2022) of the Cooperation Agreement between the European Border and Coast Guard Agency (FRONTEX) and the Republic of North Macedonia. This is the first official document between the EU and North Macedonia signed in the language specified in North Macedonia’s Constitution, on an equal footing with all other EU languages. A fact that would not have been possible without the political parties in Bulgaria reaching a compromise;
– in practice, it allowed the European Commission to conduct a preliminary screening of North Macedonia’s legislation regarding its compliance with EU law—a procedure that typically begins after the opening of negotiations. With a view to accelerating the process and driven by the desire for Skopje’s accelerated integration, Sofia agreed to this happening earlier, which led to the de facto completion of the screening without the condition for the inclusion of Bulgarians in North Macedonia’s Constitution having been met.
Against the backdrop of Bulgaria’s genuine, well-intentioned, and good-neighborly actions toward our southwestern neighbor, the ruling authorities in Skopje are unwilling to fulfill their part of the international commitments they have undertaken and are constantly seeking ways to undermine them. This includes the use of EU officials, who, by presumption, should prioritize the interests of the Union and its member states.
Thomas Weitz, the European Parliament’s rapporteur on North Macedonia, has himself tabled an amendment to his latest report, thereby calling into question the second protocol to the Treaty between Bulgaria and North Macedonia, which the EU itself has identified as part of the Negotiating Framework.
The amendments proposed by the MEPs are available on the European Parliament’s website.
In Amendment 108, Weitz proposes that the text of the future resolution state that the European Parliament “calls on the Council’s Legal Service to urgently clarify all ambiguities regarding the legal status of the second bilateral protocol to the Treaty of Good Neighborliness and Friendship between the two countries in connection with the accession process.”
A text that in itself sounds harmless, but why is it an obstacle? The protocol explicitly states that the next intergovernmental conference, which concludes the phase of opening negotiations, will take place only after North Macedonia includes Bulgarians in its constitution. The protocol was adopted during the Second Meeting of the Joint Intergovernmental Commission under Article 12 of the Treaty of Friendship, Good Neighborliness, and Cooperation between Bulgaria and North Macedonia, held in Sofia on July 17, 2022.
The aim of this text is to initiate negotiations on North Macedonia’s accession without Skopje having fulfilled its commitments and before Bulgarians are included in their fundamental la
It is certainly cause for concern that Thomas Weitz’s request is fully in line with the policies of North Macedonian Prime Minister Hristijan Mickoski and President Gordana Siljanovska-Davkova. Last year, former MP Liliyana Popovska, who is linked to former Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski, initiated proceedings to challenge the second protocol. Her complaint was accepted for review by the Constitutional Court of North Macedonia within a short period of time. Popovska argues that the protocol contradicts the Constitution, has an incorrect legal form, and touches on issues of identity. However, six months later, the court has yet to rule. This raises the reasonable question of whether the EP rapporteur does not want the Council’s legal service to make a decision instead of the Constitutional Court in Skopje, so that a potentially favorable assessment in favor of North Macedonia could be presented as a “European” decision rather than an attempt by a candidate country to circumvent the conditions for membership.
BGNES also recalls Skopje’s positions regarding the drafting of last year’s report on North Macedonia, again authored by Thomas Weitz, from which it became clear that the North Macedonian prime minister had prior access to confidential internal information in real time regarding the document’s texts:
– In May 2025, North Macedonian Prime Minister Mitkoski stated that the document did not appear out of thin air, but was the result of Skopje’s work, which had continued for more than 10–11 months, that is, nearly a year;
– On June 6, 2025, Foreign Minister Timcho Mutski acknowledged that the government and Prime Minister Mickoski personally maintain direct communication with a “huge number of lawmakers” from the largest European parties;
– On June 26 of last year, he stated: “We are conducting organized outreach, and I have spoken with everyone in Brussels. I managed to soften the blow that someone wanted to deal to Macedonian identity and language by characterizing them as ‘modern’ or ‘contemporary’ (in the report on North Macedonia).”
In this year’s report, Weitz also proposes the following text (Amendment 124): “reiterates its call to strengthen the EU’s capacity to act by introducing partial qualified majority voting in areas related to the accession process, including by removing the unanimity requirement in the intermediate stages of the enlargement process when deciding on the opening and closing of individual negotiation clusters and chapters;…”.
In Amendment 214, the rapporteur emphasizes “the obligation of all Council of Europe member states, including EU member states, as well as candidate and potential candidate countries, to implement in a timely manner the outstanding judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR),” adding that any legislative changes must be in line with international standards and the recommendations of the Venice Commission and the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI).
We commend Weitz’s concern regarding the implementation of ECHR rulings, but such phrasing has no place in a document whose sole purpose is to assess Skopje’s readiness to become part of the democratic European community.
It is clear to everyone that although “Member States” are not explicitly mentioned, the text of Proposal 214 obviously refers to Bulgaria and the group of cases involving the “Ilinden” OMO before the ECHR. It is unacceptable for a European Parliament rapporteur to impose obligations on a member state or to assess it within the framework of a report on a candidate country. These texts are entirely in line with Skopje’s rhetoric, whereby Weitz calls into question elements of the negotiating framework that have already been agreed upon, while, on the other hand, North Macedonia fails to comply with the recommendations of the Venice Commission and the ECRN.
The attempt to circumvent unanimity in decision-making regarding the negotiation process with a candidate country that has for years refused to comply with the Negotiating Framework it itself adopted is utterly unacceptable.
When Thomas Weitz drafted last year’s report on North Macedonia, not a single Bulgarian representative in the European institutions took responsibility for allowing the phrase “Macedonian identity and language” to be included in the final version in the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET), matters on which the European Parliament has no authority to rule. A vote in the plenary chamber was necessary to ensure that Skopje’s lobbying texts were removed from the resolution.
This time, agreeing to a “compromise” option or completely backing down on the amendments opens the door to unpredictable and uncontrollable consequences.
Bulgaria, as a responsible participant in international relations and a predictable member of the EU, has fulfilled its commitments under the European compromise. Bulgarian MEPs must not become complicit in Skopje’s efforts to renege on its international commitments and shift the consequences of its own failure onto Sofia.
The election campaign in Bulgaria does not absolve Bulgarian MEPs of political responsibility, and such responsibility is always sought by future generations | BGNES