Gergő Váczi: Good afternoon. Welcome to everyone, and I suggest we take our seats and begin the conversation. Welcome, Prime Minister.
Good afternoon.
I was pleased to see that you brought a sheet of paper with you. So many people have already made this joke, but I thought I’d get in on the act and bring some for you too – so if you run out and want some more, please help yourself.
Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you! This business is getting better and better, isn’t it?
Yes, yes. We can see that it’s taken on a life of its own. By the way, how do you feel about the fact that there were a lot of articles and a lot of opinions expressed after your conversation with Egon Rónai? But perhaps what received the most attention was the product that you created, which then came to life on various sweaters, mugs, and many other items.
My greetings to everyone, good afternoon. I don’t know whether or not to be happy about this, because ultimately what’s normal would be for people to remember what I said. But that’s how modern media works – people remember what’s extraordinary. The extraordinary is always more exciting than deep or wise thoughts; we have to get used to this, and perhaps the format we’re in now is a response to that. Sometimes we need to allow ourselves to ignore such media games, and to talk seriously and honestly about profound things. So thank you for agreeing to this interview.
I’m a little nervous, but then again...
It’ll be fine, it’ll be fine.
If we’re speaking honestly, then permit me, Prime Minister, to be completely straightforward. We have about forty minutes for this conversation. I mention this because there are many media outlets present, both left-wing and right-wing, which I find very heartening.
I’m not so sure about that, but I’ll accept it.
That’s what I think, Prime Minister, and then...
Let’s talk about this seriously, since you’ve already started.
Okay.
Okay! So, people often think I’m joking or being sarcastic, but no, with all due respect, I’ll say this slowly and calmly: the media, the journalists who are paid from abroad, aren’t sovereign people, and there’s no need to talk to them.
But now they’ve been allowed in here.
Yes, yes. That’s the right thing to have done, because you don’t need to ban anyone. I just want to say that I know that now, here, I’ve listened to the earlier speakers, and I’d also like to embrace the affectionate atmosphere in the room; but, you see, I also need to be a fighter. So there are times when it would be easier to say something nice, smooth or conciliatory. In my profession, that’s not the case: sometimes you have to say, “This is white, this is black, it’s like this, it’s like that – and this is why I don’t joke around when it comes to national sovereignty.” So I can’t talk to anyone who’s been bought, who’s being funded.
But we have to acknowledge that a significant proportion of people get their news from such media outlets, and I don’t think we can ignore them either.
Yes. In fact, it’s good that they’re here – and then they’ll write about what didn’t happen. Yes.
Well, let’s talk about what happened and what we can see on the wall. On 29 October you posted that Hungary doesn’t want war, that Hungarians are on the side of peace. And that’s essentially how the anti-war rally began. What we can see here behind us reads, “Whoever wants peace is with us!” Does this mean that those who aren’t with you don’t want peace? I’ll be completely honest, and I was thinking about whether or not to say this, but I have friends and acquaintances who aren’t sure if they’ll vote for Fidesz–KDNP in April. I have friends and acquaintances who are part of the undecided camp, the 600–700,000 undecided voters who...
Yes, that’s precisely why it’s completely right that it doesn’t say that whoever wants peace is with Fidesz, but rather that they’re with us.
But they too, those who are still undecided, are also committed to peace.
Yes, of course. Indeed I think that on the Left, with whom we’d certainly have disagreements on some important issues, there are surely many with whom we have no disagreement on this issue, on the issue of peace. And it would be good if they’d stand with us – not with Fidesz, but, say, with the Hungarian people or with peace-loving Hungarians. I want to emphasise that there is danger. So we’re not at a quiet, cheerful Saturday gathering, but at an anti-war rally. An anti-war rally must be held when there’s danger. Dear people of Győr, I can report to you that there’s a danger of war in Europe. We’re not standing up for peace because we’re decent people, although I hope that’s also true, but because now we must stand up. Europe is on the brink of war. And now everyone – not just Hungarians, but people elsewhere in Europe too – must raise their voices, because otherwise European leaders will stumble and stagger into a war. I don’t know if we’ll be talking about this. Europe has historical experience of how it tends to get involved in wars. And eerily I see the same signs that historians have recorded over the past century – not before the Second World War, but before the First World War.
We’ll be talking about that, excuse me.
So I just wanted to say that something’s seriously wrong. Now we’re at a gathering of people who are opposed to war – and, I hope, committed to peace.
But don’t you feel that this is appropriating the word “peace”? So one gets the feeling that only people on the political Right want – or can want – peace.
We agreed that we’d try to have a lively and exciting conversation with back-and-forth responses; but if you ask questions like that it won’t work, because then I’ll have to shed some light on a couple of things in more depth. And now, regardless of what you’ve said, this is the result of the unhealthy development and evolution of Hungarian society. Because what kind of thinking is it when someone says “I’m Hungarian”, and then someone else says, “And I’m not?” Or “I belong to a national political force”, and another says, “Why, aren’t I national politically speaking?” In America one party is called the Democratic Party. It would never occur to the other party to say that they’re excluded from democracy. The other party is called the Republican Party. A Democrat would never think that they’re not in favour of the republic. In my opinion this is bad – it’s a stigmatising, exclusionary, bad party game left over from the commie era: if I say something about myself, about us, the other person says that because we disagree on a few things, they’re being excluded. That’s a bad approach; you can’t build national unity like that.
But it exists doesn’t it?
Yes, but now the reason we’re talking is to reduce the number of these cases.
Then let’s trust that...
Yes, that we’ll break our bad habits, yes.
Seven minutes have already gone by, Prime Minister. Allow me to continue the thread of our conversation. You’ve mentioned the European Union, and I’d definitely like to talk about funding. Since the outbreak of the war, the European Union has provided Ukraine with approximately 190 billion euros in funding. This has taken the form of economic, humanitarian and military assistance. Hungary provides mostly humanitarian aid, and indeed this is its most characteristic form of assistance. For example, it’s strongly opposed to arms shipments, and no weapons can reach Ukraine via Hungary. Allow me to make a critical observation: there are voices critical of the Government who say that this narrative is very similar to the Russian narrative. The Government says that arms shipments could lead to an escalation of the war; and indeed, according to Russia’s official messaging and President Putin’s official statements, arms shipments are to blame for the war dragging on. Do you see any similarities between these narratives? Are these critical points being directed at the Government justified?
I think we should behave like adults. So when I say something, I say it because, first, I believe it, and second, because I’m convinced that it’s in the interest of the Hungarian people. With all due respect and courtesy, I’m not interested in the Russian president’s opinion on this matter – that’s his business, this is ours. The position represented by the Hungarian government isn’t measured against someone else’s stance, not benchmarked to the leader of another country, but rather reflects Hungary’s own national interest. That’s all I’m willing to represent. I’m not interested in whether it coincides with one, another, or a third player’s position.
Since I’ve mentioned this 190 billion euros in funding, I must also bring up the news that came to light a few days ago, according to which senior Ukrainian government officials may have embezzled hundreds of millions of euros in EU aid. Investigations have been launched in this regard. Do you think this investigation could result in the European Union changing its funding policy, for example? Do you think President Zelenskyy could be brought down by this – even though he himself isn’t implicated, but a close friend of his is? So is it legitimate to ask such questions? Do you think that the European Union’s policy could change?
I think these are important questions, but they’re details. And I suggest that before we talk about the details, we talk about the whole picture. The big question is this: There’s a war between Russia and Ukraine; so, regardless of the scenario and the reasons, could this pose a threat of war to our lives? My answer is that yes, it could. The second question is this: Does Hungary have a chance to bring about peace? My answer is no: Hungary can contribute to peace-making, it can be a good instrument for the policies of countries larger than ours that want peace, but it’s not realistic to think that we can create peace. Then comes the third question – here I’ll try to make some notes.
Do that – because that paper will be worth a lot.
The third question is this: If this is the case and Europeans still don’t come to their senses, can we stay out of it? Can Hungarians stay out of a European war? This is the question that occupies all my waking hours. I need to think about this. And historical experience shows that Hungarians wanted to stay out of a great European war on two occasions: we wanted to stay out of the First World War, when István Tisza was Prime Minister; and we wanted to stay out a second time, when Miklós Horthy was Regent. We didn’t want war, we weren’t the ones who started it, we had nothing to do with it; and when trouble struck we wanted to stay out of it and calm the situation down. We didn’t succeed. The question is, if things turn out the way they unfortunately might, with Europe going to war, whether we’ll be able to stay out of it; whether over the next three or four years – until 2026, 27, 28 or 30 – you, we, all of us together, me too, will be able to stay out of it just as we are, together. Are we strong enough to stay out of it? Are we smart enough to stay out of it?
But what’s the answer?
Do we have leaders who are good enough to be able to see the connections soon enough and who want to stay out of it? Are we sufficiently independent from Brussels, which wants to push us into war? Do we have enough backbone to stand up to the Germans if, God forbid, they want to go to war again and we don’t? That’s the question.
And what’s the answer?
What’s the answer? I can say that this wasn’t our intention when we took office in 2010, during peacetime. But if God wanted to help us, and why shouldn’t we assume that he did, then I can interpret the events and our decisions – the Government’s decisions and the Hungarian nation’s major decisions since 2010 – in such a way that it becomes clear that in fact they served the purpose of ensuring that in the event of the emergence of a crisis situation like the one I’m talking about, Hungary would have sufficient sovereignty and strength to be able to stay out of the war. I maintain that the work done since 2010 gives Hungarians a chance to stay out of the war.
Let’s turn to America.
This isn’t such a simple thing, because we didn’t gather here to talk about my personal affairs. But I also need to compose myself. Everyone has some kind of lack of self-confidence or something like that in relation to their profession, and I’m no exception. I remember when I first became Prime Minister and people addressed me that way, I kept turning around to see if someone was coming behind me. And now I found myself sitting there next to the President of the United States, the President of the United States of America, and I was thinking, “16 Kolozsvár Street, Felcsút”: What am I doing here?
Prime Minister...
What am I trying to say with this? I just want to say that we’re capable of great things if we believe that we’re capable of great things, and if we don’t get carried away by our own successes and we always remember exactly where we came from, what our limitations are, and so on. That’s the key to everything. Moderation and fairness are the two virtues on which Hungarian politics should be based, in my opinion; and this is possible, whether you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth, or whether you were born on the outskirts of Felcsút.
But let’s stay in Washington for now. By the way, there’s a lot of talk there about the energy agreement and the financial shield, which I’d like us to discuss. But what can you say about agreements related to peace, or what “peace-oriented” agreements – really, very, very much in quotation marks – have been made? Was it only the peace summit – the possible timing of the peace summit – that was mentioned in connection with this? And then I’d ask another question about that. But I don’t want to...
Never mind that you have a question – I have a lot of answers.
Let’s try to sort it out then.
Wait! The first thing we need to talk about, perhaps, in order to find an answer to your question, is whether today the warring parties want peace. The answer is no. If they wanted it, there would be peace.
Excuse me, does that apply to both sides, or just to the Russians?
Last year I visited all of them. Last summer I spent about two hours with President Zelenskyy, trying to convince him – both as the leader of a friendly neighbouring country and as a Christian – to understand that time was against him, time wasn’t on his side: “Of course, there’s justice, history, aggression, many things. But believe me, the longer the war lasts, the more you’ll lose, so use me to try to make peace as soon as possible, and then we’ll see what happens next. But time definitely isn’t on your side.” What’s more, it was before the US presidential election, and – knowing the US president – I knew for sure that if he came to power, one couldn’t count on the Americans staying in this war; they’d pull out, you could be sure of that.
You mean President Trump.
Yes, yes. But he [President Zelenskyy] said no, time was on their side, they were stronger, and they’d win. We’d see what the American president would do. So that’s how it was. So I can say with certainty that at this time, for various reasons, the opposing parties don’t want to make peace. What does this mean in terms of our task? We must try to mobilise the world’s great powers, who have an interest in peace, to exert external influence – not to say pressure – on them to make peace. In the case of the Ukrainians, this is easier, because Ukraine has ceased to be a sovereign country: Ukraine exists because the West wants it to exist, they’re giving it money, they’re giving it weapons. If the West stops giving, then it’s over: Ukraine won’t be able to sustain itself. In Ukraine today pensions, salaries, social assistance and child benefits are paid for with Western money.
So the cessation of aid could result in...
I think the West has the means to motivate the Ukrainians toward peace.
And the Russians?
That’s the difficult situation. There are no such tools there, because the Russians... What happened there? The Russians… Let’s go back to April 2022. In April 2022, in Istanbul...
The war had been going on for two months.
Two months after the outbreak of the war, there were secret negotiations between the Russians and Ukrainians to reach an agreement on peace. The offer that the Russians made was that the war could end immediately if they could annex two provinces and Ukraine wouldn’t become a member of NATO. I saw the documents on this. In the end the Ukrainians rejected that offer, under Anglo-Saxon pressure – let’s be blunt, under Anglo-Saxon pressure. After that the Russians went home, drafted a law, and said that instead of two, they’d annex four: it wasn’t two provinces that would be incorporated into the Russian state, but four. And that’s essentially what happened, except for Donetsk...
Twenty-two per cent of Donetsk.
…22 percent of that province. And now the debate is about whether we can persuade the Russians to make peace now, and put some other consideration ahead of occupying 22 per cent of that territory. The major Western countries can’t find the means to persuade the Russians to do this, because they say “No, we’ll occupy that 22 per cent too. Once there was a peace offer, but it was rejected, so now we’re going to achieve our goal.” And this is where the whole international machinery is jammed, and this is where we’re trying to offer some kind of solution or help. I think time is on the Russians’ side. Every day they’re occupying five, ten, twenty, I don’t know how many more metres of territory. It would be good to make peace before they occupy the territories at the price of terrible bloodshed. We’re sitting here in an intellectual way, well dressed, having had a decent breakfast, with good prospects for lunch, the children are fine, everyone’s fine. But that’s not the case on the Eastern Front. Nothing’s like that there: they’re poorly clad, they’re happy if they don’t freeze to death, there’s no electricity, they don’t know if their child got breakfast, they don’t know if their husband will survive the afternoon, his wife doesn’t know whether to flee or stay – and they’re dying in their hundreds and thousands. So in this context what we’re talking about now appears to be different from the terrible reality. This is a brutal war: two Slavic peoples. We can talk about this, can’t we – what it means when Slavs go to war? And when the Slavs come here in one war or another. Two Slavic peoples are killing each other in a terrible, brutal way. So when I do everything I can, and Hungary does everything it can to achieve peace, we’re working to avert the most terrible catastrophe. Please understand this. Apart from wanting to save ourselves from distress, we want to spare them the suffering of everyday life, from the painful suffering of everyday life. If we do it well, we can spare tens or hundreds of thousands of people there on the Eastern Front. Therefore, it is worthwhile – and from a Christian perspective not only worthwhile, because one cannot do otherwise – to try everything possible, using the diplomatic means at your disposal, to steer matters toward peace. It’s no coincidence that the Holy See, the Vatican, which doesn’t intervene in politics, is the only entity that I see taking a clear and decisive stance on secular political issues, namely peace.
Is there any other country like that?
Because it’s a terrible war that’s raging there.
Is there any other country or state besides the Vatican City that’s expressed its commitment to peace so firmly – even, say, in conversations in the corridors?
One shouldn’t assume that we’re surrounded only by bad people, because then we’ll be in trouble. One should assume that even the European leaders who promote war must sense, somewhere deep in their souls, God’s admonition that they’re representing something bad. So it’s never hopeless. If we do it properly, even someone who’s committed to war can be spoken to in a way that enables them to understand that it’s a bad cause, that they’re on the side of Beelzebub, on the side of destruction. I could say all sorts of things about European leaders, but I wouldn’t dare to say that they’re rotten to the core. That’s why I think that in every person in Europe, even among those who support the war, there’s at least a level of doubt, a question of conscience: “My God, what are we doing?” We just have to turn this into policy somehow. It’s a very difficult task. Central Europeans like us, where spiritual life and politics aren’t as sharply separated as in Western Europe, are better able to navigate between these dimensions, and we try to use this to our advantage. Now, of course, there are the brave ones who say they’re against war. That’s how we are, it’s in our genes, there are the Slovaks. And then there are those who are brave at home – within their walls and behind closed doors. That’s how it is.
Perhaps the Czechs too, right? Now Prime Minister Babiš has also shown a desire to move in this direction...
The Czech prime minister is a fantastic person. If you ever have the opportunity, I recommend that you invite him here to Győr. The Czech Republic isn’t a country that follows European Christian traditions – anyone who knows the Czech Republic will be aware of that. It belongs to this cultural circle, but I’d say they’re the most rational people in Europe – and Slavs at that, a Slavic community representing a high level of cultural quality. And they know that what they have now is bad for them – it’s definitely bad financially. And since Prime Minister Babiš was previously the Finance Minister and knows all the figures by heart, I consider it impossible for the Czechs to support any policy that costs them a penny. So I’m not citing the Czech cultural background when I say that they’ll be on the side of peace, but I’m citing practical experiences of Czech beer consumption – in which you have to pay properly for every cent, every sip. So they won’t spend a single forint unnecessarily. And Prime Minister Babiš is an extremely fine fighter. I’d modestly say that I’m not exactly the last in line either, but he’s a great fighter. I remember it was half past four in the morning, when everyone had already shouted themselves hoarse, when the normally disciplined atmosphere at the prime ministers’ council meeting in Brussels was fracturing a little. It was around half past four: there’s this exhaustion tactic – it’s fair to ask why we start discussing issues that will determine the future of Europe at 6 p.m., isn’t it? Never mind. And at 4:30 a.m., President Babiš, like a young man, fresh and ignoring all the shouting, said “No, no, no.” This went on for hours, and in the end, “No”. It didn’t happen. So I think we’ve got a good fighter.
Having talked about finances in relation to Andrej Babiš, and staying with America, let’s talk about the financial defence shield. We’re talking about a 10–20-billion-dollar financial defence package, aren’t we? I can’t ignore the fact that the funds withheld from the European Union, which aren’t coming to Hungary on the grounds of the rule of law, also cover approximately this amount – i.e. 18–19 billion euros. So has this defensive package been introduced to compensate for the funds that haven’t arrived from the European Union, or in what kind of crisis situation will it be able to provide assistance? And then quickly, if I may, because I know you’ll explain your answer in more detail later, I’d definitely like to ask you the following. You’ve repeatedly referred to Donald Trump as a born businessman. What do the Americans expect in return for this financial rescue package, this defensive shield?
What I’ve been able to identify from this barrage of questions is the defensive shield, credit, the EU, and the American president as a businessman. Let’s look at the first one. Why does Hungary need to think about a defensive shield at all? I promise to be brief. Because 110 years ago, Hungary embarked on a bad historical path, and lost the First World War. Until Hungary lost the First World War, resources were naturally needed for Hungary’s development, but no defensive shield was necessary. At Trianon, however, they created a Hungary that was unviable. They took away everything that was necessary for a nation to exist: they took away our oil fields, they took away our mines, they took away our salt mines, they took away our forests, our timber, they took away everything. Everything! By all human calculations, that Hungary, that had the same borders as we have today, should essentially have died. This is why, since the First World War, Hungary has existed within a system of circumstances in which it must survive, remain alive and even develop – while lacking the basic conditions necessary for security. This is why, even under Bethlen’s government, between the two world wars, Hungary continuously needed some kind of special system of financial relations. Because when your currency is attacked – say, by a speculator named Soros, there are speculators with that name – you must defend it. And to do that you need financial resources. If you have assets, mineral assets, or what I mentioned earlier, real assets, as they say, then you can mobilise them to defend against financial attacks. But if you don’t have any real assets, and you don’t because they were taken away from you, then all you have are the National Bank’s accounts. And at that moment, you’ll find yourself in a position of financial vulnerability. This is why Hungary has always needed – and will always need – a financial defensive shield. Here I won’t bring up János Fekete, who was a talented man with a mixed reputation in the communist era, tasked by the communists with the task of putting such financial shields into operation in case of trouble. So what I’m saying is that I’m not talking about something that’s dependent on politics or the system, but that’s a given fact forming part of the Hungarian nation’s existence.
Prime Minister...
Excuse me, what we’ve done in Hungary since the First World War – our parents and grandparents and ourselves – hasn’t been developed from real economic resources; we did it purely with our thoughts and our work. Everything that exists in Hungary is a tribute to someone’s work or intellectual effort. This is where we stand. On the one hand, this is beautiful; but on the other, it’s fragile.
Prime Minister, excuse me, but time is really flying, and I’d like you to answer one more question, which is whether this actually triggers...
So, what I wanted to say was that a defensive shield...
I understand the background.
...whether you need it or not isn’t a matter of choice.
Okay.
Not until now. The European Union itself acts as a financial shield if the European Union is your friend. But if the European Union – or Brussels, let’s make that distinction: if the Brussels bureaucrats are your enemies, then it’s not a shield, but a bludgeon with which they hit you over the head.
So I got my answer. So I think we got that answer...
Good. If that’s enough for you, then fine.
...but then in what way does this hurt Hungary, Prime Minister?
This defensive shield?
Yes.
According to the current governor of the Central Bank, who gave a very important interview a few days ago, the essence of the defensive shield is that – despite being a noun – its tense is the future. In other words, he wanted to say that the defensive shield is something that may be needed in the future. So it’s not needed now, because we’re fine for the time being. The defensive shield is something that you take up and hold in front of you when there’s trouble. That is why it doesn’t hurt anything now. Four or five financial instruments known in the international world have been negotiated...
I don’t think we need to go into the details of that.
...very well, that can be used in such cases. And I’ve built a financial defensive shield for Hungary in other areas as well. This American one is the largest. But I’ve built others in other areas too; we also have smaller defensive shields.
And if and when we have to bend down and pick up this defensive shield and hold it in front of us, could this have the effect of increasing the national debt? It can be considered to be a loan, which will then incur interest. Questions of this nature arise, and I must say that many people ask these questions, I think that many people ask these questions. And I believe that you’re the best person to answer them.
Let me give you some examples. One such financial instrument that can be used as a defensive shield, as they say, is a swap line: a currency swap; please forgive me, I’m not being pretentious, it’s because in this field they speak English. So, for example, when you need “hard” currency and there’s no one to buy your forints, in such a case someone will agree to buy forints from you. That’s how it works. But let me give you another example: it’s called a “flexible credit line”. This is a flexible credit facility that you don’t immediately make use of – it’s just open. When you need it, you take it up, and when you’ve taken it up, you pay. These are complex financial instruments devised in the Anglo-Saxon world that can be used. So this doesn’t hurt anything now. Depending on which one we choose, when we need it there will be some cost, but that will be then.
The energy agreement – since we have eight minutes left. The energy agreement was one of the most successful agreements you managed to achieve in Washington. Let’s clarify a question that you’ve clarified many times already, but which has now come to the fore again in connection with Marco Rubio: is this agreement valid for one year or for an unlimited period?
How did this happen? It happened because we asked for it. The President said: What’s this about? I feel that I managed to explain what it was about, and I told him what we needed. I said very clearly that I understood why he introduced this measure against Russian energy companies, and obviously he wasn’t thinking about us when he did so, but if he looks at what his measure has done, I can say that he’s killing the Hungarian economy. So if, at the end of November, when these sanctions come into effect, he didn’t grant us an exemption, the Hungarian people would be ruined. That wasn’t his intention, but now, in the middle of the heating season, just before Christmas, Hungarians would see their gas bills double or triple, and the price of petrol would rise above 1,000 forints per litre. Obviously this isn’t what he wanted. I said, “Help us out of this situation! You can solve this, there are all kinds of legal techniques to get us out of this.” And he said, “Okay, go ahead!” A little more elegantly than that, but that was the gist of it. He said, “Okay”. And we shook hands on it, and that’s how it will be. How long will it be like this? As long as the American president wants it to be. So the bureaucrats can argue that it will be a year, six months, three months. This is a presidential system, the President has made a decision, and until he changes it, that’s how it is, so there’s no time limit.
And as Minister Szijjártó, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, has said, this is paperwork, a formality. So will there actually be a limited, one-year time limit on the paperwork, on the formalisation of the agreement, or can it be formulated as being unlimited?
Does it matter? It will last as long as Donald Trump, the President of the United States, is on good terms with Hungary and upholds the agreement that’s been concluded. That’s how it will be until then. Anyone can write anything there. I was there, believe me – that kind of person will do as he says.
Let’s return to Europe for a moment, to migration issues. The Migration Pact will come into force in mid-2026, but we’re already paying a considerable amount in fines. Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó also referred to this in his speech. As far as I can see, around 160 billion forints in fines have been paid or deducted so far. You’re more familiar with the details of this, but in terms of migration-related costs, we’ve already paid around 800 billion forints for border protection over the past ten years. So that’s almost one trillion forints. How can these costs be managed? I don’t want to get into such economic issues, but is the 160 billion forints worth it, to…
If you ask such difficult questions, the remaining four minutes won’t be enough.
Oh dear!
So let’s extend somewhat, or do something.
Then let’s focus on the penalty. What happens, what could happen after 2026, when this pact comes into force?
The problem is that in order to answer detailed questions, I must first clarify the significance of the question. Because once you understand the significance of the question, you know how much weight to give to a detailed question. So for a long time, right up until very recently, I thought that the greatest threat to Hungary’s existence was migration. Now war has joined the list. So today I dare not say that’s the only one: there are two things threatening our existence in Europe. One is called war, which we’ve gathered here today to oppose, and the other is called migration. We must stay out of the war, but we must defend ourselves against migration: we can’t stay out of it, as it’s here at our border. So we must build a fence, we’re in it, and we must defend ourselves there. Now, in this modern world, I no longer know how people think about their own identity, their own future and that of their children and grandchildren. But I say this without any pathos: I think there’s nothing greater that can happen to a person than to be born Hungarian. It’s fantastic! I say this without any pathos, in very simple language. Those who don’t speak Hungarian don’t know what they’re missing out on. There’s no other language like it. Secondly, in this fantastic language, a world literature has been created, a huge body of literature. Those who can read have access to fantastic things. Then we have a history. Then we have continuity. There’s been no such nation in Europe, maintaining its statehood continuously for a thousand years. Then, surrounded by strangers, you exist here as a stranger. You came here, you occupied this land, you cultivated it, you cultivated it for a thousand years, and you’re surrounded only by people who aren’t your relatives. This is fate. This causes a lot of trouble, but it also leads to fantastic things, because you have to mix, you have to make contact. This is enormous – so being Hungarian is a fantastic thing. What’s more, Hungarians are a people of tribal origin. I apologise to those who don’t think so, but we’re a people of tribal origin, and for us the most important things are our fathers, our grandfathers, our ancestors, and our children. We don’t see ourselves as part of the universe, but rather part of a process. We see our grandparents, and I see our grandchildren. So there’s a continuity to the whole thing. Not all nations think this way – they don’t have the same survival instincts. But we think that when a Westerner utters the word “nation” it means exactly the same thing in their heart as it does in ours. We’re wrong. That’s not the case. It’s a culturally determined thing. And that’s what Hungarians are like. What I mean to say is that, for me, anything that threatens to destroy, corrode, or eliminate the quality of Hungarian life – as the Hungarian quality of life – is our enemy. And everything that strengthens it is our friend. This is why we must fight! We must fight against war, because it’s killing us, and we must fight against migration. Migration will change us – we’ll no longer be Hungarians. Or if we are, maybe that’s what they’ll call us, but that’s not what we’ll truly be. There will be no recourse that way – we must fight. And this isn’t about being rich or poor, because it’s just as important for the poor as it is for the rich. It goes beyond your personal circumstances: it’s about who you are. And I don’t see a single country in Europe that has let in migrants and become happier as a result. I don’t see that. So why should we have to force this on ourselves?
Do you see any way of reaching an agreement? So, that Hungary and the European Union agree, and the current 160 billion forints is spent on something else?
We can’t agree with the European Union on this issue. Brussels currently believes that what’s called migration – which we see as a problem – is a good thing. They think that the strong attachment of Europe and the European peoples to their national identities – especially that of the Hungarians, which as I mentioned earlier is outstanding – is a bad thing, and not a good thing. And they think European cooperation would be helped if these whingeing Hungarians – and a few other such peoples – would finally give up their stubborn, hard-headed, stiff-necked, patriotic feelings and learn how to live together with other kinds of peoples. They think that diversity itself is an asset. But homogeneity is also an asset, isn’t it? Isn’t it good that my neighbour’s like me? I think that’s an asset. Why should we give that up? There are countries, such as the United States, that were created by mixing different peoples: these, those and some others went there and created a system of cooperation. But why should we mix when we have no need to? When we feel safe and at home, when we feel at home in our country? When we know our neighbours, the parents of our children at school? And I could go on. The same kind of people sitting next to me on the bench in the locker room, people just like me? This mustn’t be given up, it’s a huge advantage. So what I’m saying is that Brussels considers this a disadvantage and wants to make us pay for it. This is why it’s replacing the population. This is why it’s letting in Muslims, to make us different, to mix us up. And on this there can be no compromise – because either you let them in or you don’t.
Is there no happy medium?
No. I’m one of those people in Hungary, because Hungarians have differing views on this, who say that we’ll never let them in, except over our dead bodies – or not even then.
Just one last question on this, because our time is up, but don’t you feel that you also want to speak to young people? There are many young people, however, who think the opposite. So, isn’t it possible to speak to them in some way, in some form?
It’s a very difficult issue, because young people, of course, live in a more homogeneous Hungarian world...
They see a more colourful, more ideal world ahead of them.
Yes, but they go abroad, and the world isn’t like that there. And they see a lot of beauty in the world, which is beautiful because it’s not like ours.
Don’t we need to change? Don’t we need to think a little differently?
We need to talk to them instead. So I think we’re talking about a very difficult issue, a very difficult issue: young people exist within a different coding system, a different culture, and in some cases they think differently than we do. I just want to remind everyone that young people are our children. First, we must ask ourselves, before we say a single bad word about young people, whether we’ve been good parents. Have I been a good father or mother to this child? Have I told them what they needed to know in good time? Have I helped them understand us? Have I told them that what they were thinking will cause problems? It all starts here. So I think that we shouldn’t give in to young people, but rather sit down with them and talk to them, because they are us. And if we talk to them, I’m sure that most of them will come to the same conclusion as us. Because ultimately we’re all Hungarians, and if you’re Hungarian, there are certain laws you must obey – because otherwise you won’t survive, you won’t be happy, and you’ll disappear from the world stage. But this is something they’ll understand – young people can be patriots.
Prime Minister, one last topic – on which I believe there’s no division in the country – is the World Cup qualification stage. And is this perhaps the most difficult topic? The 1–0 victory against Armenia brought Hungary very close to the play-offs. Tomorrow could turn out very well, because if we win we could even mathematically secure first place in the group. But third place is also a realistic possibility. So are we looking at a very, very close match tomorrow?
I think this question only seems to stand out from the flow of our conversation so far. Because of course you can think of it as a sport; but I think tomorrow will be more a test of character than a sporting event. We have to be men, and now we’ll find out what kind of men we are.
Let’s cheer on the national team. Prime Minister, thank you very much for the conversation.
Thank you.
Balázs (Facebook): You work every day and strive towards your goal, for which we’re very grateful. How can we, ordinary people, help to achieve peace?
I have a short answer and a longer answer. Unfortunately, I’m going to give you both. First of all, thank you very much for thinking about my work. This is a fantastic job. I don’t know if there’s a more fantastic job in Hungary. First of all, because you have the tools at your disposal, so you can not only want to do good things, but you can actually do good things. That’s a really big deal. And every evening, when I take stock of what was good, what was bad, and how I stand with myself and with God, every evening it turns out that I’ve done much more good things than bad. I think that’s a fantastic feeling, so I recommend it to everyone. And of course this isn’t only true for the Prime Minister, but for everyone in public life. So I encourage everyone to take on a role in public life. Bishops are here, and it’s easier for them because, after all, it’s their job. But I encourage everyone else – not only in church communities, but in any community – to take on some kind of work; because the feeling that you’ve been able to do good almost every day, according to your own judgment, working together with others, is irreplaceable. Hungarians are a modest people; we don’t usually talk about such things, but believe me, it’s important. The second thing I’m very grateful to God for is that I can do this – there are few jobs that are more intellectually challenging and demanding. And I think that being Hungarian is the best thing in the world, and thinking is the second best thing in the world – especially when you have to think about complicated issues. So, what can we do now? Perhaps this question came from the Nyírség? It doesn’t matter. What can he do for peace, apart from coming to the peace rallies? I think that Bishop Lajos Pápai and Bishop Veres are here, and they’d be better able to convey this to you than I can, but I believe that the prerequisite for peace is tranquillity: peace within yourself. If you’re okay, if you’re balanced, if you’re at peace, if you know your path, if you know why you’re doing what you’re doing, if you have peace within yourself, if you don’t see the enemy in others, if you’ve achieved this peace, then you’ve taken a very big step towards peace. People who are peaceful within don’t usually fight with others, if I may put it that way – or they avoid it until the last moment. So what I can recommend to every Hungarian is that if they want peace, they should get personally involved in promoting peace in Hungary. That’s the most we can do.
Magdi: Will the Russians be frightened by the anti-war rally and end the war?
We’re looking good, so I wouldn’t want to be in the Russians’ shoes right now! But let’s speak seriously. I’ll keep it short. It’s worth thinking about why the war broke out. That will help a lot in understanding how it can be ended. Although there are different schools of thought on this, I believe that the war broke out because the Russians felt that the process that began in 1990, when the Soviet Union collapsed, whereby Western powers were moving closer and closer to Russia, had become dangerous. This was the case with NATO expansion. And when Ukraine’s membership of NATO was put on the agenda, the Russians decided that they’d prevent it at all costs. This doesn’t excuse the Russians for achieving this through military invasion, destroying countless lives and flouting international law. But that’s what lies behind it. I think we need to understand that if we can make an offer to the Russians on how to build a European security system that provides security for us and for them, then we can reach an agreement with them. Of course this will require strength, because the Russians are a martial people. So the Russians will only agree with those whom they see as being strong. So it’s important for us to be strong. We don’t need to be strong in order to wage war, but in order to create balance and reach an agreement with the Russians. I think this is what we should strive for. This is the philosophy I follow.
Balázs: You do so much for peace. What gives you the most strength to persevere in this struggle?
I have six grandchildren. I’ll tell you something – I don’t know if we have enough time. When it comes to migration, my wife is smart – or rather, she thinks faster than I do. In the end, it’s my wife who’s made the decisions, as she’s a woman who regularly participates in Catholic and ecumenical charitable causes. And when the first migrants arrived at the border, she went down to help. She came home and said, “Get yourself together, get dressed, go there; don’t let a single one in, because there will be big trouble for our grandchildren.”
Sándor: What’s your opinion about Tisza organising roadshow meetings?
I don’t know if in this circle it’s appropriate to speak sympathetically about our opponents. No – I see that there’s no popular demand for that. But after all it’s Saturday and tomorrow is Sunday, so perhaps we can speak a little more expansively. It’s not easy to be a leftist in Hungary today. It’s not easy. Let’s take a look at the slogans of the Left that they were proud of, or the points in their programme that they were proud of, which are important to left-wing people – and I’m not talking about people with material interests, but real people with left-wing sentiments. Full employment. Here’s the contrast: they created the Bokros Package; we achieved full employment. I’m left-wing, and I see this is an achievement of the Right. Support for families, social support. Here’s the contrast: they took away money; we strengthened families. The second goal of the Left that the Right achieved. The Left has no goals when it comes to national issues, to issues affecting Hungarian communities beyond the borders, or to Christianity; these are definitively goals of the Right. That’s fine, but all the goals of the Left – eliminating or reducing poverty. Although they try to deny it, if you look at the numbers impartially, no government has ever done as much to reduce poverty as the government of the Right. In Hungary today it’s not easy to be left-wing, because all the important values of the Left have been realised by the Right. If this is the case, and I believe it is, then what remains as a driving force on the Left? Power. That’s why the Left has become intellectually and spiritually empty, nothing more than a crowd of people gathered together for power. That’s the situation. And it’s rather regrettable.