Zoltán Martí: Welcome to our viewers. In the next half an hour you will see an interview with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán reviewing the past year. We are filming the interview here at the Carmelite Monastery on Saturday afternoon. Thank you for this opportunity, Prime Minister, and good afternoon.
Good afternoon.
I think that talking about this year in half an hour is a difficult and thankless task – and indeed there are still a few days to go. If you had to highlight one thing that’s most important, what would it be?
That we’re coming out of the war.
What kind of help do we have in coming out of it? Here we can go straight to Trump, because Trump is the great hope that we’ll come out of the war. Are we closer to peace than we were a year ago?
Peace is within our grasp. The last three years have been a depressing three years, living with a war going on in a neighbouring country in which hundreds – sometimes thousands – are dying every day, with that country being emptied before our eyes, being bombed to pieces, and losing a considerable part of its resources. And one thinks of Ukraine, where every day there are at least a few hundred or a thousand more widows and many thousands more orphans. Living next to this and seeing it, one cannot escape its effects; because in the meantime, because of this, because of the war, prices are going through the roof, the energy market is tanking, and what one used to pay 7 billion dollars a year for, as we did, now costs 17 billion dollars a year. One feels that everything is slowing down, it’s getting difficult, and one has to survive the year; so the task is not to sink, for things not to get worse than they were. And this also affects the mood in neighbouring countries, not to mention the poor Ukrainians. And we’ve lived through this for three years. The fact that this can now come to an end will be like coming up to breathe air again after a long time under water. It’s such a great feeling, I think. And it’s really just within our grasp.
This year you had two peace missions, two such tours, and at your press conference yesterday morning – Saturday morning – you said that for Hungary this peace mission was obligatory. Why was it obligatory? And why for Hungary?
This is a Christian country. We’ve just recently buried Father Imre.
Father Imre Kozma.
Yes, Imre Kozma. From him we learned that Christianity isn’t theory, but practice. So if you’re a Christian country, you must help those in need. In addition, we were also given the means to do this, because Hungary was holding the Presidency of the European Union in this very semester; so we had more means than usual, more influence and power than we’d otherwise have had, given the usual, conventional size of Hungary. And in such circumstances one must use them, it’s one’s duty. It’s not by chance that I also met the Holy Father in the Vatican.
How do you assess them? How successful were these two peace missions?
The whole situation makes one want to cry. It’s difficult to talk about results. One thing is certain: when we took over the Hungarian Presidency at the beginning of July, talking about peace was unacceptable. It was like summoning up the devil. In July 2024 to talk about peace in Europe was to discredit yourself. But we didn’t bend the knee to that: we accepted the risk and kept talking about peace; and six months later we’ve arrived at the point where today everyone’s talking about peace. So what was once a forbidden topic and a forbidden political objective can now finally be talked about in a meaningful way. We’ve achieved this much, but this doesn’t mean that the war is over. Now the US president will arrive on 20 January, and a new world will begin. Until then, one should focus on realistic goals. I’ve proposed a Christmas ceasefire. As proved by the First World War, in the history of European wars it’s not unprecedented to have a ceasefire for a few days at Christmas, and mass exchanges of prisoners. I think I’ve managed to persuade the Russian president to seriously consider this. The Ukrainians, for some mysterious reason, aren’t willing to do so for the time being, but Christmas isn’t here yet, so let’s not give up.
Especially Orthodox Christmas, which is later.
We’re talking about Orthodox Christmas.
If we peer into the political crystal ball, we see some very interesting things. For me, the peace budget means that Hungary is linking its economic strengthening to peace, which is actually linked to Trump. But I don’t know whether the European Union is prepared for Trump, as this European Union sees peace in Ukraine winning this war. So there’s a very interesting circuit here, and I don’t know whether these differences, these disagreements, can be resolved in any way.
It remains to be seen if they can be resolved. What’s certain is that there are these disagreements that you’ve broadly described. There’s a new reality, partly on the front line: everyone knows about it, everyone hears about it, and I’m not telling you a secret when I say that the Russians are pushing forward. They’re advancing slowly, grinding and pulverising. There’s terrible loss of life on both sides. And the power dynamics are clear. So this is a war that the European Union has lost. Now they’re trying to come up with all sorts of communication tricks in order to say that yes, but the Russians haven’t, and to ask what victory is, as one can’t know exactly. So we’ll see half-baked communication attempts at explaining to us why defeat is victory, and why victory is defeat. Incidentally, it may be worth taking Orwell’s books off the shelf and looking through them to help us decipher what they’re saying. But this won’t change the facts. There’s a reality on the battlefield that we’ve always known; and we Hungarians have always said that the conflict must be isolated. If it expands, if it swells, if the Europeans jump in and turn it into their own war, then in terms of military performance we’ll face an even greater defeat. It’s in our interest to keep this conflict small. This is the first element of the new reality. The second is that something’s going to happen in America that hasn’t happened in a very long time. A player who’s determined and has prepared for a civilisational struggle – a struggle for the soul and the future of the West – has entered the lists on the side of the patriots, on the side of life. This will change the whole Western world. In my mind I already live in this reality. The Hungarian government is in this reality. The budget is designed in accordance with this reality. As you say, the Brusseleers are still in the same old situation, they’re still a few chapters behind. They’re still in the mindset they were in before the great change. And they’re saying that everything should continue to be done the same way it’s been done up to now. Totally wrong! They’ll pay a high price for this.
So far the war is estimated to have cost Europe and America 310 billion euros. This is what they’ve paid. On Kossuth Radio on Friday you gave some examples of what this could have been spent on – for example, on the Western Balkans or on the Sahel, which is very important from the point of view of migration. But let me turn the picture around: If it hadn’t been for this 310 billion euros, what do you think would have happened to Ukraine?
We’ll never know. What we do know for sure is that in April 2022, two months after the war started, the parties held secret talks in Istanbul, the outcome of these talks was committed to paper, and they were hours away from an agreement. But this agreement was rendered impossible by the intervention of the West, making it virtually impossible for the Ukrainians to sign the agreement.
They didn’t allow the Ukrainians to do so?
Yes, it’s a fact that it was not signed. There should have been two parties: one was there, the other wasn’t. So in the political world of Western Europe it’s an acknowledged fact, the documents are known, and we know the details of the whole story. This is that in April 2022 there was the possibility of a ceasefire and a lasting peace. All we can conclude is that the task wasn’t impossible. It was just botched.
But why? Why doesn’t the West want peace? Why didn’t it want peace back then?
Now, this is the moment when I’m no longer the right interviewee for you, because I wanted it.
If we look at Trump’s arrival and the European Union, summarising everything we’ve talked about so far, it seems that you may have a role – if you want to have one – in mediating between the European Union and Trump. Many people are saying that America’s standpoint will lead to an “America First” protectionist economic policy in relation to the European Union and also to China. Can you help – and do you want to help – Trump to have a relatively friendly relationship with the European Union?
I tend to smile at that. You see, politics is a world that’s difficult to see into, and when analysts make suggestions I always think of those advisers on the edge of a boxing ring, advising the boxer between rounds on what to do and how to do it. The poor boxer knows exactly what it was like in the previous three seconds when he was punched in the face, in the stomach or the ribs; and the person giving this great advice is afraid to go into the ring, and has probably never been in a ring in his life – but he’s issuing his advice. So let’s be wary of political analysts. The world of politics is often very different from what analysts imagine. For example, there’s no need for mediation between the United States and the European Union. These Americans are hulking, powerful, confident cowboys from the Wild West movies. They don’t ask anyone to mediate on any issue: they go and tell them what they want. If you go to them and you want something, they’ll tell you what to do. So there’s no need for any mediation. In the technological conditions of the modern world, when you can contact anyone on the other side of the ocean in five seconds, all the conditions for contact exist. So there will be no such intermediary role. It will be different. There will be big debates. So there’s no need to mediate, but we need to engage in these debates intelligently; and there will be a big debate between the new US administration and the European Union. Yesterday, or the day before yesterday, I saw that the President [Trump] had posted a message to Europe. He said, “If you’re not willing to improve the trade imbalance between the EU and America, which today is in your favour, benefiting you Europeans, if you don’t do this yourselves, then tariffs will come, ‘all the way’.” Put another way, this means something like “the floodgates will be thrown open”. So there will be serious disputes about this. We Hungarians have to take part in these disputes, so that in the big showdown first and foremost we Hungarians do well, and don’t get hit by the shockwaves either. And so we have to take up our positions skilfully. And if in this debate we can contribute to a good agreement with an argument, a notion or a view, then we must take on that challenge. And so we must take part in the debate. But the most important thing is that, at the end of the day, the discussions should end with an agreement that’s acceptable to America and acceptable to Europe.
If America is a hulking cowboy, then what is the European Union like?
We’re riding a mule. After all, the European Union rests on two great pillars: Germany and France. The European institutions like to think of themselves as Europe, but Brussels has no real weight in major international affairs. Paris does, Berlin does, and of course Rome does; they all have their own weight, but in this context Brussels as such doesn’t exist. Of course Brussels exists when it comes to regulating the internal market and creating migration rules, but in these great international tests of strength it’s not about Brussels, but Berlin and Paris. It’s the failed government in Berlin that’s fallen and the government in France that’s fallen apart. This clearly shows our strength.
Considering that Hungary has had a successful rotating Presidency, that Bulgaria and Romania have joined the Schengen Area, and that the competitiveness declaration has been adopted here in Budapest, could this mean that in the coming period relations between the European Commission and Hungary will be a little more conciliatory? Or am I being too naive? Has a relationship of trust been established between the two sides which can give us grounds for more optimism? Or is this complete naivety?
Yes. So I wouldn’t say naivety, because I’m not sitting here to provoke you, but rather to say that it’s different in this world. So political actors aren’t generally on good or bad terms with one another. Analysts tend to think that way, because that’s how it is in human life: I’m either on good terms with someone or not, or moderately good – or I can describe the relationship between us in a single word. But in politics it’s never like that. In Brussels there are matters on which we’re in complete agreement with the Brusseleers, and I support them in everything related to them, because it’s in the interests of Europe – including Hungary – to achieve certain things in the world, so that we can create good regulations for all of us. And there are matters on which we have irreconcilable differences of opinion; for example, to refer to events here, we won’t allow Hungary to be turned into Magdeburg – with the imposition on us of their idiotic rules requiring us to let in migrants, who will then turn our lives upside down. On this there are irreconcilable differences. Or on gender. It’s no accident that we’ve been taken to court. We’re being sued by them and a few other countries. They say that the Hungarian legislation is about parents wanting to tell their children the rules for their development, the rules of the road, the rules of contact, instead of letting gender activists into schools. They think that this is unacceptable, and we think that it’s none of their business. On this issue we’ll never reach reconciliation. Or, for example, the fact that the Commission has filed a lawsuit against us – suing Hungary together with the Hungarian opposition parties, incidentally – in order to take back the money that’s already been given to Hungary, that we’ve already received. We shall never agree with Brussels on this. So things aren’t black and white: on some issues there’s very good cooperation between Brussels and Hungary, while on others there’s irreconcilable opposition. In essence, the whole complex situation is that we’re the antagonist of Brussels. And our stance is that if we can’t change Brussels by taking over the majority there and transforming it into an image, a pattern, a form that we think is good for the nation states, then we’ll all suffer. This is what we must do. We must take Brussels: we must get a majority and we must transform it. This is the Patriots’ goal.
Yes, because the formation of the Patriots for Europe happened this year. But one could also say that while it sounds good for you to occupy Brussels, the European People’s Party, for example, has a decades-long advantage over the Patriots in infrastructure – but also in finances, I suppose. This could be a huge disadvantage, even though on the political battlefield the Patriots are getting better and winning elections. How can this disadvantage be overcome? Is it even possible to catch up on this background work, in relation to which the European People’s Party – or perhaps the Socialists, the really old parties – are obviously, I think, in a better position than the Patriots.
Fidesz was founded in 1988, and the communists had a 45-year lead. And today I’m sitting here and the communists are somewhere in the dustbin of history, and all that is over. So I just want to say that there’s a situational advantage, but if you’re brave, if you’re strong, if you’re right, if you believe in the rightness of your own cause, if you can get people on your side, then in the end you’ll win. This is what will happen in Brussels now, and it will happen just like it did with the communists, when their survival instincts were dulled, their reflexes slowed down, they didn’t realise that they’d entered a different phase in the world’s affairs, they couldn’t adapt, and they became extinct – like the dinosaurs. This will also happen to the People’s Party. They’re still living in the past. The European People’s Party, led by Mr. Weber, has just concluded an agreement, you see, to create a majority of the three largest – or a three-party majority in the European Parliament. They’ve adopted a document, and it’s as if it’s speaking to us from the past. Meanwhile a new reality has been created. All that has come to an end. So I believe that in politics it’s a question of who is viable, who understands the future, who will adapt. The rest will regress to become like reptiles on the Galápagos Islands.
Will it still be possible to grab parties and MEPs away from the People’s Party?
There’s no need to grab them, but to fly the flag, speak clearly and then they’ll gather under the flag.
But is there a demand for this within the European People’s Party, for this alternative that the Patriots are offering?
The demand will grow every day. We’re successful and they’re stuck in the past.
The European Council – which, of course, comprises the heads of state and prime ministers of Europe – met in Brussels and said at the press conference that there was a very interesting debate and discussion, intellectually speaking. How do the elected leaders of Europe now – and I think there’s an important difference between them and the European Commission – see the future of Europe? What are the breakpoints now between the heads of state and government of the European Union?
The issue of war and peace is the deepest fault line, because they see it as their war. They tell me regularly...
Everyone except Hungary, right?
Yes, essentially – and now the Slovaks. And there are those who say nothing; this is also a survival tactic. We’re too close to the war to say nothing. But whether or not it feels like your own war really makes a difference. If you feel that it’s yours, and radicals – radical pro-war people – talk like that, then you’ll mobilise all your energy. Then the problem isn’t that we’ve spent 310 billion, which I think is a huge mistake, but that we’ve spent only that much. They say that this is the mistake! Because if we’d spent 400, or 500 billion, some of them say, if we’d given more money, more weapons, if we’d sent troops, we’d have won the war. To which my answer is not that we wouldn’t have won, but that it’s not our war. And this immediately shows the fault line that divides us. This is what most clearly divides the European Union today.
How can the whole issue of the Hungarian budget fundamentally relate to European policy? I don’t think one can separate the Hungarian budget from the processes happening in Europe. What we see is that the Hungarian parliament has adopted a very ambitious budget, including workers’ credit, the Sándor Demján Programme and housing support. But now, at this moment, how’s the Hungarian economy doing? How do you see it? What direction are we coming from?
The Hungarian economy has pulled through the difficult three years of the war and hasn’t lost the chance of a successful new start. So in the past three years we haven’t gambled away our future, and we’ve been able to keep alive the prospect of a successful future. This is the most important thing. But the fact that this has remained true over the last three years – that everyone who wants to work has been able to work, that wages have increased in all but one of these three years, and that we’ve been able to maintain the cuts in household energy bills – is something that isn’t at the forefront of people’s minds. But everyone who goes home and switches on the light is already receiving a government subsidy, because in Europe they’re paying the least for electricity – I mean as Hungarians they’re paying the least. If someone switches on the gas, at that moment they become part of a government price protection programme, because as a Hungarian they’re paying the least for gas – the lowest gas price in Europe. And I could go on. So the fact that we’ve been able to keep all of this, that we haven’t had to back away from the thirteenth month’s pension – it’s true that the budget deficit has increased more than we’d have liked, but we’ve been able to protect the thirteenth month’s pension, for example. We haven’t had to yield anything in family protection either. The question was, if we held out and the year of peace came, what condition would we be in? Would we be in a condition needing healing, strengthening, when someone looks at us and tells us to quickly force some vitamins or broth down ourselves, because we look like we’re on our last legs? Or would we be able to stand on the starting line and say that peace is beginning, and we’re ready to make a flying start? And today the Hungarian economy is in the latter state, and it can make fly ahead.
What will it be like? Where will the Hungarian economy be by the end of 2025?
The most important thing is that since 2010 we’ve managed to convince one another – I mean the Hungarians have convinced one another – that we’re capable of doing things that we’d never have imagined; for example, that everyone will have a job, that there will be one million more jobs. Earlier 53 people in every 100 were in work, and now the figure is 81. Or that we’d complete so many developments, build so many bridges on the Danube, take motorways to the borders of the country, ensure that the people, the residents, of every city with county rights – with the exception of perhaps one city – would now be connected to the system of expressways. Or that we’d be introducing tax credits for families with children, which we didn’t have before 2010. So we’ve been able to do things together – like cutting household energy bills – that earlier we didn’t think we could do. I think it will be the same after the war. Again, we have to convince one another, Hungarians have to convince one another that we can do things that we haven’t done before. As you’ve said: the Demján Sándor Programme, workers’ credit in addition to student credit, mass construction of student accommodation, doubling the tax credit for families with children. I believe that 2025 will be a year in which Hungarians not only regain their hope and their zest for life, but also become convinced that they’re capable of great things, and that this will have a beneficial effect in 2026, 2027 and 2028.
Can economic neutrality make up for the numbers in the German economy, for example – which, to put it politely, really isn’t in good shape?
This is the one-million-dollar question. Saying it could make up for them is perhaps an excessively strong, courageous statement, but it can reduce the scale of the problem. For a long time the Hungarian economy has been and is too one-sidedly linked – it’s understandable why, but too one-sidedly – to the Western economy and the European Union’s common market. So the majority of our exports – the majority of our products, around 80 per cent – go to the Western European market. We’ve had a difficult four years with the Americans, when everything went backwards: US investment in Hungary fell from second place to fourth place. Now that we see that there’s trouble in Europe, the only answer is to develop our relations even faster in all other directions. I have high hopes for our relationship with the US president. I want to conclude a major economic cooperation package with him. It’s going well, and it will happen. It’s very important that we don’t give up our existing relations with Russia, especially in the energy sector; and where sanctions permit it, I’d advise Hungarian businesses to go ahead and get involved in the Russian economy. And it’s very important that we translate into economic relations the favourable relationship we’ve built up over many years with the Chinese. This is also going well. So I think that the more trouble we have in Europe, the more we need to push forward in all the other economic relationships – in all the other markets. We’ve created the political preconditions for this. We sit in the Organization of Turkic States, and the Turks have one of the best developing economies. A lot of big Hungarian companies have made strategic investments in the Balkans. All this will provide energy, power and money to develop the Hungarian economy. So in economic neutrality the most important thing is not to worry about the fact that as the Western markets weaken we also weaken, but to have a response to this situation and in other directions make up for what we lose in the European direction. It won’t be easy, and it won’t happen from one year to the next.
In 2024 Hungarian political life itself wasn’t exactly boring. For example, although many may think it was a long time ago, this year saw the presidential pardon affair. And I think this has affected your party family emotionally, because you’ve lost people – for example Judit Varga and the President of the Republic Katalin Novák – whom you’d tried to build up over the years, or decades. Do you think the two governing parties have weathered this storm?
They didn’t need to be built up, because they’re not women who can be built up at all. Perhaps that’s why they’ve been successful. So, how can I put it? In politics, things are built on performance. So you can’t build someone up if there’s no substance, no strength, no time, no work and no will. So the players aren’t built up, but there’s a lot of work involved. And so our loss isn’t the loss of a communication effort, but the loss of years of hard work. The loss is more intense than you’ve said. And not just for us – I mean not just for the Right. We’re talking about world stars. Now this might not have been common knowledge in Hungary, but we’re talking about two world stars: stars in the world of politics. From Beijing to Tanzania, to New York, and also Moscow, when they went and spoke on the issues that were their subjects – the rule of law, European relations, child protection, family policy – they were received everywhere like stars. I mean stars in the sense of people who have real achievements behind them and who come from a country where they not only talk about these things, but where they’ve done them. But it’s not easy to represent this well: it takes a range of skills. So to achieve something good in Hungary and to present it and “sell” it abroad demands very high performance. And they were capable of that. I found it hard to take in how much we were wounded by losing them, but there’s nothing one can do about that: the world of politics is a merciless one. One does something nonsensical that you can’t even explain, and one’s own community doesn’t understand at all how a government pledged to protecting families, protecting children in every way, not only economically, but also their physical safety, their healthy development, protecting them from their enemies, the paedophiles, how can it be that a man somehow involved in a paedophile case gets a pardon? No one understands this, nor could they. This is politics, and if what you’re doing isn’t understandable… Because if you do something wrong there’s a consequence; but if at least it’s understandable why you made the mistake, then people say, “Sort it out and then move on.” But if they don’t even understand, then it strikes at their hearts. And this is why at the beginning of this year, in February, the Right really suffered a huge strike to the heart.
But has it healed?
Pfff... Well, I don’t know.
Or at what stage is the rehabilitation?
Will we ever heal from this? These wounds are lasting. I think maybe the phrase is “healed, but with a lasting scar”. Every single wound that heals remains with you as a scar. To counter this pessimistic interpretation, someone coined the wisdom that whatever you survive makes you stronger. So, judged by how we survived it, now at the end of 2024 I can say that we’re stronger than we were at the beginning of 2024.
Here at the end of 2024 there’s a lot of talk about the state of public discourse, the state of political discourse in Hungary. If I may ask, as a Christian, is it an illusion to expect Christian politicians – in the course of their political work – to make their words, their actions, their thoughts, conform to their belief system? So can these two be separated – should they be separated – or not?
To expect such a thing isn’t an illusion. It’s right to expect it – what else can we expect from them? Whether they can fulfil this expectation, and to what extent – to what extent they fulfil it – is something that we should have no illusions about. This follows from teaching: according to teaching, we are imperfect. So it’s unrealistic for us to expect from our leaders what we don’t expect from ourselves: to expect perfection. To be more precise, you can and should expect it, but perhaps it’s not right to be disappointed because you’re not perfect. Instead we should strive for fairness. So big mistakes should be severely punished, and small mistakes should be punished to a lesser extent; but in a Christian political culture, I believe that reward and punishment should be delivered on the basis of expectations, and that’s how we tend to receive it.
Can we have any fear or hope that the state of public discourse in Hungary will either deteriorate or improve in the coming year – or is it now a constant? How do you see this?
I don’t want to raise false hopes. And we’re not talking about Hungary, but about the whole Western world. So something’s happening here that’s changing the way people interact with each other, the way they talk to each other – changing it in a technical sense, and changing it in a substantive sense. This is more than politics. The importance of personal encounters in our lives is changing. We contact each other through these electronic gadgets in a matter of moments. Getting hold of real substance is rare, because everything’s becoming increasingly virtual. You can “talk” with messages, of course, but sitting down and looking into someone’s eyes, touching someone, telling them you’re there, is different from the way the world today is increasingly teaching people how to talk to one another. So we’re not talking about politics and we’re not talking about Hungary; but there’s a technological shift in the life of humanity that’s transforming interpersonal relationships. Now, the impact of this on politics is particularly destructive. Moreover, it seems to be a world that’s impossible – or difficult – to limit: it’s about whatever you can get away with, terrible things happen, and they’re said in a style that you don’t have to take personal responsibility for, because you’re not there. You won’t say harsh things to me, perhaps not only because, as you’ve said, you’re a Christian and it wouldn’t be good for you, but also because to say something to my face requires that you think carefully about your words. If I want to say something harsh or negative to you in person, the way in which I’ll need to say it will be different from the style I can use if I type it into a machine without being there and without having to live with the consequences. These are new things – seemingly small, trivial things, but they’re transforming politics. And this is why, if you look at, say, an American presidential debate, you won’t see a higher standard than in Hungarian public debates. So we’re talking about not only Hungary, but the whole problem of Western democracy based on free speech, on free public discourse, which we’re all struggling with. Of course we live in Hungary, and so we’re interested in what’s happening in Hungary, not in what’s happening in the world; but it’s good to know that we’re not talking about a flaw that’s a specifically Hungarian flaw, but a civilisational problem. And we have to solve it. I hope that we succeed.
Yes, and what’s more, the question of what we consider to be the benchmark is an interesting one. But now, in the coming days, a significant number of Hungarian families will hopefully not only see each other virtually, but will also be at the Christmas table, where hopefully there will be a ceasefire, rather than fierce political debate. What do you wish for Hungary in the run-up to Christmas and in 2025?
I wish for everyone exactly what I wish for my own family at Christmas. May there be peace, calm, good health and balance. May Hungarians be surrounded by people who love them, that you too should be able to return the love you receive, that you should not despair, that you should sit down together, talk things over, figure things out, realise that there’s no problem that can’t be solved if you have an open heart, really look for a solution and not constantly pursue your own truth. So more understanding, more fairness, openness and honesty with one another. This is what it all depends on. Economic success also stands or falls on this: because you may be able to have a higher standard of living; but the real question is whether you can live a better life. We’ll have a higher standard of living; the budget will take care of that, the labour market will take care of that, the wage agreement between workers and employers will take care of that. We’ll have a higher standard of living in 2025 than we had in 2024; but the big question is whether we can live better lives.
Prime Minister, thank you very much for this discussion.