Bulgarian opposition parties added to their discussion on tabling a motion in Parliament to impeach President Georgi Purvanov by considering whether to stage a walkout from the debate that they requested on a motion of no confidence in the Cabinet.

The no-confidence motion and the discussion on the move against Purvanov both arise from a national political drama caused by reports on massive shortcomings in dealing with European Union funds and a report by the European Commission anti-fraud office that alleged ties between senior state officials and a “criminal network” said to be involved in the abuse of EU funds.

Opposition parties met on the morning of July 18 2008 to discuss asking for the impeachment of Purvanov, who was named in the Olaf anti-fraud office in connection with his presidential election campaign having received funding from an individual alleged to be involved in the criminal network.

Boiko Borissov, whose party the Citizens for the European Development of Bulgaria was founded after the most recent parliamentary elections and does not have a parliamentary group but is seen as the most popular political movement, said that the opposition should walk out of no-confidence debate.

Vesselin Metodiev, an MP for right-wing opposition party Democrats for a Strong Bulgaria, told journalists that opposition leaders would next week discuss a possible walkout from the debate. Metodiev said that there would be “radical action” by opposition parties.

Borissov, who is mayor of Sofia, said that he would give permission for a united opposition rally outside Parliament. However, his view on the impeachment is that the opposition is making a mistake by emphasising the role of Purvanov when they should be focusing on the Government.

Another matter of political focus on July 18 was the question of what stance would be taken by Simeon Saxe-Coburg’s National Movement for Stability and Progress (NMSP), a minority party in the tripartite governing coalition dominated by the Bulgarian Socialist Party.

The no-confidence debate requested by the opposition over shortcomings in dealing with EU funds will be the sixth the tripartite coalition Cabinet has faced since coming to power in 2005. In the first four, the NMSP voted with the governing majority but in the fifth, it abstained.

Senior NMSP members Ognyan Gerdjikov and Nikolai Vassilev declined to tell journalists on July 18 what course of action the party would decide, saying that they as individuals could not dictate what the party would do about what was, in the words of Vassilev, a complicated issue.

However, earlier in the day NMSP parliamentary group leader Plamen Mollov said in an interview with Bulgarian National Television that it could not be ruled out that his party would support a motion to impeach Purvanov. Mollov said that the NMSP would decide its stance by taking into consideration the national interest, and only then the individual interests of the party.

Atanas Paparizov, an MP for the BSP, said on July 18 that the opposition discussion about impeaching the president was evidence of the weakness of the opposition, according to a report by Bulgarian news agency BTA.

Hristo Kirchev of the centre-right Union of Democratic Forces opposition party said that the lack of morality in the presidential institution was the key motive for the opposition to call for Purvanov to resign.

Kirchev said that he hoped that it would be possible soon to collect the required number of signatures to be tabled in Parliament to initiate a discussion on impeaching the president.
 
Opposition MPs said that consultations on impeachment would continue because the issue was complicated and there were constitutional dimensions, website mediapool.bg reported.

Speaking to Bulgarian National Radio on July 18, the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Lyuben Kornezov (BSP), said that the reasons being put forward by the opposition to impeach Purvanov were not in accordance with the constitution.

Kornezov said that the opposition was unable to specify whether Purvanov had violated any specific provision of the constitution.