Zsolt Törőcsik: Pope Francis died at Easter, the feast of the Resurrection, in the 89th year of his life. The leader of the Catholic Church visited Hungary twice, and also once met with the Hungarian community at the “Saddle” in Csíksomlyó/Șumuleu [at a Pentecost pilgrimage mass]. Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, whom I greet in the studio, was also received in personal audiences with him on several occasions. Good morning.
Good morning.
The death of Pope Francis is still very recent, but what do you see as the most important legacy he left to the world and to Christianity?
In times of war, the greatest legacy that can be inherited by the warring parties – and the whole of European, Western and even human civilisation – is peace itself. I believe that the Holy Father’s legacy is that of peace: he was a man of peace. In our minds this means that he was a gentle man. That is indeed true, but there was also another side to his personality. Outwardly this perhaps showed itself less often. What I’m talking about is that he was a man of unshakeable courage – because to stand up for peace over the past three years has meant daily attacks, stigmatisation and vilification. And over the past three years the Holy Father, too, was constantly under fire from the large international network – including its Hungarian divisions – that is the pro-war propaganda network, which was trying to persuade him to abandon his pro-peace stance. And that he did not do. That in itself is personal courage. but it was particularly important for us Hungarians, because in the entire Western world over the last three years – up until the victory of President Donald Trump – only two of us consistently stood up for peace: Hungary and the Vatican. And when you’re alone, and we’ve always been alone in the European Council, fighting for peace 1 against 26, then all sources of friendship and support become more important. So the friendship and support of the Pope – who constantly called on Hungary to take a courageous stand for peace – also increased in importance; and, since here we’re talking about Saint Peter’s lieutenant on earth, his support granted metaphysical weight to justice and peace – in other words to the causes that we Hungarians also represent.
Speaking of the relationship between Hungary and the Pope, it’s extremely rare for a head of the Catholic Church to visit a country twice. But this happened in Hungary, which he visited twice. What could be the reason for this? What could be the reason that in his eyes Hungary was such a special place?
Speaking with due caution, I’d say that he visited the Hungarians three times: twice in “Little Hungary” and once in Csíksomlyó/Șumuleu. So I think that the Holy Father meeting a national community three times in the space of a few years is truly unprecedented. Now, beyond the cause of peace, which obviously played a part in this, the truth is that this may have been personally motivated. He made no secret of that. He was an Argentinian, he came to Rome from his homeland and worked with Hungarian nuns and Hungarian believers. So he knew the Hungarians and was one of those who had decided that Hungarians are good people, decent people. He obviously experienced this, and it’s why he liked us. For example, he liked to say Hungarian phrases: he knew some Hungarian phrases, simple ones like “Thank you” and greetings – and he liked to use them. And when I met him I also felt that although of course there’s a Christian community that binds us together, a community of faith, that beyond that there was another kind of affinity, a nationally-based affinity: one of an Argentinian who liked the Hungarians.
Many experts say that it’s pointless to speculate about his successor – and perhaps inappropriate in this period of mourning. But an important question relates to what challenges await his successor – both in terms of the state of Christianity and of world politics. Because, as you’ve said, Pope Francis was also very active in the latter area.
I think that from Hungary’s point of view it’s very important how the Holy See continues its international relations and policy, who the next Holy Father will be, and how he’ll relate to Hungary. This is important because the Catholic Church in Hungary – the Hungarian Catholic Church – plays an extremely important role in the life of Hungarian society. There are very few churches like the Hungarian Catholic Church – which plays such a huge and irreplaceable role in the organisation of the life of the Hungarian community, of the Hungarians. There are many schools, kindergartens and vocational training institutions, there’s a huge university, care for the elderly, care for the destitute, and a strong involvement in Roma integration through the Hungarian Charity Service of the Order of Malta. So without the Hungarian Catholic Church it would be very difficult to imagine the life of Hungarian society today. Not only would it be impossible to imagine it at all in terms of faith, but the country couldn’t manage without the Hungarian Catholic Church in terms of building and maintaining the community networks within society, in terms of solidarity and caring for those who have fallen on hard times, and in terms of spiritual support and consolation. This is the situation. And this is a world church with its headquarters in Rome. So I think that there’s a correlation between the Hungarian Catholic Church’s relationship with Rome, the support it receives from Rome, and the valuable work it can do for the Hungarian community. So I, too, am watching with heightened anticipation to see what will happen. Yet perhaps now isn’t the time for such a feeling, because we’re living through days of mourning, and the prevailing mood is still one of grief, of loss; but life will undoubtedly continue, the leadership of the Holy See will have to be provided by those who are called upon to do so, and their decision will have an impact on Hungary.
You’ve mentioned Pope Francis’s efforts for peace. And if we look at the war between Russia and Ukraine, the news is changing day by day: one day we hear about progress in the negotiations, while the next day we hear about heavy rocket attacks. Meanwhile a recent analysis written by the European Policy Centre, an organisation with close links to the European Commission, states that troops should be sent to Ukraine before the summer. The Kremlin, however, says that this would be critically dangerous. How far can the European Union, or Europe, go in supporting Ukraine, and what risks are they taking?
It would be good to put an end to this, to the war psychosis in Europe. I’d been hoping for a faster process. So I thought that we’d come sooner to the moment when Europeans realised that there’s no point in supporting Ukraine without the United States. Without the United States, Ukraine has no chance of even holding its remaining positions, let alone regaining anything. I thought it was becoming clear that without the United States there are no military prospects that European politicians can pursue. Quite simply, I thought that the US president would come and everyone would realise that we have only one option and one task: to support the US president’s peace efforts. This isn’t what’s happening. We, together with the Slovaks, are on the side of peace and of the American peace effort, on the side of the Americans; and the other 25 of the European Union’s 27 countries are deciding to continue the war – and even to increase the amount of military aid. Recently the European Parliament – including the Hungarian opposition parties in the European Parliament – decided that major new military aid worth billions of forints should be sent to Ukraine. They’re asking every state to contribute, with Hungary contributing 45 billion forints to this. This is what the Hungarian opposition in Brussels is saying. So there is clearly severe war psychosis discouraging support for the Americans, but encouraging pursuit of an independent European war strategy. I think that this is hopeless. In my opinion this is firstly a leadership error, and secondly it’s not a viable idea. And it’s only a matter of time before they’ll have to turn into the street along which the Americans, the Slovaks, the Hungarians and the Holy See are travelling, and which seeks to lead to peace.
At the same time there’s the question of Ukraine’s accession to the EU. This week the Commissioner for Enlargement said that another wave of enlargement by 2030 is very realistic, with Ukraine and Moldova leading the way. But many people here at home say that Ukraine will only realistically be able to two decades from now. What’s your view on the EU’s determination to see Ukraine as a member by 2030?
The question of when Ukraine will become a member of the EU is also up to us Hungarians, and we’re not very willing to agree to it. The EU faces a decision. In front of the entire European public, in an open plenary session of the European Parliament, the President of the Commission announced that Ukraine must be admitted to the EU by 2030. The order has been issued, and whether you follow international politics or simply Hungarian politics, you’ll see that the order has gone out across Europe: from the Netherlands to Hungary, all parties in Europe that support the Commission are today speaking with the same voice, saying that Ukraine must be admitted to the European Union, and that the 2030 date set by the President must be met. The Hungarian government is opposed to this. The Hungarian opposition, because the Hungarian opposition organised a vote on this, and actually, quite fairly, I have to say. The only party of the European power elite, the party of Brussels power, which asked its own supporters what they think about Ukraine’s accession was the Hungarian party [the Tisza Party]. Fifty per cent of them or so said “yes”. So this is a live debate not only in Europe, but there are also two distinct positions here in Hungary. One side says that, as the President of the Commission has ordered, Ukraine should be admitted by 2030; and there is another position, represented by the national side, the national government, this country’s nationalist community, which says that Hungary is more important than Ukraine. The rapid admission of Ukraine would destroy Hungary, it would mean economic bankruptcy for us, and it would also entail other dangers: for example, together with Ukraine we’d be bringing war here into the European Union – which was created as a peace alliance. So let’s not do that! Let us say “no” to Ukraine’s accession to the European Union. This is a live, real debate throughout Europe, it’s a debate between clearly separate, opposing parties, and I think it’s a reasoned debate here in Hungary too.
In response to this, in response to their own opinion survey, the leader of the opposition party, Tisza, says that when all the conditions and the planned date of Ukrainian accession are known, he’d call a legally binding referendum on the issue. What justification is there for the Government asking people about this now, and asking them in the form of a consultative referendum?
The deadline is 2030, so it is not just a matter of “later”, it’s 2030: the President of the Commission has announced it, and it can’t be stopped at the end. So if anyone thinks that Hungary alone will be able to stop it at the very end, when 26 countries have already committed themselves and the negotiations have been held and everything’s ready, and only one signature’s missing, then I have my doubts about that. I’m not saying that it would be impossible, but it would be very difficult. Therefore it’s better to clear the air at the outset and not allow things to reach a stage at which the whole of Europe is on our back demanding that Hungary agrees. Either we stop this process now or later we won’t be able to.
Compared to the other countries that want to join, Ukraine is obviously in a special position because of the war; but since Hungary’s accession to the European Union, three other countries – Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia – have joined, and Hungary has supported all of them. Leaving aside the war, what are the other reasons for the Government not supporting this accession, Ukraine’s accession?
Perhaps we should choose a suitably high point from which to judge the whole issue. Why do we usually admit new Member States to the European Union? We tend to admit them because it’s good for us who are already inside. We weren’t admitted because we have a pretty pair of eyes: the West chose to admit Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia because it was good for them. They didn’t do it because they wanted to do us good. They may have said such things, but we’ve outgrown listening to children’s stories, we’ve moved beyond that. They took us in because it was in their interest to do so, because they did well when dealing with us. If we were to take Ukraine on board, and it served us well to do so, then I’d be happy to consent. But I’m certain that if we take Ukraine on board, we’ll be doing ourselves a disservice. And why should we do badly when we could do well – or at least defend what we’ve achieved so far? For example – and perhaps this is the most important argument – I find it hard to see how we’ll be able to protect Hungarian jobs if Ukraine’s a member of the European Union, within which labour flows freely. Because wages here will be slashed, and so many guest workers will arrive here – and not even guest workers, but workers enjoying freedom of movement within the EU – that people will have to take a stand to protect their own jobs, to state the obvious. The greatest achievement of the last fifteen years is that Hungary has full employment. This can disappear in a moment, in a year or two. Then there are the consequences for agriculture. It’s a country of such a size and with such an agricultural area that it would completely transform the financial basis of the European agricultural economy. There would certainly be no money left for Hungarian farmers, and there would be huge quantities of poor-quality produce from Ukraine which would depress prices. I’d remind everyone that when all we did was let Ukrainian products transit our country, what happened was that one consignment or another fell off the lorry, somehow stayed here, and Hungarian cereal farmers were put in a very difficult situation. So the situation would be that Hungarian agriculture would shrink to a small fraction of what it is now, and many hundreds of thousands of families – those who live from agriculture, from livestock farming, and even some who live from the food industry – would find themselves in a very difficult situation. And then there are the immediate financial questions. Ukraine is such a large country that all the funds from the European Union budget that can be used to support less developed countries – and from which Hungary also receives funds – would all go to Ukraine. In fact we’d even become contributors, because then the average level of development in the EU would fall, and we’d no longer be eligible for support. Instead we’d become contributors, and not only would EU money go to Ukraine, but Hungarian payments going to Brussels would wind up in Ukraine, and we too would be financing Ukraine’s membership of the European Union. I don’t think this is in our interests, and Hungary has the right to stand up for its own interests.
On the latter point, recently you’ve said that if Ukraine becomes a member of the EU there will be no EU money to bring to Hungary. And, by the way, the debate over EU money has intensified in recent weeks, after Kinga Kollár – MEP for the Tisza Party – said that the deteriorating quality of life for Hungarians is strengthening the Opposition. You’ve said that Tisza MEPs are earning millions of euros working to make Hungary a failure. Kinga Kollár, however, has said that ten months ago they started working to ensure that EU funds could arrive in Hungary, directly to the people, and that any claim to the contrary is a lie. Whose fault is it that these funds aren’t reaching Hungary?
Let’s start with the fact that we’ve really learned another name. We hardly knew the names of any members of the Tisza Party. Now we’ve been introduced to a lady called Kinga Kollár, who, let’s say with Gyurcsányesque shamelessness, has told the Hungarian people to their faces that every day she’s working – and not only she but also her party colleagues in Brussels – to ensure that Hungary doesn’t receive the funds it’s due. And in her own words, for all to see and hear, she’s hailed as a huge success the fact that she’s prevented the renovation of fifty hospitals, that she’s prevented the improvement of public services, and that she isn’t ashamed of this, but proud of it. Well, what does this mean? It means that, let’s say, you get up in the morning, and there are many millions of us in Hungary – 4.7 million people for sure – who get up in the morning and we go to work so that we ourselves and our country can be successful. This is so that we can achieve certain goals – for example, to have good hospitals and, for example, to improve the quality of public services. And we set ourselves a number of other important goals that we want to achieve through our own work. We work for this, we work for Hungary: we work for ourselves, we work for our families, and we work for Hungary. That’s 4.7 million people. But there are a few dozen people there in Brussels who get up in the morning just like we do, go to work in Brussels and work to make sure that we don’t get all this. This isn’t aimed at the Government, it’s not about the Government, it’s aimed at the Hungarian people. It’s so that fifty hospitals aren’t renovated, and so that the quality of public services can’t rise. This is what it’s about. I think this is unacceptable! In fact to describe this I’d have to use strong words that wouldn’t be suited to the microphone – and even then I might be underplaying its moral content. So it’s outrageous! And for this – oh yes, excuse me – they get paid! So they’re not just damaging Hungary in their free time, but they’re receiving serious salaries from Brussels: 7, 8 or 9 million forints a month. And for this money they do the job of trying to make Hungary a failure, to bring down the Hungarians’ standard of living. Now as far as the money’s concerned, Hungary is owed money. These funds must be obtained. We’ve already managed to get some of these funds. These are major political struggles. We’ve managed to obtain 13 billion euros, and this is why, for example, we’ve been able to use the Hungarian budget and EU funds to raise the salaries of teachers in a tangible way, with their average salaries now gradually approaching the 700,000- to 800,000-thousand-forint mark. And we can increase this. So we’ve already raised 13 billion euros, and this is coming into the Hungarian economy. At least one trillion forints will come from there this year, as it did last year, and as it will again in 2026. But there’s still over ten billion euros that’s been put on hold and that needs to be obtained. I’m fighting to get it while ensuring that Brussels can’t impose any conditions in return – because this is money that the Hungarians are owed. Of course, Brussels says that if you let in migrants, give up child protection and switch from being pro-peace to pro-war and fall into line, then you’ll easily get this money. But I say, “Not at that price – let’s fight for it.” We’ll get this money anyway, we’ll bring this money home. Hungary has decision-making powers that are needed in the European Union, and they can’t manage without us. So we’ll come to an agreement on this, just as we did on the first 13 billion euros, but it will take time and it will take fighting for – but certainly not capitulation and not subservience. If someone brings this money home by meeting Brussels’ demands, what they’re in fact doing is turning Hungary into a colony of Brussels. And we shall not be a colony. So we shall bring this money home while preserving Hungary’s independence.
But what might be the reasons behind the behaviour that we see from the Tisza Party?
It may not be my job to decode it, but it’s not rocket science. There’s an agreement, and they’re not hiding it. Manfred Weber is the leader of the European People’s Party, the leader of the most powerful party in Europe. I can say, with only a little exaggeration, that he commands the trade wind of politics in the European Parliament. And they’ve come to an agreement: they’ve taken over the Tisza Party, and the Tisza Party is receiving support from the European People’s Party, for example in suspending the funds due to Hungary and lowering Hungarians’ standard of living, thus helping Tisza to power. And in return Tisza will carry out what Brussels is asking. Hungary will no longer be migrant-free, because migrants will be allowed in. There will be no more child protection in Hungary, because LGBTQ will be unleashed. And Hungary will no longer be pro-peace, because we’ll fall in line to support military action in Ukraine. This is Brussels’ expectation, and the Tisza Party has included this in its programme: it’s already part of its programme, and they support Ukraine’s rapid accession to the European Union. That will be all, that will finish us. For a long time Hungary will cease to exist as an independent state. And anyone who knows Hungarian history knows perfectly well that Hungarian politics is simple: if you’re independent, you can be successful. You may not necessarily be successful, and you’ll have to work well – but you can be successful. But if you’re not independent, you certainly won’t be successful. If you’re independent, you’ll have a chance to live in prosperity. If you lose your independence, you’ll be a poor and plundered country, you’ll be pushed back into the ranks of colonies by those who call themselves your friends. This is the lesson of Hungarian history. I think Hungarians understand this.
Let’s talk briefly about one more piece of economic news. We’ve just had the Easter long weekend, when 29 per cent more guests stayed in Hungarian holiday accommodation than did so in the same period last year. What do these figures show about the situation and prospects for domestic tourism?
There are two ways of looking at these economic figures. One is to focus on how many people – Hungarians, to be precise – had the money to spend Easter with their families at some kind of hospitality venue, using their services. This is also inspiring. I look at it from the other side: how many Hungarian families make a living from running accommodation, from running restaurants, which are linked to and form part of tourism. And there are 400,000 Hungarians who make a living from this. So when we talk about tourism doing well, we’re talking about a powerful sector of the Hungarian economy, in which 400,000 people earn their living, and who are doing well. These are people who make their living from it, who have put their lives into it, who have built up businesses, or who are working as employees. These people are earning a secure livelihood through tourism. I always say that the most important thing is that everyone has a job. If there is work, there is everything. In Hungary there are 4.7 million people in work, and 400,000 of them make their living from tourism. If tourism is doing well, they’re doing well.
Among the subjects I’ve been asking Prime Minister Viktor Orbán questions about were the legacy of Pope Francis, Ukraine’s membership of the EU, and the consultative referendum on that issue.