Zsolt Törőcsik: The tenth anniversary of the Röszke border riots was on Tuesday, when Prime Minister Viktor Orbán reminded us that for ten years Brussels has been pressuring the Government on the issue of migration, while Hungary has resisted for ten years and will continue to reject any compromise on this issue. I’ll be asking Prime Minister Viktor Orbán why this is so. Good morning.
Good morning.
Let’s start a little further back, because two weeks before the riots at Röszke, Angela Merkel said, “Wir schaffen das”, or “We can manage this”. And then at German and Western European railway stations people welcomed immigrants with open arms, while Hungary became the black sheep. From a social and political point of view, how has this situation changed over the past ten years?
When the Germans said that they could solve the problem, it was a different Germany. It was plausible that the Germans could have managed it, but since then it’s become clear that they’re barely able to manage anything. Their automotive industry has collapsed, they’re being beaten by the Chinese in car manufacturing, they’re deep in debt: they’re taking out huge loans, yesterday they passed a budget that will create a deficit greater than any before, and they’re taking out loans. So that was the Germany about which Chancellor Merkel – who by the way is coming to Hungary soon to promote her book, when I’ll be giving a little support at the book launch – said they’d manage it. Well, since we’ve always thought of the Germans as a well-organised, precision machine, we here in Hungary also believed they really could manage it. But we weren’t interested in that, because I don’t care whether or not the Germans can manage something – what I care about is whether Hungarians can manage their own problems and difficulties; and I was sure that whatever the Germans said, we couldn’t manage it. We’re talking about Röszke now, of course, and rightly so. Because it was in Röszke that it became clear that these migrants weren’t refugees, that they had mobile phones, that they were capable of coordinated action, that their movements were more military in nature than reminiscent of refugees, and that they had bank cards. It was there that it became clear that they were being transported by organised people smuggling networks, and it was there that it became clear that the network of George Soros’s civil society organisations was behind it all. So it’s important and wise to talk about Röszke, but my strongest experiences aren’t connected to Röszke, but to the visits I made to see one or two migrant camps. Because although Hungary protected itself against migration, in the early days there were migrants here. There was a camp like that in Debrecen, and in Bicske – which is near Felcsút. At that time I went there almost every day, so I saw what this meant for life in these smaller and larger towns. When we closed it, when – if I may put it so immodestly – I closed the migrant camp in Debrecen, people would have carried us on their shoulders down the main street in Debrecen if we’d allowed it. And in Bicske everyone shook our hands when it was closed, when the conditions that had been seen there in the parks and on the streets disappeared. So I was sure that whatever the Germans said, it would definitely not be good for us Hungarians. Then it turned out that Germany also changed: it wasn’t good for them either, and they couldn’t solve the problem – despite the Chancellor’s promises.
A lot has changed, even if we only look at the political attitude. Many countries in Western Europe have tightened their policies and are at least trying to handle deportations more effectively. At the same time, because of your assessment of the situation regarding migration in Sweden, this week you’ve got into a heated argument with the Swedish prime minister, who’s accused you of lying. Firstly, what do you think was the reason for his heated reaction, and to what extent – even after ten years – does the issue of migration still inflame tensions between Member States?
Wherever migrants have been allowed in, public safety has deteriorated dramatically, public spaces have become dangerous, some neighbourhoods have become uninhabitable, local residents have moved out, and the number of criminal gangs and open street clashes have increased. I’m not saying that in Western Europe this has become acceptable, but it’s become an unsurprising part of life there. And there’s an even bigger problem, because this mistake can’t be corrected. In politics there are two types of mistakes: those that can be corrected and those that can’t. This one can’t be corrected. It’s like the Bokros Package [of austerity measures introduced in Hungary in the mid-1990s ]. The Bokros Package cut back on child support, resulting in many children not being born. Those children will never be born. So in politics there are mistakes like this, in various areas, many of them: peace, war, those who died in a war that should never have started, and those who will never be born again. So there are some areas of politics – not many, but there are some – in which the mistakes made are irreparable. Migration is one of these areas. It may be a little inappropriate given the seriousness of the issue, but the image is accurate: once the toothpaste is out of the tube, you can’t put it back in. So the Western world has changed once and for all, and they don’t know what to do about it. And if you want to know how much worse the situation will be in the future, you should always go to the schoolyards. So if you want to see the future of your own country, go to a schoolyard during a break in teaching and take a look. If someone goes to a schoolyard in Vienna, Munich or Paris and looks at who the students are, how they group together, what they do, how they relate to one another, they’ll see that the future of these countries is not at all encouraging. The Swedish prime minister has been bad-mouthing Hungary for a long time. Swedes are generally likeable people, and we tend to love them, don’t we? ABBA, Björn Borg, just to mention some from my own generation: totally heroic, pretty ladies, music, everything. But in reality Swedish politics is extremely aggressive and patronising – and, by the way, not only towards us, it’s worth noting, but towards the world in general. And Hungarians can’t tolerate that at all. So it’s not right that the Swedish prime minister and the Swedish government are lecturing Hungary about the rule of law, while underage girls are being used to commit violent crimes, even murder, while violence is rampant in Swedish cities, while there were over 300 bombings there last year, and while they can’t guarantee the safety of their own citizens. I remember him saying that his government can’t control the wave of violence raging in Swedish cities. So what are we talking about? What I want to say is that migration is a sensitive issue, because it raises the question of politicians’ responsibility. Because these migrants didn’t fall from the sky, they didn’t just drop out of nowhere: someone let them in. And whoever let them in must take responsibility for the consequences. Well, they don’t want to do that, and it’s easier to pick on Hungary. The Swedish prime minister should talk about whether he bears responsibility for having let in these migrants who are killing people, raping women, and getting involved in gang wars. If such conditions existed in Hungary, whose responsibility would it be? The ones who let them in! Who let them in? The Government! Who leads the Government? The Prime Minister! So this is where the issue of personal responsibility comes in – which is why they’re not happy when they have to talk about migration. And to avoid having to talk about their own responsibility, it’s always easier to attack Hungary.
We can see, by the way, that the dispute on this issue between Budapest and Brussels is ongoing – one just has to think of the Migration Pact. How does this dispute, this clash, trickle down into Hungarian domestic politics? Because, based on statements, for example, the largest opposition party at present – Tisza – says that it would also keep the border fence. So at home it seems as if there’s unity on this issue.
When it comes to migration, I don’t trust anyone but ourselves. I remember well how it was back then, when DK [Democratic Coalition] was still the leader of the opposition. They said that this problem didn’t exist, that it was an invented problem, and that the Prime Minister was exaggerating it for domestic political purposes. I remember all that very well. Then they promised that they’d take action too. I watched how they voted in Brussels. Well, just like Tisza! Tisza voted in Brussels, for example, for the disastrous Migration Pact that’s been devised in Brussels, which would be catastrophic for Hungary – and they voted for its accelerated introduction. Tisza also voted in Brussels for increased direct financial support for migrants. So there’s no agreement on migration. That’s a fairy tale! The fact is that if there’s a national government that’s not afraid, but instead courageous, and stands up to Brussels, then there will be no migrants and there will be security; if there’s a pro-Brussels government in Hungary, then there will be migrants and there will be no more security. That’s how I see the situation. We left the European People’s Party because we couldn’t reach an agreement with them on the issue of migration. Tisza joined the European People’s Party, so they obviously reached an agreement.
While we’re on the subject of controversial issues, in recent weeks there’s been a lively debate about the tax system. The President of the Tisza Party is talking about tax cuts, but at the same time several of their plans have been leaked that would increase personal income tax and corporate tax. Economists who support Tisza say that a multi-rate tax system is fairer than a flat-rate tax system, for example, and that the budget needs additional revenue anyway. How do you see this issue – both in terms of fairness and in terms of what the additional revenue from tax increases should be used for?
First of all, I’d say that Hungarians like the flat-rate tax, and I feel that they support it – because with a flat-rate tax, you pay less tax than you would in a multi-rate or progressive tax system. The idea of a flat-rate tax is extremely simple: if you earn ten times more, you pay ten times more. This is in line with people’s basic sense of justice. I don’t want to talk at length about progressive taxation, or about how it was invented by the communists in the 19th century and became a common European or Western European product. None of that’s interesting right now. I’m just telling listeners who are interested in intellectual history that if they want to find the source of this idea, they should look to Marx. So if you earn ten times more, then you pay ten times more tax, and there’s nothing to argue about. And there are no tax brackets, no “you belong here”, or switching from one bracket to another – one can forget all that. Every progressive tax system is necessarily bureaucratic, cumbersome, full of loopholes, and open to abuse. We’ve tried it. That’s why I feel this debate is a bit of a postscript, because Hungary has tried both tax systems. One is the left-wing system that Tisza now represents; and the other is, let’s say, the civic, national tax system, the market- and business-friendly tax system, the family-friendly tax system that we represent – the essence of which is a flat-rate tax and huge tax allowances that support families with children. This is what the money should be spent on, by the way. I think we should support families. But what’s interesting isn’t which tax is better, which is a question of tax philosophy, but the fact that this is a serious issue, with more than half of Tisza’s voters wanting progressive taxation. There’s a correlation that I see as simple: you earn ten times more, you pay ten times more tax. The country agrees with this, but the thing is that there are those who disagree with it and say “No, don’t pay ten times more, pay much more than that.” I look at the polls and analyse them, and I see that among Tisza’s supporters, over 50 per cent of them want this. So the fact that the party president or vice president let it slip and it leaked out doesn’t surprise me, because that’s what their own camp wants. Our voters don’t want that, and I think that the majority of those in the middle don’t want it either. But I understand that a party called Tisza and its president can’t really represent anything other than what the majority of their own voters want, and that’s what the majority of them want. In that well-known video recording, we also see that at a provincial forum Tisza’s supporters are asked to vote on which tax system they would like, and 90 per cent of them vote for progressive taxation, while in that recording the remaining 10 per cent are labelled as “hawks”. And then behind all this there’s a question of trust – because it’s not just a question of what people want, but what they admit to wanting. And that’s a question of trust. And Tisza’s given the order that “We mustn’t say what we think and what we’re planning, because then we’d lose the election”, and “We don’t have to say anything now, but after the election anything’s possible.” This is no longer a question of tax policy: it’s about how we think about people, how we view them; Are they the object of the election or the subject of the election? I consider them to be the subject of the election, because the election is about them – not about politicians, but about them. And if it’s about them, then they need to know what the consequences of their decision will be. This can’t be hidden. This is similar to the Őszöd speech, except that Ferenc Gyurcsány was smarter: it was after the election when he said that he’d deceived the people; meanwhile it’s before the election when the Tisza people are saying that they’re going to deceive the people.
This is precisely why the Government is justifying the national consultation on this issue, so that people are aware of the parties’ tax plans. But why would they talk about this more honestly and openly as a result of the consultation?
I think that people’s opinions, moods, expectations and demands are important. I feel this myself. So if people really want me to talk about something, then even if I don’t want to talk about it, sooner or later I have to say something. So in democratic politics, leaders are subject to public pressure. You don’t always have to give in, so it’s not as if you hand over your leadership responsibilities to the people. You’re elected to take responsibility for your decisions, and then from time to time – say every four years at the latest – we hold you accountable. But what people consider important does matter. And then you have to say something about it, you have to talk about it, you have to take a position. And I believe that all these national consultations – which we’ve held on I don’t know how many occasions since we started them in 2010, in relation to the Constitution – help to bring important issues to the surface and give people some kind of answer. That answer may be reassuring or unsettling, but it’s an answer nonetheless.
Meanwhile, still on the subject of taxation, from October mothers with three children will be exempt from personal income tax. How might this measure affect families’ circumstances and earnings?
Well, according to our calculations, Tisza’s tax increase plans for the introduction of a progressive tax system will mean a loss of 364,000 forints per year for a teacher – that’s how much more tax they’ll have to pay. For nurses, it will mean an annual loss of 280,000 forints, for police officers 154,000 forints, for soldiers 476,000 forints, and for doctors 3.172 million forints in additional taxes. So we’re not talking about trivial matters here; this can seriously affect the financial situation of families. And our government, and I personally, don’t think in terms of individuals. Even though it’s called personal income tax, I don’t see individuals, but rather families – in accordance with the natural order of life. Therefore the tax system must also be adapted to this, because in life people don’t exist in isolation, like islands, but live in families. This brings with it responsibilities, expenses, costs and obligations, and this must also be taken into account when designing the economic regulatory system. So the focus is on the family. This is why there are family tax allowances in Hungary. Because families cannot survive without work, and we need a system that supports both work and families. This is why we’re not increasing the universal family allowance. We have experience with that, we haven’t taken it away, it exists, it’s there; but alongside it we’ve introduced a work-related family support system – which, incidentally, is also supported by Roma Hungarians, who are the most vulnerable to unemployment. I’m convinced that the progress made by the Roma community in Hungary in recent years is closely linked to the tax allowance for families with children, the flat-rate tax in general, and that the process of becoming middle-class has begun there too. I’ve always considered it important that Hungary shouldn’t have any communities that are outside the economically active community and that they should not live on welfare but on their own earnings. An important element of our economic policy is that prosperity is spread as widely as possible.
There’s another social group that can expect additional resources in the coming period: pensioners, as the amount of pension compensation has been decided. This compensates for the difference between the pension increase at the beginning of the year and the actual inflation rate. And in the coming days pensioners will also receive a 30,000-forint grocery voucher. Critics, however, argue that a higher increase was needed at the beginning of the year, and then no compensation would have been needed. Why is the Government making this adjustment within the system?
This is both a political and specialist issue. Let’s look at the political side. We have an agreement with pensioners. We concluded it in 2010, and I concluded it on behalf of the Government. It was based on the fact that during left-wing governments, when there were economic problems – whether caused by the governments themselves or by external factors – pensioners were the first to have their money taken away. This led to the disgraceful situation in which pensioners were deprived of the thirteenth month’s pension to which they were previously entitled. And in 2010 pensioners said – and I think this is still true today – that they fear that if something unexpected happens in the global economy or the national economy, then they’ll be the ones to suffer. Therefore the agreement I made with pensioners is that we – me personally, but also the Government and, perhaps more importantly, through it Parliament – will guarantee that we’ll protect the value of pensions. And we do this every year. This means that when a price increase is forecast we raise pensions – in advance, rather than retrospectively – by the amount that inflation is expected to be. Incidentally, here it isn’t so much the Government’s own calculations that are decisive, although I don’t underestimate them, but the always very important data and information provided by the National Bank. And then we raise pensions in line with expected inflation so that they don’t lose their value, life goes on, the year comes to an end, and it turns out that inflation was either higher or lower than expected. And it also turns out that sometimes the increase at the beginning of the year is higher than it should have been – but we’ve always left that with the pensioners. And it can also happen that inflation was higher, so the increase should have been greater; well, in that case we make a correction in November. Accurate accounting, long friendship. This is what the Government and the pensioners’ association agree on. Fortunately we tend to err on the side of favouring pensioners, so not only has the value of pensions remained stable, but in recent years it’s actually increased. And we’ve also reinstated the thirteenth month’s pension, which had been taken away from pensioners – in what was, I repeat, a disgrace.
Let’s talk about another issue that you posted about several times this week – namely the increasingly heated and aggressive public debate in Hungary. A video was released this week showing Romulusz Ruszin-Szendi, former chief of staff of the Hungarian Defence Forces, speaking at a public forum while wearing a pistol. He himself admitted this, and yesterday the police confiscated the weapon. Both he and the President of Tisza suggested that they’d received serious threats, but that the police hadn’t dealt with them adequately, which is why the weapon was necessary. In your opinion, does this justify carrying a weapon at a public forum?
I can say that if politicians want to carry weapons because they’re being threatened, then I, for example, would have to carry a cannon! That’s ridiculous, forget it! If someone doesn’t have the sense to realise that if they enter public life, take on a public role, and go out among people, then they can’t carry a weapon with them… Because what are they going to do with it? Pull it out and start shooting? Or what? That’s absurd! If someone doesn’t have the sense to realise that, it’s only right that the authorities remind them that this isn’t allowed, that it’s not possible.
What message does this case send in this tense situation, which we’re also seeing in the international arena?
The weapon itself doesn’t look good, but the comments we heard from the former chief of staff are even more troubling: that his palms are itching, that he’s trained for this, that he could “take care of it”. What, my dear friend, are you going to take care of? We don’t live in the jungle, so hold on a minute, what are you going to take care of? The fact is that this is a constitutional state, and there are rules. You can’t shoot people because you were a chief of staff and you’re Mr. Big, you can’t threaten people – how do you figure that? Here in Hungary we have personal and legal protection. The fact is, you can’t threaten anyone – no matter how itchy your palms are. And especially not when you’re talking to a lot of people. You can’t brag about that, because you’re not above other citizens, even if you were the chief of staff. You don’t have special rights because of that – you’re one of us. Accept the rules, and don’t walk around with a gun, my friend! And if you don’t have enough sense to do that, the authorities will remind you. Nevertheless, all citizens in Hungary have equal rights. Nowhere in the Constitution or in the laws is it written that the chief of staff can have an itchy palm, use his training to take things into his own hands, and carry a weapon. Come on!
By the way, how a government should deal with such situations is an interesting question. Because this week, for example, President Trump announced that he’d declare the Antifa organisation to be a terrorist organisation – or at least initiate such a move. Many considered this to be an overly radical response to violence. But in such a matter how can a balance be struck between order and freedom?
I was pleased with the US president’s decision, and I’ll initiate the same measure here in Hungary. Antifa is indeed a terrorist organisation. They came to Hungary, beat up peaceful people on the streets, some of whom they beat half to death. And then they went to the European Parliament, where they lecture Hungary on the rule of law. From the Left. Well, congratulations! This is absurd! So I think it’s absolutely right that the time has come for Hungary to follow the American example and classify organisations such as Antifa as terrorist organisations.
Speaking of America, this week it was announced that visa-free travel to the United States will be reinstated. What did it take for Washington to make this decision? Because, as we know, not long ago it was suspended.
It was cancelled as a punishment. The leftists – the Democrats, the Biden administration – decided that since Hungary doesn’t agree with the American Democrats on migration, gender issues or the war, they’d give us a slap in the face. It hurt, by the way. Obviously only a minority of people want to travel to America regularly, but that number isn’t small. Perhaps this is less true for dual citizens, but for those who had commitments there – who were studying or doing business, for example – this was a very unpleasant measure. So this was a punishment that hurt. And even when he was a presidential candidate, President Trump and I came to an agreement that all the penalties imposed on Hungary by the Left would be removed from the system. The ship – I mean the ship of state of the United States of America – is big, and it’s not easy for it to change course. It takes a few months for a decision to go through the bureaucracy, but the President kept his word, which he gave me when he was a presidential candidate. We shook hands on it, and he gave the Hungarians back their freedom of movement, visa-free travel. Friendship matters in politics too.
I’ve been asking Prime Minister Viktor Orbán questions about subjects including the migration situation in Europe, tax issues, and the state of public discourse.