Zsolt Törőcsik: I welcome you from the Public Media Centre in Brussels, and I welcome Prime Minister Viktor Orbán to the studio. Good morning.
Good morning.
Yesterday evening, during a break in the EU summit, you told Patrióta channel that [the consultative referendum] Voks2025 had succeeded in stopping Ukraine’s accession to the EU. At the same time, last night the President of the Council, António Costa, said that the EU was clearing the way for Ukraine to join. Have we now succeeded in blocking the process, or has the path for accession been opened up?
With over 2 million votes from Voks2025, yesterday we stopped Ukraine from joining the EU. We did so against a huge headwind: there was no unanimous enthusiasm for the Hungarian announcement when we said that we wouldn’t agree to the opening of the first chapter of negotiations. What is this about? It’s about the fact that the negotiation process is a long one, it’s divided into chapters, the opening of the chapters must be decided unanimously by the Member States, including Hungary, and a chapter cannot be opened until there’s unanimity. So you can work in the background, but you can’t make any progress on the road that ends with membership – not a single step can be taken on that road. And yesterday Hungary announced that it won’t consent to the opening of the first negotiating chapter. EU leaders don’t agree: they want Ukraine to join the European Union as soon as possible, and they’re looking for a way to push the Hungarians aside. They haven’t been able to do this so far – even though I’ve been alone in standing in their way, like the solitary Chinese protester in front of the Chinese tanks in Tiananmen Square in that famous old image. But now there are 2.2 million of us standing in their path, saying that this can’t go any further. So we understand the Ukrainians, we see their extremely difficult situation, we see their heroic struggle, and we see that they need help; but we want to help them without destroying ourselves. Ukraine’s membership of the European Union would mean that we’d destroyed the European Union. We can talk about many kinds of cooperation, there are many possibilities, partnerships and strategic cooperation – but that’s not the same as membership. Membership means that Ukrainians would have the same rights as, say, Hungarians – if they wanted to work in Hungary, for example. Or if they wanted to receive agricultural subsidies, or share in the funds available for EU development, then they’d have a right to it: they wouldn’t get it based on our decision, if we so decide, but they’d have a right to it. And in that moment, everything would change. Moreover, our conclusive argument is that Ukraine is a country at war – whether or not that’s through some fault of their own. They were obviously attacked, they’re the victims of a military action in violation of international law, but the fact remains that there’s a war. And if we admit into the European Union a country that’s at war, we’re also admitting the war. In no time at all we’d be at war with the Russians. This is why we mustn’t allow Ukraine to become a member of the Union – because it would bring war into the European Union, including Hungary. And the Hungarians have made it clear that we don’t want that.
But the argument of the other side, the argument of the supporters of its membership, is that the war is now, but Ukraine would join either the European Union or NATO some years from now. What makes you think that there would still be this threat of war if, say, the war were over by the time membership happened?
First of all, they don’t want to admit Ukraine later, but now. Well, here everyone’s talking about before 2030 – as soon as possible! So before any of your listeners think that Ukrainian membership of the EU would be somewhere in the distant future, I want to disabuse them of that: it wouldn’t be! The leaders who attacked us yesterday for blocking Ukraine’s EU accession process are the same people who are talking about it happening now, as soon as possible. Ukraine is almost ready for everything. So we’re talking about a direct threat. What’s the essence of the problem? The essence of the problem is that when we admit a country to the European Union we need to know what it is. How big is it? Where are its borders? What’s its population? Then we can talk about whether, say, its legal system or its economic system is suitable. The first question is whether it has a defined, delimited identity, whether it has a defined identity, whether it’s a defined entity, in the sense of a country like Hungary. We know exactly what Hungary is. As things stand at the moment, Hungary is 93,000 square kilometres in area, with around ten million people living there. This means that this is the weighting that’s given to the country when calculating voting rights, this is what entitles us to things in financial matters, and this is the area that’s taken into account when calculating agricultural subsidies. The Ukrainians are an undefined entity; this is through no fault of their own, but today they’re an undefined entity. No one can say what Ukraine is. We know what it was. We don’t know what it is, what it will become, what will remain, and where its borders are. Its eastern borderlands are under military occupation. The population is fleeing. We don’t know how many there are, and how many there will be. So we want to take something, an entity, into the Union that quite simply isn’t delineated, isn’t defined. This danger always existed, by the way, when countries that were formerly part of the Soviet bloc were admitted. This is why the solution so far – and it was a good solution, even if it caused us some discomfort – was to first admit the countries of the former Soviet bloc to NATO. This guaranteed the military security of those countries. That was something that the Union no longer needed to deal with: one could be sure that Hungary was a member of NATO, Poland was a member of NATO, Lithuania was a member of NATO, Romania was a member of NATO, and we knew exactly where the borders of those countries were. And we knew that they’d remain there, because NATO – including the United States – guaranteed these borders with all its military might. And after that was done, the Union said, “Well, now we’ll come.” The Union isn’t a military alliance, but a political and economic cooperation. Once a territory has military security, then we can talk about how we’ll operate it. But that’s not possible here, because Ukraine can’t be admitted to NATO; because if Ukraine were to become a member of NATO, it would mean that the next day we’d be in World War III, because we’d be admitting a country that’s at war with Russia. So NATO would immediately be at war with Russia. That would mean a world war, and nobody wants that – at least I hope not. Therefore Ukraine cannot be admitted to NATO. If it cannot be admitted to NATO, its eastern borders cannot be fixed. And if the Union wants to get ahead of NATO and admit it sooner, then the war will be brought not into NATO, but into the European Union. This is madness! So we need to talk about this honestly and seriously. I know that this is terrible news for Ukraine, that they won’t be admitted, either to NATO or to the EU, but you can’t keep offering illusory promises to a country that’s fighting and shedding blood every day for its own future. You have to tell them that yes, this is possible, but that isn’t. We can help this much and that much, but no more, not beyond that point. We Hungarians speak honestly and seriously. Here the Brusseleers are deceiving the Ukrainians and promising them something that isn’t possible.
Well, yes, this is the question of how honestly we can talk about this. Because there’s the result of Voks2025, and at the same time there’s a recent survey in Poland, which shows that the majority no longer support Ukraine’s membership of the European Union and NATO. On this the public mood has changed, and it seems to be changing in ever more countries. Was this change in public opinion perceptible behind closed doors – whether at the NATO summit or at the EU summit? What did you sense from this?
The NATO summit was a simpler story, because the Statesiders turned up, the new ones, and they said, “Okay, guys”. They were more polite about it, but they said, “Okay, so far we’ve had this nice gathering, at which all sorts of nonsense could be said, but now let’s talk seriously. Are you really serious about bringing Ukraine into NATO? Forget it!” And there our position became the majority in NATO, because that’s what we’d been saying – but not in that tone of voice, because our size doesn’t justify that tone of voice. This has become the NATO position. The Union is more difficult. First of all, the Union is made up of Member States. So Brussels is supposed to be just a coordinating centre, but lately it’s acting more and more like Moscow. Suddenly I’m wondering whether a large proportion of radio listeners nowadays know what we’re talking about, because Moscow meant something thirty-five years ago, but for those who are younger than that it means nothing. But Moscow was a centre of power from which instructions were sent to Budapest. This is what Ursula von der Leyen and Mr. Weber are doing now. They’re doing this partly directly, and partly through their parties – because there are, of course, Brussels parties in Hungary that aren’t on Hungary’s side, but on Brussels’ side. So they’re sending messages to Hungary partly through these parties, through Tisza and DK. But sometimes also directly, as Ursula von der Leyen is doing now. That was what happened in Moscow. Ursula von der Leyen is showing signs of Brezhnevisation: she’s behaving ever more like a Soviet party general secretary who, in 1968 let’s say, told the Czechs that what would happen there wouldn’t be what they wanted, but what Moscow said would happen. Or the same to the Poles in 1980–81. So here in Brussels there are problems – but perhaps that’s a subject for another discussion. We shouldn’t be afraid of being alone now, because that’s exactly what happened with migration. Everyone here was pro-migration, everyone here said “Willkommenskultur”, the Germans here said that we need a culture of welcome, that we need to welcome migration, that it’s a good thing. We were the only ones opposed to it. A few years have passed and today everyone is saying exactly what we’ve been saying. And this will also be the case with Ukraine. We say upfront what the situation is, but not because we’re pushing our opinions. We didn’t speak so loudly on migration, but were the first to say “no” – not because we were so full of ourselves, but because there were migrants at Keleti Railway Station, and we were the most affected when they were coming in. It’s the same with the war. If I were the Prime Minister of Luxembourg or the Prime Minister of France over there, near or on the Atlantic coast, I’d also be saying, “Guys, things are interesting over there”, and I’d make some kind of proposal. But we don’t live there, we live here. If there’s a war, we’ll be the first to be hit. The consequences of Ukraine’s membership of the EU will first have serious consequences in Central Europe. Therefore this is where the mood will turn first. In Hungary common sense has always prevailed, but this mood will also change in the Central European countries, and it will become increasingly clear that if we take in Ukraine the Central European countries will be the first to lose out. Then as we move inwards across the continent the others will follow, the Germans will switch over, then the Austrians, then the Czechs, and in the end the French – who are generally more inclined than others to say no to enlargement. So it won’t come to anything. Once again, therefore, I say that the Ukrainians – who should be spoken to honestly and straightforwardly – are being deceived and tricked in a morally unacceptable way by the leaders in Brussels.
At the same time, at the beginning you mentioned that they’re trying to circumvent the Hungarian position. And indeed there’s a growing feeling that the possibility of a veto by Member States should be removed. Speaking of direct messages, Manfred Weber, President of the European People’s Party, has said that he’s fed up with Viktor Orbán “walking all over European citizens”.
He’s so fed up that they’ve quickly thrown together a party called the Tisza Party. They’ve put it together here in Brussels, they’ve announced it, I was at one of these debates, they announced that I should pack my bags, together the national government, because now a new government will be coming to power, Brussels wants a different government in Hungary: here’s the Tisza Party and its leader, and this will be the new government. They’re working on it here at full speed, and they’re not making a secret of it. So they see the solution not in persuading us, or in coming to an agreement with us, or in accepting the Hungarian position and adapting to it; they see the solution in, no matter what the Hungarians say, needing there to be a government that, when it comes to voting here in Brussels, always votes the way people in Brussels, Mr. Weber or Mrs. Ursula, want it to vote – as it had to do yesterday. That’s the name of the game. This is why I say that yesterday I was arguing with the masters of the Hungarian opposition. At home, of course, we need to exchange words sometimes, but that doesn’t make much difference: the real debate is here. I have to argue with the masters of the Tisza Party and DK here in Brussels, and represent Hungarian interests against them. The Tisza Party and DK are just proxies: Brussels’ proxies, who don’t represent Hungarians in Brussels, but Brussels in Hungary.
There’s one other issue where they are trying to avoid a Hungarian veto or a possible Hungarian veto, and that’s the plan to ban imports of Russian energy. Before the summit you said that this should definitely be taken off the agenda, and this is one of the Hungarian objectives. What progress has been made on this issue?
It wasn’t even on the agenda. The fight will continue next week, when we’ll proceed at the level of the foreign ministers. Yesterday I had talks with the Slovaks: we’re united with them, and we can’t accept the EU’s demand that we don’t buy Russian oil and natural gas. The Slovaks are also in a tight spot, if I can put it that way – and if this happens so are we. Energy bills for families would double for electricity and increase by three and a half times for natural gas. So all I can say here to everyone is this: people, put forward an argument to a Hungarian prime minister as to why I should agree to a decision that would result in Hungarian households paying gas bills that are three and a half times higher than they are now. Why are you asking me to do this? And how can you even think of this nonsense? Well, we’re here to make things better for people, not worse, and you want us to do something that’s bad for Hungarians. Understand that I’ll never consent to that.
Incidentally, from time to time the Commission says that it will somehow compensate those Member States that would be harmed by this, and they’re talking about introducing the ban from 2028. On what basis is the Government saying that the effects of this would be felt even now, and what specific promises are there to compensate for this loss?
The aim is to introduce the legislation in 2027–28. I don’t know what expectations you have for your own future, but I plan to still be alive then, so it’s not that far away. So now we’ll make a bad decision, and in 2027 our gas bill will be three times higher. I’m not happy that tomorrow it won’t yet be that high, but it’s already – how should I put it? – we should at least have this kind of long-term perspective in our thinking, for one thing. Secondly, if this goes through, if such a decision is taken, it will immediately start to drive up prices. Because then everyone will reckon that it’s no longer possible to conclude long-term contracts, that cheap Russian electricity or natural gas and oil will be ruled out, and consequently it will no longer be possible to conclude long-term contracts at favourable prices: long-term contracts will have to be concluded at higher prices, and that effect will appear immediately. But once again: common sense. Let’s go back. Here’s a decision, a proposal, that’s bad for us. Why should we support it? We don’t support it.
Speaking of sending specific messages, Ursula von der Leyen has done so twice in recent days. First of all, she didn’t send a message to you, but to the Hungarian authorities in connection with Pride. She asked them, she called on them – actually she didn’t ask them, but called on them – to allow the Pride march in Budapest tomorrow. On what grounds did Mrs. von der Leyen ask for this? She’s citing the right to peaceful assembly.
On the same basis as Moscow used to. She sees Hungary as a subordinate country, and thinks that from Brussels she can tell the Hungarians how to live, what to like, what not to like, what their legal system should be, what to ban, and what not to ban. I say that’s like Brezhnev. I remember the 1980s, and that’s exactly what it was like.
Speaking of Pride, a legal dispute has started to develop here, because the police – citing the law on assembly – say that it’s not allowed, and the Mayor of Budapest says that there’s nothing to ban, because he didn’t have to register this event. What should take priority, and will there be a Pride march tomorrow or not? What do you think?
The fact is that there is legislation. Legislation is created by the legislature. On a given issue – we call this a legal relationship – the legislature sets down what it proposes, what’s accepted and what’s penalised. Legislation is accompanied by justifications. If there’s a dispute about the meaning of legislation, then the explanatory statement should tell you why the legislation was made. I’m trained as a lawyer – even now, though I’m not currently practicing. But the Hungarian laws are clear: to hold an event, a notification is required, and the police must give their approval. If the police refuse to do so, then you can go to court, and then it will be the word of the court that decides. This is the procedure. There’s no point in saying that you don’t need police approval – you do! This is the situation. It’s in the legislation. And whoever violates this, whoever doesn’t follow this procedure, is organising or taking part in an event that’s prohibited by law. It also tells you what the legal consequences are if you do that. We’re grown-ups, so I advise everyone to decide what they want to do: follow the law, which is what I do, and which is what I’d advise them to do; and if you don’t follow the law, then you’ll have to face the clear legal consequences that are described. I think it was Attila József who said that only the law speaks clearly, and you have to know that this will be what happens. Now, of course, the police could even close down such events, because they have the right to do so – but Hungary is a civilised country, a civic world, and we’re not used to hurting one another. This is unlike under Gyurcsány and co., of course, when it was the other way round. The authorities don’t exist to beat up a citizen who expresses his or her opinion in violation of the law, who appears in an unorthodox way, such as wearing inadequate clothing, or who appears in a public place in a completely disgraceful manner. And we’d rather cover our children’s eyes so they don’t see guys like that, you know, as if they don’t even exist, as if it’s just a joke. But one can’t do things like that – if someone does something like that, there will be legal consequences. But those consequences must not reach the level of physical abuse, because that is simply alien to Hungarian culture. So we’re not in the world to make one another’s lives harder, but to make one another’s lives easier. This is the essence of Christianity. The everyday translation of love, which is a Christian law, is that we’re in the world to make one another’s lives easier, not to make them harder. This is the prosaic formulation of the principle of “love thy neighbour”. And this is why it’s not the job of the police to use physical violence, but to get people to follow the law. Of course there are cases where the police do have to use force, for example against criminals, but that’s not the case here.
So Pride seems to be happening tomorrow, but at the same time, what was cancelled was the Budapest City Assembly meeting scheduled for this week. There would have been plenty to talk about, and there’s a situation of near-bankruptcy that the capital should be dealing with. How do you see the situation? What’s your opinion? Whose fault is it that the city’s in this situation? Because the parties seem to be pointing fingers at one another.
When you look at the capital, what do you see? Chaos, gridlock, bankruptcy, Pride. We’re not all the same, and obviously there are many people in Budapest who look at the city as it is and like it. That’s their taste, their opinion. I don’t like it. Of course, the Mayor doesn’t have to take note of this, because I’m just one citizen among many. But the city is bankrupt, there are traffic jams, there’s no movement, there’s a lot of work to be done, there’s no money – even though they’re flush with money, and yet it’s flowing away. Instead of dealing with the bankruptcy, they’re organising Pride, and dealing in real estate. I don’t even want to get involved because it’s the capital’s business. All I can say is that the current situation is undignified. This is a great city. It’s the nation’s capital, it’s our city, and we love it. It simply deserves leadership that doesn’t allow it to deteriorate and that brings out the fantastic opportunities for life that this city has, the potential that this city has to be a good place to live. In comparison, our lives are filled with daily annoyances.
Let’s talk about one more piece of news. Tibor Kapu, the second-ever Hungarian astronaut, was launched into space on Wednesday, and arrived at the International Space Station yesterday. In 2021 the Government announced the HUNOR programme and the plan to send an astronaut into space. At the time many people were sceptical about the plan, and questioned whether it was necessary. Now in the last few days, however, everyone seemed to be as one in welcoming the success. How do you assess the last four years, from the beginning to completion?
First of all, we’re Hungarians, and this has consequences. One of my favourite activities is to read parliamentary minutes from the 19th century, when debates were held about big investments: the construction of the Parliament building, or construction of the Chain Bridge. You can’t imagine what these fine Hungarians said to one another: that this or that was stupid, and saying every bad thing that they could. And then the Chain Bridge and the Parliament were built, and everyone said, “Well, we’ve done a great job, it’s for the glory of the country, and how beautiful and how good it is.” That’s how it is with most things now. If we want to act boldly, a Hungarian must expect that people will start tugging at their coattails, nipping at their heels, and there will be a dispute. So if you want to do the right thing without disputes, and you think that if you do the right thing you’ll be supported, well, in Hungary that can’t happen. You even have to fight for a good cause and an obvious cause. But that’s fine – we’re that kind of country. You have to do it, and then everyone will be happy and proud. Now we’re all proud, and we have good reason to be proud. On the one hand we have an excellent man who’s in the physical and mental condition to be up there in space as part of an international brigade or team, representing us, representing 15 million Hungarians, as he said. We salute him and thank him for bringing glory to Hungary and giving us a reason to be proud to be Hungarians. But there’s also a more prosaic point. It’s worth talking about the fact that Hungary has serious capabilities in the space industry. A spaceship is always a big thing to launch, and because they can launch spaceships this is why we think that only the big countries can be involved in space. But this isn’t the case, because in order to be able to do anything in space you need a lot of parts, a lot of equipment, to do a lot of experiments, and a lot of other things. In Hungary there are private companies – I’m talking about serious Hungarian companies, not American, not NASA-level, but with serious knowledge – which are making major professional, scientific intellectual contributions to various space missions without people generally knowing about them. And they’re making a business out of it. So the space business isn’t an inaccessible area for Hungary. I’m not saying that in the next few years it will replace agriculture, but it’s an area that’s growing, that’s expanding, and that has ever more potential. It’s good if Hungarian companies are there on a private basis, and we send out a signal – sometimes with a symbolic gesture, as we’ve done with our astronaut – that we Hungarians will also be there in this industry in the future, and that we Hungarians will have to be reckoned with.
In Brussels I’ve been asking Prime Minister Viktor Orbán questions about topics including yesterday’s EU summit, Pride and Tibor Kapu’s spaceflight.