First, let’s talk about where we are. This is the battlefield. This is one of the meeting rooms for the European Council, where we must argue, fight, defend Hungary’s interests – and, if possible, reach agreements with other European leaders. That’s the room we’re in now. And indeed today was a day of battle. It’s true that I skipped the first half of the battle, and fortunately I found a friend who was willing to take over the struggles in the first half of the day: Robert Fico, the Prime Minister of Slovakia, whom I asked to represent Hungary’s position and interests here while I was kept in Budapest for the 23 October commemorations. If someone had said fifteen years ago, or even ten years ago, that in such a situation we’d be asking not the Polish prime minister but the Slovak prime minister – and specifically the Slovak prime minister – to represent Hungary’s interests, many people would have been horrified or would have laughed, not knowing whether it was serious or a joke. This is serious. This is the situation today, and we’ve put so much energy into building Slovak–Hungarian friendship that this is now possible. And, as soon as I arrived, the Prime Minister gave me back the letter which had enabled him to act here on behalf of Hungary. He’d marked what he’d read from the paper, added his comments, checked it off, and completed the task. I thanked him on behalf of Hungary for heroically and tenaciously representing Hungary’s interests in such a difficult matter, and in several other difficult matters.
Dániel Bohár: So Robert Fico is a reliable friend and ally.
I’d say that it’s difficult to say such things in politics – it’s difficult to find the right words, because everyone’s job is to represent their own nation. And, friendship aside, when it comes to your own nation, well gentlemen, that’s a different story; because I still have to represent my own people, and conflicting interests can arise even among the best of friends. But in such a situation, you still have to choose someone. And I can say that Robert Fico is an honest man. There are things we disagree on, but he’s an honest man, and I was sure that this was a Slovak approach: if he took it on, he’d do it. I wasn’t sure that he’d take it on, but if he did, I was sure that he’d do it – and that’s how it turned out. This is how he represented Hungary’s interests on the agenda item on Ukraine, for example. That isn’t easy, because the Slovak and Hungarian positions don’t coincide completely: there’s some overlap, but they don’t coincide completely. And here at the meeting he presented the Hungarian position with integrity.
Dániel Bohár: When we were coming to Brussels you said that from Hungary’s point of view one of the important positions at today’s EU summit was that the Ukrainians shouldn’t be allowed to join the EU and take out our money. What’s the situation in this regard?
The situation is that this battle wasn’t concluded in the morning, so I also had a round of negotiations late in the evening. First of all, we prevented an EU decision from being made that would have allowed the beginning of negotiations on EU membership, on Ukraine’s EU membership. Hungary doesn’t agree with that; it’s not in our interest. We have a different strategy, which we’ve already presented. We should form a strategic partnership with the Ukrainians, but not let them in; if you let them in, you’ll bring war in with them. And once they’re in, we’ll have to show solidarity with them; so we couldn’t do what we’re doing now, which is to say that there’s a Russo–Ukrainian war and Hungary says that it’s not our war. If they’re in the EU, then it’s our war too. So that’s the first thing, and today we’ve managed to prevent it. The other thing is that there’s a risky manoeuvre here. They want to drag the EU Member States into a financial manoeuvre whereby they’ll share responsibility with the EU if it freezes Russian assets – mainly foreign exchange reserves – which are located here in Western Europe, or at least a large part of them. They want to take these assets away from Russia and use them to finance Ukraine. And, because this is an extremely dubious manoeuvre, if the international court ultimately rules in favour of the Russians, then the Member States will be held accountable – individually or jointly through the EU – and will have to pay up: if they have to pay, then they’ll have to pay back the money. This is a manoeuvre that poses a very high economic risk for Hungary. It’s also unacceptable because the Russians have said that if we touch their money, they’ll take retaliatory measures against corporate assets in Russia. Several large Hungarian companies have significant assets in Russia, and I’m not willing to risk Hungarian investments in Russia – which is why we don’t support this solution and will not participate in it. They’re now trying to figure out how to implement this without Hungary. I’m not happy about this, but still we’ll stay out of it, and I don’t expect that Hungarian companies will have to suffer international sanctions, either in the Western world or in Russia.
Dániel Bohár: One of the topics that keeps coming up at EU summits is the economic condition of the European Union Member States, the economic condition of the European Union. Was this discussed today?
Of course, and at length – and I can only report on a most confusing, vague and sad picture. So, the starting point is that next year the eurozone – fortunately, Hungary isn’t part of it, so I’m more optimistic about us than about the eurozone, but the zone itself – will grow by 1 per cent. After all, Europe’s largest economies are in this group of countries, and it will grow by 1 per cent, while average world growth will be 2 per cent. Our rivals, the United States and China, will grow at a much higher rate. And it’s been like this for years. So it’s clear that our prospects are declining. The European economy can’t keep up. What’s more, in order to be competitive today – and this is where this issue connects with the war in Ukraine – huge capital-intensive investments would have to be made. We’re working on this in Hungary – mutatis mutandis, on a smaller scale. Huge investments need to be made, primarily in artificial intelligence and information technology – partly in the tools themselves and their development, and partly in the energy supply necessary for their operation. And that’s a huge amount of money. And if the money goes to Ukraine, then there will be no money left for developing the European economy. This is the dilemma that European leaders are struggling with today, and so far they haven’t been able to find a way out of the woods.
Dániel Bohár: If the leaders of the European Union countries recognise this, if they detect the problem, explain why they don’t do anything about it.
The situation is even worse than that, because in the meantime they’re making decisions that are further exacerbating the situation. Today, for example, there was a heated and fiercely abrasive debate about the green transition – which is the rope that the European economy is using to hang itself with. Many years ago Europeans decided that we’d be the continent that wouldn’t emit CO2: we wouldn’t emit pollutants, we’d build a clean economy; it’s true that we only account for 8 per cent of total worldwide emissions, but then the others would follow us. Well, the others haven’t been following us. The Americans are going in the opposite direction. The Chinese have chosen a different path, and although they’re not following our procedures, the Chinese economy has reduced its emissions of harmful substances to a greater extent than the European Union, which has appointed itself the champion in this. And, based on the premise that we’d reduce emissions, we’ve introduced rules which industry has never accepted. So large European companies have always protested, saying, “If you do this at this pace, we’ll go bankrupt.” And today executives are reporting that they’re closing their factories, one after another. These are proud, formerly proud and world-famous large companies in the automotive, chemical and steel industries: the basic industries that form the backbone of the economy. So it’s not just that there’s a problem that we can see and aren’t fixing, but that we’re making decisions that are making the problem worse. To answer that question, you don’t need me, but a psychologist.
Dániel Bohár: I have one more question. We came here to Brussels from the Peace March. You said that after a Peace March people’s adrenaline is high, and you’d been speaking in front of very many people. Did that momentum last?
I was fine, so there was no lack of determination. But when I sit here, I always think about what European people would think if they saw that we’re aware of the problems but are still unable to make decisions that would spare European people from these problems. I stand before the Hungarian people with a clear conscience, because I’m constantly fighting here against bad decisions; but there are many who fight in here, but not outside – who don’t take on conflicts. So I see a mystery looming over us: Who’s running this shambles? Who’s running the European Union? Because if we – from the Germans to the French to the Poles – sit here and see the problem and say that it’s a problem, say that something should be done about it, and then what we say and what we want doesn’t happen, then who’s running this Union? It’s not us, that’s for sure...
Dániel Bohár: And as far as I can see, there doesn’t seem to be a solution to this.
There’s no solution because someone else is running this Union from somewhere else. But that’s a conversation that could perhaps be taken from the boundary between crime novels, conspiracy theories and spy thrillers.
Dániel Bohár: Thank you very much for the conversation.