EU ministers back Bulgaria's euro adoption from 2026
The backing of the ministers follows positive assessments of the country's readiness from the European Commission and the European Central Bank. It will be endorsed also by EU leaders at a summit in Brussels on June 26.
The exchange rate at which the Bulgarian lev will be converted into euro will be set by EU finance ministers at their meeting in early July, giving Bulgaria six months to prepare the technical transition for the start of the year.
Bulgaria has been striving to switch its lev to the euro since it joined the European Union in 2007.
But after such a long wait, many Bulgarians have lost their initial enthusiasm, with 50% now sceptical about the euro, according to a Eurobarometer poll in May. Some Bulgarians fear the currency switch will drive up prices.
Bulgaria's euro adoption will come three years after the last euro zone expansion, when Croatia joined the single currency grouping at the start of 2023.
The accession of Bulgaria into the euro zone will leave only six of the 27 EU countries outside the single currency area: Sweden, Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania and Denmark.
None of them have any immediate plans to adopt the euro either for political reasons or because they do not meet the required economic criteria.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
7 hours ago
- The Guardian
Europe's trade deal with the US was dead on arrival – it needs to be buried. Here's how to do it
Ursula von der Leyen's Turnberry golf course deal has been rightly called a capitulation and a humiliation for Europe. Assuming such an accord would put an end to Donald Trump's coercion and bullying was either naive or the result of a miserable delusion. The EU should now steel itself and reject the terms imposed by Trump. Is this deal really as bad as it sounds? Unfortunately, it is, for at least three reasons. The blow to Europe's international credibility is incalculable in a world that expects the EU to stand up for reciprocity and rules-based trade, to resist Washington's coercion as Canada, China and Brazil have, rather than condoning it. Economically, it's a damaging one-way street: EU exporters lose market access in the US while the EU market is hit by more favoured US competition. Core European industrial sectors such as pharma and steel and aluminium are left by the wayside. The balance also tilts in the US's favour in important sectors such as consumer goods, food and drink, and agriculture. Tariffs tend to stick, so this is long-term damage. The EU even gives up its right to respond to future US pressures through duties on digital services or network fees. To top it off, von der Leyen's defence and investment pledges (for which she had no mandate) go against Europe's interest. The EU's competitiveness predicament is precisely one of net investment outflows. As international capital now reallocates under the pressures of Trumponomics and a weakening dollar, the case for Europe to become a strategic investment power was strengthening. Von der Leyen's promise of $600bn in EU investment in the US is therefore disastrous messaging. How could this happen? All EU member states wanted to avoid Trump's 30% tariff threat and a trade war, but none perhaps as much as Germany and Ireland, supported by German carmakers and US big tech firms. Yet Irish sweetheart digital tax deals, as well as BMW and Mercedes's plans to move production hubs to the US (also to serve the EU market), cannot be Europe's future. EU governments were distinctly unhelpful in building the EU's negotiating position. But in the end, it was von der Leyen who blinked and she has to take responsibility. Her close team took control in the closing weeks and went into the final meeting manifestly prepared only to say yes, which made Trump's steamrolling inevitable. Let's think of the counterfactual: if von der Leyen had stepped into the room and rejected these terms, Trump's wrath and some market turmoil may have ensued. But ultimately it would very likely have come to a postponement, a new negotiation and, at some point, a different deal that would not be so lopsided or unilaterally trade away deep and long-term European interests and principles. Instead, von der Leyen became a supplicant to a triumphant Trump. The situation is reminiscent of the final rounds of the Brexit negotiations five years ago when von der Leyen similarly was giving in to unacceptable demands from Boris Johnson, only to U-turn under pressure from a steelier EU chief negotiator and a quartet of member states. Today, von der Leyen runs Brussels with a strong presidential hand and has largely done away with internal checks and balances inside the commission. That is her prerogative and her style, but the upshot should not be weak, ineffective and unprincipled dealings on Europe's major geopolitical challenges, from Trump to Gaza. The 'deal' in Scotland is in reality an unstable interim accord. Nothing is yet inked or signed; Washington and Brussels are already locking horns on its interpretation and negotiations on the finer (and broader) points are ongoing. The 27 EU governments will inevitably get involved as the final deal needs to be translated into an international agreement and EU law. Some big powers – Germany and Italy seemingly – are on board, reluctant or not. However, internal political dynamics may change their calculations. Opposition parties and rightwing contenders who are a real political threat to leaders in Germany and France are already lambasting the deal. Unless von der Leyen strikes a dirty bargain with the member states, the European parliament will also have a say. The longtime chair of its trade committee, Bernd Lange, has set the tone for how the deal would be viewed there, calling it 'asymmetry set in stone' and even 'a misery'. As details seep out on what von der Leyen has really agreed to and what the US expects from the EU, and all the consequences become clear, an already unpalatable deal may become even more so. Weakening US economic data and returning stock market jitters show that Trump's negotiation footing is fragile. His new tariff threats come with new extensions, up to 90 days in the case of Mexico, as his position is overstretched. For Europe, the lesson from the Brexit negotiations – one that von der Leyen ought to have grasped before now – is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. There is now an opportunity for EU governments and the European parliament to course correct and salvage something from this train wreck. Georg Riekeles is the associate director of the European Policy Centre, and Varg Folkman is policy analyst at the European Policy Centre
The Guardian
12 hours ago
- The Guardian
Europe's trade deal with the US was dead on arrival – it needs to be buried. Here's how to do it
Ursula von der Leyen's Turnberry golf course deal has been rightly called a capitulation and a humiliation for Europe. Assuming such an accord would put an end to Donald Trump's coercion and bullying was either naive or the result of a miserable delusion. The EU should now steel itself and reject the terms imposed by Trump. Is this deal really as bad as it sounds? Unfortunately, it is, for at least three reasons. The blow to Europe's international credibility is incalculable in a world that expects the EU to stand up for reciprocity and rules-based trade, to resist Washington's coercion as Canada, China and Brazil have, rather than condoning it. Economically, it's a damaging one-way street: EU exporters lose market access in the US while the EU market is hit by more favoured US competition. Core European industrial sectors such as pharma and steel and aluminium are left by the wayside. The balance also tilts in the US's favour in important sectors such as consumer goods, food and drink, and agriculture. Tariffs tend to stick, so this is long-term damage. The EU even gives up its right to respond to future US pressures through duties on digital services or network fees. To top it off, von der Leyen's defence and investment pledges (for which she had no mandate) go against Europe's interest. The EU's competitiveness predicament is precisely one of net investment outflows. As international capital now reallocates under the pressures of Trumponomics and a weakening dollar, the case for Europe to become a strategic investment power was strengthening. Von der Leyen's promise of $600bn in EU investment in the US is therefore disastrous messaging. How could this happen? All EU member states wanted to avoid Trump's 30% tariff threat and a trade war, but none perhaps as much as Germany and Ireland, supported by German carmakers and US big tech firms. Yet Irish sweetheart digital tax deals, as well as BMW and Mercedes's plans to move production hubs to the US (also to serve the EU market), cannot be Europe's future. EU governments were distinctly unhelpful in building the EU's negotiating position. But in the end, it was von der Leyen who blinked and she has to take responsibility. Her close team took control in the closing weeks and went into the final meeting manifestly prepared only to say yes, which made Trump's steamrolling inevitable. Let's think of the counterfactual: if von der Leyen had stepped into the room and rejected these terms, Trump's wrath and some market turmoil may have ensued. But ultimately it would very likely have come to a postponement, a new negotiation and, at some point, a different deal that would not be so lopsided or unilaterally trade away deep and long-term European interests and principles. Instead, von der Leyen became a supplicant to a triumphant Trump. The situation is reminiscent of the final rounds of the Brexit negotiations five years ago when von der Leyen similarly was giving in to unacceptable demands from Boris Johnson, only to U-turn under pressure from a steelier EU chief negotiator and a quartet of member states. Today, von der Leyen runs Brussels with a strong presidential hand and has largely done away with internal checks and balances inside the commission. That is her prerogative and her style, but the upshot should not be weak, ineffective and unprincipled dealings on Europe's major geopolitical challenges, from Trump to Gaza. The 'deal' in Scotland is in reality an unstable interim accord. Nothing is yet inked or signed; Washington and Brussels are already locking horns on its interpretation and negotiations on the finer (and broader) points are ongoing. The 27 EU governments will inevitably get involved as the final deal needs to be translated into an international agreement and EU law. Some big powers – Germany and Italy seemingly – are on board, reluctant or not. However, internal political dynamics may change their calculations. Opposition parties and rightwing contenders who are a real political threat to leaders in Germany and France are already lambasting the deal. Unless von der Leyen strikes a dirty bargain with the member states, the European parliament will also have a say. The longtime chair of its trade committee, Bernd Lange, has set the tone for how the deal would be viewed there, calling it 'asymmetry set in stone' and even 'a misery'. As details seep out on what von der Leyen has really agreed toand what the US expects from the EU, and all the consequences become clear, an already unpalatable deal may become even more so. Weakening US economic data and returning stock market jitters show that Trump's negotiation footing is fragile. His new tariff threats come with new extensions, up to 90 days in the case of Mexico, as his position is overstretched. For Europe, the lesson from the Brexit negotiations – one that von der Leyen ought to have grasped before now – is that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. There is now an opportunity for EU governments and the European parliament to course correct and salvage something from this train wreck. Georg Riekeles is the associate director of the European Policy Centre, and Varg Folkman is policy analyst at the European Policy Centre
The Guardian
18 hours ago
- The Guardian
Deal or no deal? World leaders walk tightrope in tariff negotiations with Trump
It was grip-and-grin time for Ursula von der Leyen as she sat across from Donald Trump in Scotland last week, with the two announcing a deal for 15% tariffs on European imports that would avert a transatlantic trade war – but came at a stiff price for the 27-country bloc. After committing to a unilateral US raise on tariffs that came on the heels of a Nato commitment to increase defense spending to 5% of national GDPs, von der Leyen then thanked Trump 'for his personal commitment and his leadership to achieve this breakthrough'. 'He is a tough negotiator, but he is also a dealmaker,' she said, as the US president beamed. The EU was one of just a number of parties to strike a deal with Trump before his temporary pause on new tariffs came to an end this week. And like many others, the guiding principle for the EU appeared to be: it can always get worse. 'This is clearly the best deal we could get under very difficult circumstances,' Maroš Šefčovič, the EU trade chief, said. Others had a far bleaker interpretation of the dynamics, as Trump has wielded the threat of sky-high tariffs to cudgel his trading partners into submission. 'It is a dark day when an alliance of free peoples, brought together to affirm their common values and to defend their common interests, resigns itself to submission,' wrote the French prime minister, François Bayrou. Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán put it another way: 'It was Donald Trump eating Ursula von der Leyen for breakfast,' he said on his podcast. Later, he called her a 'featherweight'. World leaders have been forced to adopt a position of appeasement and pragmatism as they've approached the Trump administration, which has swung between imposing staggering tariffs on imports and then announcing last minute pauses and exclusions that suggest there is little rhyme or reason to the White House's tariff strategy. But the key factor for Trump appears to be taking whatever he can get. Countries across Asia exporting to the US were quickest to begin negotiating new trade deals with the White House. Vietnam was desperate to cut a 46% tariff imposed on the country, and Trump early last month announced that he had negotiated a 20% rate with Vietnamese negotiators. Except, it turned out, they believed that they had negotiated an 11% rate, Politico reported. And treasury secretary Scott Bessent this week admitted that he had never seen the deal, which the Vietnamese authorities have never confirmed. Trump reportedly used the trade threats along with other incentives in order to broker a recent peace between Thailand and Cambodia after fighting broke out along the border between the two countries. He soon announced a 19% rate – a significant cut from 49% for Cambodia and 36% for Thailand – which appeared more motivated by international politics than trade considerations. But while many countries in the region will breathe a sigh of relief as they avert sky-high tariffs, some see a new danger in the arbitrary redrawing of the US's trade relationship with the world. 'What we felt during this negotiation is that the US trade environment is fundamentally changing,' South Korean trade minister Yeo Han-koo said shortly after a deal was made to tariff imports at 15%, down from a threatened 25%. The two sides had made a verbally agreement but had not made a formal draft, he said, because the deal had to be struck so quickly. 'I think we are entering a new normal era,' he said. 'So, although we have overcome this crisis, we cannot be relieved, because we do not know when we will face pressure from tariffs or non-tariff measures again.' Leaders who have stood up to Trump are having the hardest time. Among others, Trump has focused his ire on Canada, which he has blamed for the fentanyl crisis in the US, a charge that Canada's prime minister Mark Carney has rejected. Trump on Friday announced that he would raise tariffs on Canada, a top trading partner, to 35%, as tough negotiations between the two sides continued. Carney, who had coined the elections slogan 'Elbows up, Canada' as a signal of defiance against Trump's tariff and annexation threats, said he was 'disappointed'. 'While we will continue to negotiate with the United States on our trading relationship, the Canadian government is laser focused on what we can control: building Canada strong,' Carney said.
