By Antony Todorov, New Bulgarian University.

Let us recall: with its accession to the EU in 2007, Bulgaria assumed the obligation to join the monetary union (the eurozone) when it managed to meet the criteria for this, and until then a derogation is in effect. This is an obligation for all EU countries, with one exception – Denmark. Since 2020, Bulgaria has been in ERM II (European exchange rate mechanism), the precursor to the Eurozone. Today, it seems that Bulgaria meets the criteria for membership, that is confirmed by the relevant convergence report of the Commission.

Also, since 1997, a currency board has been operating in Bulgaria, with the exchange rate of the Bulgarian lev fixed to the euro in a ratio fixed by law (initially to the German mark). According to the rules of the board, the government does not have full freedom of monetary policy, cannot devalue the lev and cannot spend the foreign exchange reserve at its discretion. So, in essence, Bulgaria is in some way already in the eurozone, without directly using the euro. And two other countries in Europe (Montenegro and Kosovo) have given up their own currency and use the euro as their currency, without being part of the eurozone.

Against this backdrop and on the eve of the convergence report on eurozone membership, a storm of discussions and protests broke out, demanding its postponement. Back in April 2023, Vazrazhdane collected over 600,000 signatures to call a referendum “for preserving the Bulgarian lev”. The National Assembly then voted against it, and the Constitutional Court, which was seized of the issue, rejected the possibility of a referendum on an obligation under a ratified international treaty. As a result, Vazrazhdane’s official position is not “against the introduction of the euro in general”, but against the date of its introduction. However, this is not evident from the party’s current positions announced on its website. And recently, the president has also initiated a referendum on the introduction of the euro from 2026, which was diverted from discussion in the National Assembly and will probably not happen. But he has intensified public debate on the issue and placed it among the central topics of political discourse.

What are the arguments against the euro?

According to « Vazrazhdane », there are six main reasons « why we should keep the Bulgarian lev »:

The first two arguments have been known since Bulgaria’s accession to the EU, which is no longer just an intergovernmental organization, but a highly integrated community with supranational law and institutions. In it, each member state has voluntarily granted part of its sovereign rights to supranational institutions. Bulgaria will not be an exception, this is valid for all 27 EU members, as well as for all 20 members of the eurozone. As for the equal vote, Bulgaria is also a member of the IMF, where the countries also do not have an equal vote, but no one wants the country to leave this organization. On the other hand, Bulgaria is a net user of European funds, which in total exceed many times its contribution to the general budget. The effect of these funds is visible in many cases and the country would hardly have achieved the same on its own without this solidary support from the EU.

As for shock inflation, the topic has already been widely commented on and this is only fear-mongering. Especially after our bad experience with galloping inflation in 1997, when Bulgaria fell into a financial collapse completely outside the eurozone. As can be seen, inflation is moving even without the euro.

The last two arguments do not specifically target the introduction of the euro, but corruption. The euro is not the cause of corruption, which has developed sufficiently with the use of the lev and the existence of a currency board. So, transferring deep problems in domestic politics to the euro is speculation, because nowhere else, where the single European currency has replaced the national one, have countries experienced a currency board drain or crisis like in Greece (where the cause was not the eurozone, but the corruption of the rulers).

These arguments are actually not only about the date of entry into the eurozone, but generally against the adoption of the euro, i.e. against Bulgaria’s membership in the EU. This seemingly invisible change in position strongly influences public opinion and leads to misunderstanding about what the problem is. According to a recent survey by « Measure » agency from January 2025, 57.1% of Bulgarians are against the adoption of the euro as the official currency. 39% are at the opposite pole, and 3.9% have no opinion on the issue. But when asked when to adopt the euro, the answers are different: according to 25.7% of respondents, the single European currency should be adopted from January 1, 2026. 30.8% of those surveyed believe that it is good for Bulgaria to adopt the euro, but at a later stage. And 41.4% are of the opinion that our country should not replace the lev with the euro. 2.1 percent have no opinion on the matter. These differences in opinion shows confusion, which is completely understandable, because what competence is needed for a citizen to be able to judge when exactly it is good to adopt the euro and whether it is good to adopt it at all.

This difficulty is solved by using simple arguments:

« We live in Bulgaria, of course we must keep our Lev, our children must learn our history, preserve and maintain our traditions and be grateful that we live here now in our Bulgaria! » – we read on the Facebook profile of the critics of the euro.

“I am protesting in defense of the Bulgarian lev and against the euro. I do not want a foreign currency.” – we hear from another opponent of the euro.

“The eurozone is without a way out – more poverty, less sovereignty” – we read on the website of “Vazrazhdane”.

In other words – defense of “ours” against “foreign”, defense of national identity against foreign influences. An appeal to a patriotism that is understandable to everyone and self-evident, which we have all learned from Vazov’s poem[1]: “Everything Bulgarian and native, I love, cherish and value.” However, if we look more deeply at the poem, we will immediately ask ourselves: is “everything Bulgarian” worth being honored?

Why, however, do so many people accept such arguments with open arms? The arrogant position of some determined supporters of the euro is that these are “simple and uneducated” people, prone to all kinds of manipulations, that this is the result of Putin’s propaganda, that this is a deep misunderstanding of the true interests of Bulgaria, etc. In a modern society there is all this, but it does not seem reasonable to accept such a “simple” explanation. I think that behind the resistance to the euro there is something else that is much less talked about.

From sociological surveys and researchers’ observations, it is clear that our society is divided regarding the introduction of the euro. This division, it seems, is not on the issue of Bulgaria’s membership in the EU (on this issue there is a significant majority that supports it), but on an issue that is only at first glance about the euro. The division is actually deeper and more structural, between those who, back in 1990, Zygmund Bauman defined as globalized and localized. The new wave of globalization of the last 40 years has divided societies, including in Bulgaria, into two main categories – those who, due to their economic, cultural and social capital, successfully fit into globalization and those who, on the contrary, felt neglected, rejected, forgotten, somehow left out of its benefits. Bulgaria’s integration into the EU has been experienced in the same way – there are winners in society, but also those who are not so winners and even convinced that they are among the losers.

This is why the resistance to the introduction of the euro from January 1, 2026 actually hides the dissatisfaction with being left on the side of the losers, which is why you treat with distrust, even resistance, the official institutions that you consider to be firmly on the side of the winners and neglecting the losers. This is precisely why the most essential question is about this new inequality, fueled by very old inequalities, but the introduction of the euro is not among the causes of it. The inequalities are rooted in the logic of the dominant model of corporate global capitalism, and the attitude towards the introduction of the euro is something like collateral damage of the resistance to the widening inequalities.

What are the real risks of introducing the euro?

They are not for galloping inflation, nor for melting savings, nor for the devaluation of real estate, nor for the loss of sovereignty (already very limited with the currency board itself). Many economists are very nuanced on the issue and even those who seem to oppose the introduction of the euro from 2026 explain this issue much more complicatedly (as long as we read them in full and with understanding).

They often quote the author of the currency board, Steve Hanke, invited to Sofia for a conference organized by “Vazrazhdane” on February 7, 2025. In an extensive interview for the Bulgarian National Radio on February 28, 2025, he says: “In my opinion, joining the eurozone would be the wrong decision. A bad decision. From a political point of view, it would be a complete disaster. We know in general about the corruption of Bulgarian politicians and their desire to spend taxpayers’ money freely.” Because according to him, Bulgarian politicians are « arrogant, ignorant and corrupt. » But he also explains: “Do you know that Bulgaria is de facto in the eurozone. In the sense of the currency board, the lev is a clone of the euro. If you don’t like having the lev, you can simply exchange it at a fixed exchange rate with the euro. So the lev and the euro are equivalent.” Steve Hanke’s main argument against adopting the euro is that there is a risk that corruption will turn this into a “Greek crisis”. But he adds something else: the loss of “sovereignty of the monetary regime”, because “if something goes wrong with the euro, everyone who is de jure in the eurozone will have no way to get out. And Bulgaria could easily change its main currency – from the euro to the US dollar or some other currency.” You see, how many contradictory arguments, including the issue of sovereignty, but sovereignty also for politicians who are “arrogant, ignorant and corrupt”. Economist Boyan Durankev is much more precise in describing the benefits and risks of adopting the euro. In an interview with Radio Focus on April 24, 2025, he explains: “The euro united the countries’ currencies, and this is the good news, but it did not unite the economies, and this is the bad news. That is, the euro is like marriage – everyone is ‘for’ until they start paying bills.” The main risk is that “Europe does not have a clear common economic and fiscal policy”, i.e. something that relates to the current state of the EU and the need for deep reform is obvious. But on the other hand, according to him, the advantages of adopting the euro are great, especially with the loss of confidence in the dollar and market shocks after the exotic duties and tariffs introduced by Trump.

The referendum, initially requested by “Vazrazhdane”, but more recently by the president, played an unexpected role. It has intensified public discourse on the topic and led many to more clearly explain their theses and intentions. A debate that has been largely invisible in recent years, overshadowed to a large extent by the series of inconclusive early parliamentary elections since April 2021 and the phrase repeated to the point of trivialization that Bulgaria’s entry into the Eurozone is a strategic goal.

Bulgaria’s entry into the EU was a strategic goal, and its admission to the Schengen area and the Eurozone are a consequence of this. They are rather instruments for something far more substantial – making life in Bulgaria more attractive for Bulgarian citizens. This, the latter, however, requires many other more substantial things.

Two are the most important of them and they are necessarily related: policies against inequalities and against corruption. If, thanks to our entry into the Eurozone, these policies are encouraged and have a visible effect, citizens will be satisfied and resistance to the euro will weaken. Conversely, resistance to the euro will grow if many citizens see that its introduction does not contribute to overcoming intolerable inequalities and corruption. If, on the contrary, the eurozone is mainly benefited by corrupt politicians and businessmen, if governments act like those in Greece before the debt crisis, if the fiscal reserve of the currency board is plundered by private interests. These are the real risks, not the introduction of the euro as a national currency itself.

---

[1] Ivan Vazov (1850-1921) is considered to be the “patriarch of the Bulgarian literature”, national writer with essential presence in the education.

__

Antony Todorov is a political scientist and a professor at the New Bulgarian University. He was visiting teacher at ULB (Brussels) and at the University of Bucharest and president of the Bulgarian Political Science Association from 2001 to 2012. His research interests lie in democracy, party politics, and the study of elections.