North Macedonia wants EU, NATO at its talks to settle row with Bulgaria
May 23 (Reuters) - North Macedonia wants to discuss with Bulgaria matters that block its path to European Union membership during next month's NATO summit and hopes top EU and NATO officials can also attend such a meeting, Prime Minister Hristijan Mickoski said on Friday.
A NATO member, North Macedonia became an EU candidate in 2005 and opened membership negotiations in 2022, but talks have stalled due to objections from neighboring Bulgaria over history and language.
Bulgaria wants North Macedonia to recognise a Bulgarian minority in its constitution, which Mickoski's nationalist government has refused to do.
"We are ready to talk, to have bilateral talks at the level of partnership relations within the NATO alliance," Mickoski told a news conference in the capital of Skopje, held together with EU's top diplomat Kaja Kallas.
"Anyone who wants to assist, we are ready to talk to them," he said when asked if his government would accept outside mediation in the matter.
Kallas, who arrived in North Macedonia as part of her trip to the Western Balkans region, praised its hosts for aligning with the European common security and foreign policy and contributing to the regional security as part of the EU's peace force EUFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
"My message today is to stay on the course and to take next steps necessary towards the opening of the negotiations," Kallas said.
Mickoski said the idea of the bilateral meeting with Bulgaria during the summit in The Hague has been discussed and agreed with Kallas, but he did not know if Sofia will accept the offer.
"We are ready to sit down and talk with anyone to accept certain mediation," he said. "We want a solution but the solution that will be dignified and long-lasting. We are tired of continuous blockages referring to the bilateral issues."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
5 hours ago
- Times
If I were Rachel Reeves: Hunt, Zahawi and Mel Stride give their advice
Sir Lots of people think being chancellor is like being Santa Claus with lots of goodies to dole out. The reality is rather different as both Rachel Reeves and I have found out. As I explain in my new book Can We Be Great Again? the biggest difference between good and bad governments is the extent to which you manage to carve out space for long-term decisions as opposed to daily firefighting. Here are the three crucial things I will be looking out for when it comes to the long term. First, given the austerity cuts about to be imposed on the police and criminal justice system, are we going to invest in modernising them so they really can deliver better outcomes with less money? Police officers spend up to eight hours a week on unnecessary admin tasks. They are crying out for modern IT systems which are normally the first casualty of any spending negotiations. If we want services to improve, things that unlock greater efficiency should be top and not bottom of a government's list. Second, when Europe is at war, you cannot commit to a programme that costs 3 per cent of GDP and only provide 2.5 per cent in funding — as the government appears to have done. That is a scandalous and dangerous black hole if ever there was one — not least a fortnight before the Nato summit. I was at the table when Trump nearly pulled the US out of Nato in 2018 so we are taking a big risk. But if we plug the gap, France and Germany are likely to as well. If we don't, and the US pulls out of Nato, it will not be 3 per cent we are arguing over but double that. Keir Starmer has shown he can be an international statesman — now really is the moment we need him to do the right thing. Finally, we have to avoid the doom loop of ever higher taxes creating ever lower growth. That means longer term supply-side policies to boost our growth rate. But in the short-term the only game in town is welfare reform as I explain in my new book. Getting the working age benefit bill to 2019 levels saves £49 billion — more than enough for 3 per cent of GDP on defence and to avoid tax rises. It would also be far better for people on benefits to be in work. Welfare reform isn't easy for Labour but with a large majority and four years in the mandate, if not now when? Nadhim Zahawi Rachel Reeves is in a difficult position. As the only cabinet member with real private sector experience, she should by now understand the difficulties businesses are facing because of the government's actions, not to mention families. Crucial to fixing this is to be able to reduce the tax burden, and that requires getting serious about growth. That will come from getting out of the way, deregulating and allowing supply-side reforms, but it also means attracting investment rather than driving it away. The closure of the non-doms regime has been a catastrophe for this, signalling that Britain isn't interested in prosperity. A flat-rate charge for wealthy individuals and entrepreneurs, as they do in Italy, would be a smart move, and worth eating humble pie over. Rome has had 2,200 multimillionaires settle there — raising hundreds of millions in tax and investment for the Italian people. If the chancellor can tempt them to the UK through a mix of a more welcoming tax regime, and a pledge to tackle law and order concerns, we could be back in business. Even before counting their ingenuity and investment, if we attracted just 3,000 new wealthy residents to Britain, charging them £400,000 per year to have an equivalent of non-dom tax status, she would be able to reverse the winter fuel allowance cut. Taking this further, and aiming for the sort of numbers America is hoping to attract with their Golden Visa programme, and she could do anything from abolishing the hated inheritance tax, which does so much to destroy family businesses and long-term investment in Britain, to an immediate increase in defence to 3 per cent of GDP or more. These are popular, easy fiscal policies which would unlock so much investment and revenue for the government. All Reeves needs to do is convince Labour not to hate wealth creators, which I grant may be a steep political challenge. Nadim Zahawi was Conservative chancellor between July and September 2022 Sir Mel Stride If I were in Rachel Reeves's shoes next week, I would do things very differently. First, I'd level with the public. Our country faces serious economic constraints and Labour's reckless policies are only deepening those problems — high debt, sluggish growth, rising cost of living. LEON NEAL/GETTY IMAGES The chancellor will no doubt tell us she is exercising judicious fiscal discipline, without mentioning that most of the new projects and programmes she is announcing are paid for with hundreds of billions in extra borrowing. I'd focus on what actually moves the dial. Productivity, public service reform and fiscal responsibility. That means rooting out waste, and being clear-eyed about what government can and cannot afford. And I wouldn't be afraid to say 'no'. Sometimes leadership means doing the difficult thing, not the easy or popular one. The scale of the spending being set out next week was confirmed in March, before the chancellor began being forced into embarrassing U-turns on welfare. We've seen what happens when fiscal credibility is lost — I would never let that happen again. So if I were the chancellor, I'd offer a serious plan. Rebuild stability, drive growth and restore trust. No gimmicks. Just hard truths and a credible path forward for our country.
Telegraph
10 hours ago
- Telegraph
Britain's debt is a threat to national security
Our sky high debt is a threat to our national security. This year, the cost of servicing our debt will be almost double what we are spending on defence. And in today's turbulent world, the fiscal buffer to cushion us from shocks is paper thin. The smallest tap could shatter our economic credibility. The Prime Minister has made defence and security the organising principle of his government. Given that, putting our debt on a downward path should be his government's priority. It isn't. Debt will be higher at the end of the Parliament than today. And with global government debt already around $100 trillion, and Donald Trump about to increase that by a further $2.4 trillion, who will buy our debt – and at what price? Last year, the cross-party House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee raised a red flag that UK debt risks becoming unsustainable unless tough decisions are taken in this Parliament. We set out a choice: taxes would have to rise, or the state would have to do less. Being cross-party, we did not opine on which option was best. The Government has taken tough decisions – but in my mind the wrong ones. Taxes are rising to record highs. The Chancellor said last year that her strategy would deliver growth, and that she would not come back for more tax. But the growth forecast has been halved, and further tax hikes are on the cards. Meanwhile, pressure to spend more on defence is going to increase. At the upcoming Nato summit, nations are likely to be asked to commit to spending 5 per cent of GDP on defence – double Labour's current commitment. So what is to be done? We need to confront the other option: the state should do less. The Government rightly says that the relentless rise in welfare spending is 'unsustainable'. Spending on disability and incapacity benefits alone is more than on defence. But having announced that action would be taken to curb the growth in the welfare budget, the Prime Minister is now blinking in the face of opposition. The Government – and the nation – cannot afford ministers losing their nerve to keep a lid on spending. The bond vigilantes have saddled up and are on the prowl. Nor can the Chancellor tax her way out of the debt quagmire: to do so would risk us entering into a doom loop of ever lower growth and ever higher debt. If defence and security is the organising principle of government, the Chancellor must set out a credible plan to stop debt's relentless rise and bring it down from today's giddying heights. Not doing so risks economic catastrophe – and our national security.
Metro
14 hours ago
- Metro
Tommy Robinson kicked out of restaurant because 'staff didn't want to serve him'
To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video Tommy Robinson is upset after being kicked out of a restaurant for making staff 'feel uncomfortable'. The right wing activist – real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon – was out eating at the Hawksmoor restaurant near Regent Street, central London, before staff realised who he was. Footage taken by EDL member Guramit Singh Kalirai, who was dining with Robinson, shows the restaurant manager explaining 'staff felt uncomfortable'. Kalirai replied: 'Is it because of the colour of my skin?' The manager responded: 'No, no, no. We have a duty of care to our members of staff. We like to look after our people, as I'm sure you can understand. 'I'm very sorry. I hope it hasn't inconvenienced you.' The footage was posted to X, with Kalirai saying: 'Just been kicked out of Hawksmoor steak house for no reason. Literally just had our starters.' The manager could be seen handing Robinson a business card with the CEO of Hawksmoor's details on it 'if he has any questions', and told him the restaurant will cover the cost of the drinks. Metro has contacted the Hawksmoor for comment. Robinson was released from prison last month after he was jailed for repeatedly lied about a Syrian refugee. But he had his sentence reduced, and was released from HMP Woodhill in Milton Keynes. Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: I thought Robbie Williams was overhyped but he can still kick it MORE: What I Own: At 22 and 23, we bought a run down London four-bed for £910,000 MORE: Major US fast food chain to open in London Heathrow airport – a European first
