articleimg-1
Jan 10, 2016

PM Orbán: Hungary Will Challenge the European Commission's Migrant Resettlement Quota in the European Court

Addressing the 14th plenary session of the Hungarian Standing Conference, December 3, 2015, in Budapest, the prime minister announced plans to petition the European Court on the migrant quotas.

Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen, 

Allow me to welcome our esteemed guests. Every year it is my duty to seek to provide a framework with a brief introduction – which the Honourable Chair has grandly referred to as a speech – which will put into a wider context the thoughts expressed by those who will speak after me. Therefore, instead of rhetoric, I would much rather give you a draft, a frame, a picture frame into which the speakers after me may insert their own contributions, like mosaics.

It is, of course, a great pleasure to see you every year. It is good to see so many seasoned veterans. One looks at the historical and cultural features of European countries, and one thinks that there can hardly be another nation in Europe whose representatives, or warriors, need to stand their ground on the front day after day in so many countries; this happens to be our lot in life. It is with gratitude that I would like to underline everything that Mr. Semjén said; the Hungarian government wishes to express its appreciation and thanks for all the work and service that you have completed over the past year in the interest of the fragments of the Hungarian nation entrusted to your care. The Hungarian Standing Conference was conceived in order to coordinate this service, and we can perhaps say what Mr. Semjén has said: the fact that we have gathered here for the fourteenth time is proof of the success of this form of operation. I believe that we could hardly do without this annual meeting. There were times when these ideas were not very much in demand and offered virtually no political capital – let alone benefit. If anything, they brought us abuse, but even then we still gathered together every year because, in my view, this is about much more than practical advantage. Here we have a special characteristic of the nurturing of Hungarian politics, of Hungarian policy-making, and we cannot manage this without thinking. 

There are countries which are luckier than us. They can exercise power, govern and administer their affairs without burdening themselves every day with the doubt of whether they are doing the right thing, whether what they are doing should be reconsidered or revised, whether the world has changed, and whether, in consequence, the things which they considered obvious yesterday should perhaps be also assessed in a different context. This intellectual excitement or intellectual content is, I think, a valuable and special feature of Hungarian politics. In all probability it could be based on the recognition – a recognition which may be hundreds of years old, if not more than a thousand – that decision-makers of the day need to consult intellectuals in a wider context, because they hope to obtain impetus for the aims of their own work. And intellectuals also need to share a single space with decision-makers, because they can hope that their intellectual activities may result in the discovery of new horizons; understanding the viewpoints of political power and viewing and interpreting the world’s affairs from that point of view is also a highly inspiring task intellectually. I am therefore pleased that here, around the table, we not only have leaders from beyond the borders – or to be more accurate, the leaders of the fragments of the Hungarian nation; but we also have here with us representatives of the intelligentsia who regularly help our work with their writings – be they literary writings, essays or studies on history or the arts – both within and beyond today’s borders of the country. These are a major inspiration for us. So we wish to thank them, too, for being here. 

The fact that we are here together for the fourteenth time and that the exercise of joint thinking seems natural puts into perspective the earlier period. In those days Hungarian politics was not based on national foundations, and the main custodians of power – or to be more precise, the temporary holders of political power – did not convene this most important forum of the Hungarian community in the Carpathian Basin, the mission of which is to administer our joint affairs. It is important to remember that it is not philosophically inconceivable – as the period I have mentioned just now demonstrates – that in the future Hungary could have a government not based on national foundations. This is not just a bad memory, but one which continuously haunts us. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

As we are attending a meeting of a community organised on a national basis, we cannot fail to cast a glance at the current state of nations in Europe. We take the view that the nation – similar to the family and our congregations – is a form of community which has evolved naturally over the course of history. And as this is obvious to us, we tend to think that this is a law with almost natural force, and that consequently everyone shares this view. In other words, the nation is an integral and indispensable form of community which has evolved in a way similar to the family or a congregation, and therefore it is clear that it must exist and it is something good to have. Furthermore, it is not outdated, but eternal; it is not anachronistic, but modern; it is not something dangerous, but a source of solutions. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

This view is, however, not the only one in Europe. We must recognise that European politics is based on the principle of rivalry. There are also rival intellectual trends, and there are some who believe that in Europe today the nation state is a source of problems, rather than the solution to our current problems. By contrast, we take the view that the existence of nations in Europe is not a source of problems, but a precondition for the solutions. It is important to highlight this now, because we are living with phenomena in Europe which are related to views on nations. The migrant situation – the refugee crisis, the mass arrival of new peoples in Europe – raises the most important questions of the nation, the most important questions of the existence of European nations. We must acknowledge that the European forces seeking to eliminate the national, the nation state framework in Europe have gained considerable strength – at the headquarters of the European Union in Brussels, and in the various European capitals of finance. It is true that they have replaced the former internationalist ideology with a historically less compromised supranationalism; however, the fact that they are no longer singing the marching song of internationalism but one calling for a state above the nations amounts to the same difference as there is between a bag of potatoes and a bag of spuds. The existence of this intellectual trend, this intellectual force, this intellectual stance which claims very significant positions – perhaps even majority positions – is one of the characteristics of European politics. There is not much point in getting upset about its existence, but we must warn ourselves that this trend exists, and that if it gains a dominant position and an overwhelming role in the European context it will jeopardise nation-building aspirations. As far as Hungary is concerned, the very starting-point of these aspirations is the obvious nature of the existence of nations. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

We may remember that the first attempts at dismantling the Europe of free nations came from within. The first step – or at least the first time alarm bells started ringing in our heads – was when reference to our Christian roots going back thousands of years was removed from the draft EU constitution. This was despite the fact that this is not a question of faith, but a question of fact: Europe cannot exist without this spiritual and intellectual framework. This is why today they attack and brand as exclusionist anyone who respects this tradition – a tradition which I think is closely related to the survival of the Hungarian nation and our existence today. They want to eliminate from European thinking the very current, the very tradition which has bound the European people together. The second step they took against the existence of nations was the withdrawal of an increasing number of Member State powers from the realm of national sovereignty and their delegation to Eurocrats – or in other words, to a supranational centre; these are powers which would have been better left within national competence. The creators of the European Union knew precisely that the key to the European Union is preserving a delicate balance:  that there must be a state of equilibrium between the nations and the centres which exercise supranational power. If this equilibrium is upset there is a problem. This is why they conceived the principle of subsidiarity. This principle has, however, been so completely marginalised that one of the most important Member States – the United Kingdom – is now demanding the revision of the entire European legal system, in order to identify the powers which have been unjustifiably – or even unlawfully – removed from nation state competence and delegated to Eurocrats. This clearly demonstrates that the nations are trying to defend themselves. I would like to remind everyone here that since 2010 we ourselves have demanded reinstatement of the right to sovereign decisions. This may be seen most clearly in our economic policy. We had to restore to Member State competence the right to decide on some issues, and as the European Union has regularly opened up disputes on this, we are trying to protect Hungarian national interests in so-called infringement procedures. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

We have now reached the third attempt to weaken nations within Europe, and to many this seems to be a reasonable and expedient next step towards creating a United States of Europe. We call this the migrant crisis. We are just sitting here, thinking, trying to figure out what is happening, because there are a number of countries and intellectual circles which quite simply do not want to believe that what is happening today is intentional; they suspect that there is some accidental or hidden cause. Today the whole of Europe is guessing. They are trying to guess the reason why so many important European leaders are simply turning against the will of their own peoples. Europe continues to guess, and to try to find the reasons. There are some who believe that the underlying intention is the further weakening of nation states or nations. Others believe that in the background there are simple short-term electoral considerations, as we are all aware that migrants will later become citizens, and that in Europe – and even beyond – more than eighty per cent of such citizens always vote for the left. And then there are some who suspect that there are quite simple ideological causes. Whatever the answer, I myself would not venture to argue in favour of any of these options with certainty. Without being able to pinpoint the causes precisely, we may conclude however, that in 2015 Europe’s mainstream elite ventured onto a very dangerous path when it flung open the gate in Europe’s external borders to admit the huge flow of migrants, and issued statements which could only be interpreted as an invitation to still further masses of people to set out for Europe. What is more, they later not only encouraged them to set out, but even organised their travel to Europe. We Europeans – not all of us, of course – are ourselves transporting these masses of people, by selecting the routes which appear to be the safest and fastest, and by placing at their disposal the means of transport. 

A bizarre coalition has been formed: a bizarre coalition of human traffickers and human rights activists, which is also supported from outside by leading European politicians. They are effectively organising the transportation to Europe of countless migrants from thousands of kilometres away in an unregulated and uncontrolled manner, in order for Eurocrats to distribute them upon their arrival among the Member States with mandatory resettlement quotas calculated on the basis of the “Juncker Formula”. This is a serious threat to every European nation – at least we Hungarians believe that it is a threat to the Hungarian nation, and a major challenge. Naturally, the first instinct which cries out is that of protest. This is a fine thing. There are countries in Europe whose ability to protest has been seriously impaired by their long-standing EU membership. The instincts of national survival, which immediately rushed to the surface with us, are taking longer to unfold over there, and are gaining ground less uniformly. While I think that we have been effective in our protests, as everyone could hear them, these have not been enough; this is because the country of countries – our shared continent – is at stake, and being able to protect ourselves will not be enough, because even if we protect ourselves, we shall be forced to face the threat of losing our wider homeland: the European political community and its culture. Therefore, together with the other Central European countries – primarily with the Visegrád countries – we concluded that protest is not enough; we decided we must also take action, and we formed our joint positions, with each country reinforcing the others at meetings in Brussels. We also agreed to provide each other with mutual border protection assistance. This is why today Slovaks, Poles and Czechs are also providing military and border policing services on Hungary’s southern borders. This is why Hungarians are currently serving in Slovenia, and this is why Hungarian border patrol forces will soon appear in Macedonia as well.

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

So Central Europe chose to take action, built border fences, set up cooperation schemes, and organised its joint border protection.

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

We must naturally consider that, while this joint action in Central Europe has led to tangible results, those who take a different view are not happy to see us succeed. Together we have proved that we can stop the flood of refugees if we want to. It is not true that all one can do in the face of the flow of migrants is raise one’s hands in surrender. The continent could protect itself through coordinated use of conventional methods customarily deployed for protection of national sovereignty: legal, physical, military and policing methods. Demonstrating this self-evident truth did not provoke undivided joy everywhere, however, and we have received our fair share of blackmail and revenge on a daily basis. The procedures which have been instituted against Hungary in the last few days in a variety of legal forms can be seen as a kind of revenge for the fact that we have dared to confront Brussels’ immigration policy. . Two countries have resorted to this approach: Slovakia and Hungary. Both countries will have submitted their petitions to the European Court by this afternoon.

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

So much for Europe. With regard to ourselves, we should just mention that while we have been busy defending ourselves, we have also had time to improve ourselves. Today I am not going to talk about the steadily improving economic indicators – partly because propriety imposes certain limits, and partly because I had the opportunity to do this yesterday at the meeting of the Diaspora Council. I would merely like to ask everyone to recall Hungary five years ago, and compare those images with what you experience today when you walk through the streets of Budapest. With due restraint and modesty we can state that if we manage to continue our work, Hungary will be in quite an acceptable situation by the end of this electoral cycle. I have a reason for mentioning the end of the cycle. There is something which we do not normally talk about, but which we should perhaps reiterate: we are probably the only European country – I hope I am not mistaken – which has completed every one of its parliamentary cycles, ever since its first elections in 1990. Since 1990 there have been no early elections in Hungary; whatever the composition of the government has been – whether that was a disadvantage or a blessing for the nation – stability has been the dominant feature in Hungarian politics. Every parliament has completed its mandate – even if the Prime Minister died, was removed, or fled. But every parliament completed its term of four years, and I think that this stability and predictability is an important asset in Hungary’s national politics.

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

We could perhaps remind ourselves that the performance of the Hungarian economy is directly related to our opportunities related to our nation policy and our communities beyond the borders. If the kin-state is not strong, the lives of the detached parts of the nation are also hard, and if the lives of the detached parts of the nation are hard, it is very difficult to pursue a successful economy policy here, in the kin-state. Therefore these two things – the state of the detached parts of the nation and the kin-state’s economic capacity and competitiveness – are very closely related. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

There are two areas in which our policy on Hungarian communities beyond the borders has succeeded in achieving significant results, and we hope to repeat these results in the next few years as well. These are education and the economy. I mention these two together because here also, in the kin-state, the greatest intellectual challenge for politics is how to connect education and knowledge with the economy – either in the field of vocational training, higher education reforms, the training of a qualified workforce, the modernisation of the economy, or digitisation. Optimally connecting education – that is, knowledge – with the economy is one of Hungary’s most important nation strategy issues. This is why I think it is right that education and economic policy should also be the top priority in our policy beyond the borders – if this term makes sense in this form. 

I am interested to know your opinion, but from where I stand it seems that our experiment or determination to launch a Hungarian vocational training programme in the Carpathian Basin appears to be successful, and there seem to be some promising signs. I find this important because this has been a neglected area in our policy on Hungarians beyond the borders, despite the fact that the nation’s main forces are stationed there. We usually lay emphasis on primary education, mother-tongue education, mother-tongue skills, and then we also dedicate a great deal of resources to education in Hungarian at a higher level: to universities and colleges. Even secondary schools are usually given sufficient attention; but the very area which deals with the most people, where vocational training and actual work is being conducted in a specific form, has received little attention over the last few years – or even perhaps over the last few decades. However, without Hungarian-speaking workers – qualified, Hungarian-speaking workers – the nation cannot survive, and the nation cannot gain in strength. Finally launching a Hungarian vocational training programme in the Carpathian Basin – and I congratulate the State Secretary on this – was a timely initiative. I do not know how successful this could be. Wherever I have been and seen this sort of thing I have seen promising signs; though wherever I go – in particular, if it is announced in advance – it is not sure that I find the reality of everyday life. I would like to ask you to mobilise our resources over the next few years, in order to also launch programmes which serve to assist young Hungarian entrepreneurs beyond the borders, after helping our qualified Hungarian workers living outside the kin-state. As far as I am aware, the formulation of such programmes is at an advanced stage. This is a priority, because in addition to workers – our Hungarian-speaking qualified workers equipped with Hungarian cultural and vocational skills in the mother tongue – we shall also need a group of successful young Hungarian-speaking entrepreneurs educated in Hungarian culture beyond our borders. The Government has already adopted decisions in principle; we would like to help young Hungarian entrepreneurs beyond the borders, partly with professional assistance and partly with loans and grants.

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

Regarding education, we have made several attempts to set up higher education in the Hungarian language in the Carpathian Basin. So far, we have been happy just to establish a single institution at a time. I can still remember establishing Sapientia; what an achievement that was, what an achievement for Partium. Now we are fighting for Sellye to obtain accreditation from the accreditation committee – perhaps in 2016; this is essential for its long-term recognition. I can still remember what an achievement we thought it was when we finally succeeded in building and commissioning a beautiful college not so long ago in Vojvodina. These are all fine achievements, but the time has come to connect these together within a Hungarian-language system of higher education in the Carpathian Basin. Minister Zoltán Balog has been given this task, and I sincerely hope that he will soon present the action plans. We even decided on the allocation of funds at the government meeting yesterday.

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

We also requested that the Minister launch a Carpathian Basin scholarship programme for the 2016/17 academic year, and he promised to make arrangements. This will enable our students to study in any of the Hungarian-language institutions in the Carpathian Basin with Hungarian state scholarships. So we plan to not only enable someone from Budapest to attend the teacher training college in Transcarpathia, but also enable students from Transcarpathia to study at Sapientia with a Hungarian state scholarship. So we would like to launch, and then operate, a pan-Hungarian scholarship programme in the Carpathian Basin. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

I feel it is important to also say a few words about Central Europe. Above all, I should do so because at some point soon I will have to offer my apologies and leave, as the prime ministers of the four Visegrád countries are meeting in Prague this afternoon. Of course the main agenda item will be the issue of mass migration, but we must also discuss other European affairs. This does not mean that we assign a higher priority to the Central European concept than to our national policy; this clearly demonstrates, however, that we believe a strong Central Europe policy can assist Hungary’s nation policy. Additionally, the current invasion or mass migration has brought to the surface a recognition which we have always been aware of, but have rarely fully perceived. This is the recognition that there may be – in fact, we know for certain that there are – major tensions between us within the region, but at times of trouble it emerges that the Central European peoples form part of a single community, and that we have a great deal in common. This is a single region not only geographically, but also from the respect of its culture and its interests – its historical interests. Without Central European cooperation it would be difficult, if not impossible, to serve our own national interests well. As there is no European solution or strategy to address most problems – whether problems of an economic nature, or the problem of mass migration – it is in our best interest, the best interest of the Hungarian people, to have Central European strategies. It is in our best interest to have a Central European economic strategy against economic stagnation, and to have a Central European strategy against immigration and mass migration. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

It is good news that Central Europe continues to remain the European Union’s fastest growing region. And it is bad news that the sclerotic Western European economies are less and less able to return to their former path of growth; furthermore, the western half of Europe continues to suffer from an increasing rate of debt. The total debt of the twenty-eight Member States of the European Union amounts to twelve trillion euros; this is ninety per cent of Europe’s gross product. Even last year, the value of new borrowing was in excess of 500 billion euros, which means that the European debt burden is increasing by 1.4 billion euros every day. And at the same time, Europe’s strength and world economic influence, its share in world trade – in other words, all economic strength which could serve to cover this increasing rate of debt – is in continuous decline. In these circumstances it is particularly important that the economically strong Central European countries should promote and develop their own cooperation, and in my view the success of the Central European economy and Central European cooperation constitutes one of the preconditions for the success of Hungary’s nation policy. 

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

If you will allow me, in a brief overview I would like to make some comments on each of the four larger constituent parts of the nation. 

The Hungarian government has found it regrettable that in recent years Romanian politics has not sought cooperation between Bucharest and Budapest. In fact, if anything it has quite clearly sought to make cooperation harder. Whether there were political or personal reasons for this, it is difficult to tell. Nonetheless, we are holding our heads high before the Lord – or at least in this respect we may hold our heads high – because Hungary has always given both the Romanian people and their elected leaders the respect that is due to every European nation, and has shown that respect even when it was not reciprocated. Therefore it is with hope that we observe the political changes taking place in Romania at present. We are studying the situation, we are gathering information, and are eager to see whether the current changes will lead to healthier Romanian-Hungarian cooperation. At the same time, we must point out that we are currently seeing backsliding in minority rights, and are witnessing very serious debates on issues regarding language use and the denial of fundamental European rights to our own communities. And as far as I can see, the restitution of church and communal properties has not accelerated, but in fact we see storm clouds on the horizon. For the moment the cause of Hungarian medical training in Transylvania – which is linked to Marosvásárhely – is not pointing in the direction of a solution. And the investigations launched by the authorities against Hungarian politicians on various grounds also give rise to concern, rather than to triumphant feelings that the rule of law has prevailed.

Regarding Hungarian communities in Slovakia, Ladies and Gentlemen, you are aware that for years we have been pursuing a special strategy. After the Hungarian party at national level failed to obtain a seat in the Slovak parliament, we decided in favour of very close Slovak-Hungarian economic cooperation, in the hope that this cooperation would create an atmosphere which would also favour the Hungarians, the Hungarian community living there. It is still too early to take stock – or at least I think the time has not yet come to take stock of whether these joint economic achievements have yielded increased scope for action or a happier life for the Hungarians living there. But the economic achievements are indisputable, it has been a very long time since Slovak-Hungarian relations were as balanced as they are now. It was many years ago when we last embarked on major joint economic projects such as the ones on the agenda now – for example the flagship Komárom Bridge project, but I could mention several others as well. I sincerely hope that the accreditation of the Sellye college, university, will be finally resolved in 2016, and I wish the Hungarian party in Slovakia all the best with obtaining representation for the Hungarian community in the Slovak parliament at the next elections, which could obviously open up new opportunities for our communities beyond the borders.

I would like to congratulate our Hungarians in Transcarpathia. We thought this impossible, we almost ruled out the possibility and gave up hope that, after many long years of conflict, the Hungarians living there could finally unite their efforts. We never wanted grand triumphal parades, we never asked them to change their thorough, well-founded opinions of one another, because everyone is entitled to their opinions; but we have always asked our fellow Hungarians in Transcarpathia to find forms of cooperation which exert the greatest possible influence and total strength on behalf of the Hungarian community living there. I wish to congratulate you on having found these forms of cooperation, and having achieved your best election result ever. I do not know whether this took you by surprise, but we here in Budapest were surprised by the high rate of support and its result in political terms, which has increased your importance in Transcarpathian politics. I wish that you all may continue on this path, and I wish you the best of luck in your negotiations with the government in Kiev.

As regards Vojvodina, I always leave them to the end because a Hungarian is someone who, when they see that someone is successful and does not hide it, can develop a grudge against that person; and I would not like to see the Hungarians of Vojvodina in that position. And as far as I can see, for years now in Vojvodina constructive efforts have been heading in the right direction, despite the fact that there are always opponents both from Hungary and Serbia (perhaps this is not the best way to put it, but from within Vojvodina), who emerge from time to time and seek to undermine the full cooperation which has evolved through hard work and considerable sacrifice. I would like to make it clear that in the period to come it is not in the interest of Hungary’s policy on Hungarian communities beyond the borders to in any way harm the unity which has been forged in Vojvodina. We do not support aspirations of that kind, as we find them harmful, and any such attempts cannot hope to gain our support in any form. Our interest is that the experiment which the Hungarians of Vojvodina have now embarked upon – namely, to create a specific form of autonomy – should be combined with a formidable economic development programme. In this way they can prove that the form of autonomy which the Hungarians of Vojvodina have earned for themselves under the leadership of President Pásztor is not only beneficial for the operation of our cultural, mass communication and intellectual institutions, but is also capable of causing positive changes in the everyday lives of the Hungarians living there, and that autonomy clearly results in improved living standards and serves as a means for the continuation of this policy. We have an interest in seeing this experiment succeed, and we shall provide all political and economic support.

We hope that our Croatian friends can have a government within the shortest possible time, and that this may be a government which regards national identity, national feelings and national pride as a positive constituent factor of the nation and the state. So I wish that they can have a government which is committed to nationhood and Christianity, and while Hungary does not wish to intervene in the internal political struggles which are taking place in Croatia, these are the good wishes that we ask the Honourable President to relay to the Christian, national forces which are fighting for the future of Croatia and the Croatian people.

Regarding Slovenia, I would like to inform you that we have had several rounds of extensive negotiations with the Slovenian prime minister and government. These were provoked by the wave of modern-day mass migration which reached Hungary earlier. As a result of Hungary’s defence efforts, Slovenia also found itself in the line of fire, and the least we can do under the circumstances is to provide all the assistance that they request from us – be that in the form of technical equipment or border patrol personnel. Our police and border guards are providing a valuable service there. In January we expect to start negotiations with the Government of Slovenia regarding a high level of economic cooperation. Our plans are ready, the Hungarian economy is strong, and we are able to mobilise significant resources for investments beyond the borders – investments in the neighbouring countries. Hungary’s foreign economy is driven by the recognition that, while we are happy to trade with anyone and are happy to invest anywhere, we are not imperialists. We are westerners, but we are not imperialists: we do not wish to engage in economic activities in territories where the native people are not happy to see this. We therefore seek to create a dialogue with the leaders of neighbouring countries in order to clearly ascertain whether or not they would welcome Hungarian businesses, investors and capital investments in their countries, and we shall seek to enforce these political agreements or understandings as far as the system of political and economic relations permits in the modern era. As far as I can see, things are heading in a positive direction in Slovenia, and the two governments may commit to major joint business ventures. 

Perhaps, going back to Vojvodina from here, this is a good opportunity to inform you that the final agreement on construction of the Budapest–Belgrade railway line has been signed. We signed these agreements last week when we visited China. Both the financial arrangements and technical conditions, as well as the framework for implementation of the project, are now clearly outlined. I believe that much sooner than we expected we shall be able to achieve the goal of reaching Budapest from Belgrade by a rail service of the highest European standards. Perhaps even more importantly, it will be possible to transport goods in carriages which are longer than the standard European dimensions from the Port of Piraeus – part of which the Chinese have bought – to the European markets via Hungary and Serbia. The political and economic benefits of this are obvious to us all. So these are the types of strategic economic venture which we would also like to bring to fruition in the other detached parts of the nation, as we have such flagship concepts for almost every area.

Ladies and Gentlemen, 

Briefly this was my message for today. I would close my introductory remarks by saying that a cowardly nation has no home. If someone has no home, that is a serious problem, but the last few months have proved that this is no danger for us, because we do not lack courage.

Thank you.

(Cabinet Office of the Prime Minister)