Roger Köppel: You said you are the oldest acting prime minister in Europe, you are a great survivor. You have a history of opponents who have attacked you, who have now disappeared. You are still standing. What is your recipe for survival? What is your survival tactic to survive the madness of politics?
First of all, you should know that I belong to the old-fashioned political leaders. In the modern world it’s quite often happening that they switch from politics to business. When I was raised and started to be active in politics, that was not the fashion. When we decided to become a politician it means that it’s a mission. We will not go to the business and back, we will serve – that’s public service, you know? – we will serve the nation, even if we are in opposition or in government. So I spent sixteen years in opposition, but I thought it’s reasonable – you know? It’s reasonable, because you can serve your nation and the public, even as a member of opposition, being a Member of Parliament or a city council, whatsoever. It’s not a career decision. When I hear “the career of a politician”, you know – I’m dying out, you know. What kind of career? Career could be in the entertainment business, or the financial sector – but in politics? It’s not a career, it’s serving…service. Prime Minister means first servant – you know? So I belong to that culture, to that approach to the job. So that’s the reason it never came to my mind to change. Even the question is strange to me: to leave. What to leave, how to leave? That’s the first. The second: how to survive? That’s a very important question. I’m a lucky man, basically, because I spent a little bit more than thirty years in football dressing rooms, as a semi-professional football player. The best school for politicians, what I can recommend. Because you have to fight for your own respect, you have to have a capacity to work in a team, and to understand being humble. Because it’s not important whether you are good or not; what is important is how you could be useful for the team. And at the same time, you never can give it up, till 90 minutes. So you have a chance: fight, fight, fight. So the general education of mine by sport helped me a lot to survive. Without that background, neither physically nor mentally, it would not be possible to survive under that pressure I am. I would not like to speak about it, but you can imagine that with that ideas representing publicly, as I did here, it’s not easy to survive in Brussels. Even the handshakes are not always honest. But, you know, sports helps a lot. And then family. Family is very important. I have seen many talented, or far more talented guys than me, but just because having no – how to say it? – settled background on the private life, just falling apart under the pressure. So family is the key. If you have a family, it’s OK. I always like to say, when I represent something which is not popular, I always say, I have my wife and the kids who will love me. I’m not asking to be loved. I’m just asking to be respected. That’s enough. To respect and understand what I’m speaking about. So if you have that kind of emotional stability behind you, you have a better chance to survive. So I’m a lucky man. God loves me, all in all – may I say.
The interesting thing is in our short discussion before, you told me that even as Prime Minister of Hungary, in your first term, you were still playing football.
Yes, in the third league.
In the third league.
Every Sunday.
I guess the opposition was very strong on the football field. Now, let’s…
Not the opposition, the people. The people enjoyed that the Prime Minister is kicked, you know?
You were already cut down. This is what we Swiss can a lot sympathize because we have always the feeling if we go to Brussels, if we go outside, they always attack us. But actually, we like it if we are attacked from outside. Let’s go a bit into the political field. Let’s talk about Switzerland. You mentioned the situation in the European Union. You said basically, the war in the Ukraine, the reconstruction of the Ukraine, this will cost billions and billions. The Americans will fade out, they will disappear, and the Europeans, they will have to pay the bill – which means the Germans, basically, will have to pay the bill. What does this current atmosphere in Europe mean for Switzerland? What do we have to prepare? What kind of battle is ahead for Switzerland? Because you are a member of all these gatherings, you know what they think. What do we have to be prepared for?
You mean in terms of Ukrainian–Russian war, or in general?
Everything. I think the pressure on Switzerland, on our money, on our sovereignty, on our independence, this pressure will increase, I count on the worst.
OK, I’ve got the point.
But what is your view?
I have only bad news for you. Because my description on the situation is the following. Europe has had always historically two traditions. One is the Roman Empire, the imperialistic tradition, unified Europe, many attempts during the history. And the tradition of the sovereign countries – because nations were created after the falling apart of the Roman Empire, various tribes created various nation states. So this is the other tradition: sovereignty of the nations. And till the Brexit there was a balance of these two heritages inside the decision-making system. The Germans and the French always argued in favour of a more centralised European structure. I don’t use the term federalism, because federalism means here different, it’s a good thing. In the European political language, federalism means centralisation. So the French and the Germans always try to find instruments, procedures, to have a more unified, ever closing [closer] union, as they say, ever closing union. This is the key word. But the British and the Central Europeans – basically the V4, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary – we together were strong enough to represent what is called on the language of the European politics, “blocking minority”. So the blocking minority always prevented the French and the Germans to introduce new and new centralisation procedures and instruments. So it was a kind of balance. So don’t forget that the expressions which are quite common nowadays – like rule of law, conditionality, economic governance – even were not on the table when the British was in, because it was obvious that the British will never accept. Because rule of law, conditionality, economic governance is nothing else, just instruments to centralise more and more the operation of the European Union. So we were in a lucky position, because the Brits and we together maintained the balance. But the British are out, and we don’t have any more blocking minority. And centralisation-loving part of European Union are creating new and new institutions, new and new procedures, and try to push us, you know – not to get the money. Hungary has an average development of the European Union 76 per cent, or something like that. Because of the sanctions, we don’t get the money from the European Union, which we should get. What we have to pay in: we are net contributors. So a country at the level of development 76 per cent, is a net contributor. How is it possible? So that kind of instrument, financial instrument, to punish you if you don’t support what they would like to do, is getting stronger and stronger. It’s more difficult, more and more difficult to survive. Just the last story, which is vital even for you as a Swiss anyway. So the Germans initiated that all the decisions – especially concerning foreign policy – which must be done unanimously, should be converted into qualified majority [QMV]. Which means that Central Europeans and small countries has no any chance to block a foreign policy which is against your vital interest. This is on the table, anyway. We will block it, of course, because to change the unanimous regulation to QMV requires also unanimous decision – thanks to God. So we will stop it. But, you know, the proposal is there, and they push, and they push, and they push. So if you’re thinking on joining the European Union, think twice.
You had yesterday, as I heard, a very good conversation with our federal councillors Ignazio Cassis and our president, Alain Berset. I know this is all strictly confidential, what you have discussed, but we are among us here. What did you suggest our friends in Bern? What did you suggest, what should Switzerland do in the next few months and years?
So the point is why probably Hungary is little bit more important for you than in other periods is that from 1 July Hungary will preside the European Council. So we will be the president of the decision-making, political decision-making body of the European Union. We have a strong impact on the timetable of the Council. We have an impact on what kind of issues will come up. And therefore now we are a little bit more important for Switzerland than we were earlier. You have a good chance to close the negotiations with the European Union during springtime next year. But if not, you have a reserve: that’s Hungary.
I can make a suggestion. The best thing would be that you just cancel Switzerland from the agenda of the EU, the best thing is if they forget about Switzerland in Brussels. This would be very safe for us.
Sounds attractive. But don’t forget, if I may mention the Hungarian dilemma, why we are in, even under these conditions. So it’s important, because we are in – it’s our own desire, our own decision. We are in because we would like to be. So the first is, don’t forget the market. So I don’t like this kind of financial transactions what’s going on – you know, distribution system. It’s not bad because we get money, but this is not the heart, this is not the essence of the European Union. The essence is the market, the big market. And for a country like Hungary, it’s vital to sell out our export products in the European market, to access to the European market. That’s first. Second, which is a political dilemma: if you are not member of European Union, but you are on the market, as you are, decisions made in Brussels will affect you. But you are not sitting at the table to influence it. So this is a political dilemma: Which is the more reasonable track to be followed? Just to be honest.
But it always depends on who is sitting on the table. If you were sitting on the table, no problem, but if I think of some people in Bern sitting at that table, I would not be that sure. Let’s take a question here from the audience.
I’m happy that it’s not a question. Thank you.
Let’s take a question here from the audience. What are the parallels between Hungary and Switzerland? The most important one.
My home is my castle. So it’s very important. So I follow the laws, I pay my tax, and then: disappear – it’s my life, it’s my life. So that kind of basic, everyday, not a heroic way, but in the very everyday sense of freedom is something very common. A local community is resistant always to central government: big tradition in Hungary. So that kind of… a little bit for us, for the European Union, it’s a little bit strange, a basic or “bázis” democracy, what you experience, a little bit strange, but it has a good reason to do so. So we rather see it positively. Surprisingly, there is another emotional coincidence. And this is neutrality. Hungary is not a neutral country. Hungary is a member of NATO, but we love neutrality. We love the countries who follow neutrality. And we admire that you are able to maintain… but unfortunately, because of geography, Hungary cannot have the luxury of being neutral. You have a luxury. We don’t have it. So that kind of, even inside an alliance system, to be independent as much as you can is also something similar, and drive us to the positive understanding of neutrality in the Swiss politics. So that kind of common things are quite obvious. So it’s not difficult for a Hungarian to enjoy to stay in Switzerland. So it’s culturally it’s not an alien territory. It’s something which is known. We understand the cultural reflect and settle of your life as you do it. Plus, in Hungary always, we have a strong Calvinist tradition, which is also known in Switzerland. So in Hungary, we have 75 per cent Catholic and 25 per cent Calvinist. And so we understand the Calvinist tradition. A lot of Hungarian Calvinist traditions leads us here to Switzerland back as well, as you probably know. And you know, Calvinists are very good in politics. So the Catholics in Hungary sometimes say that Hungary is a good country, but too many Calvinists are in decision-making position of politics. And I think it’s sometimes right.
You have a very prominent...we have a very prominent Calvinist in the room today, former federal councillor Christoph Blocher. His brother has even studied theology with Karl Barth in Basel. So they are experts in that field, and they can assure you it is a good basis for success.
Very few are aware of the fact that the testament of Luther, the piece of paper, is in Hungary – in the Hungarian Lutheran Church.
Interesting! You have made a big impact in 2015 as this prime minister in Europe who stood against the migration policy at the time of Angela Merkel. You mentioned it in your speech, migration is a huge topic in all the countries, migration is probably the defining issue in politics at the moment. And what can you tell to the audience, to our politicians? What should our politicians do in order to get back control of this migration which is out of control? What do they have to do? What is your rule of success?
So first of all, for clarification, we have to distinguish the migration coming from the West and migration coming from other civilizations. Because if I understand correctly, you have a problem getting lot more and more people from the West to work here and to stay here. I’m not speaking on that challenge. It’s your unique problem at this moment, anyway. What I’m speaking about is migration coming from another civilization – may I say a non-Christian civilisation. That’s what I’m speaking about. It’s true that my suffering – persecution – started in 2015, when I took the confrontation with the Germans on the migration issue. There was a huge pressure, because the German interpretation was that migration is good. For two reasons. First is labour. Second, because it helps us to create a more liberal society: “Wir schaffen das! Willkommen!” And I said to Angela: “Chancellor, I have to say, we disagree. And I have to veto all decisions which is related to that.” And I said very clearly that the risk is too high. “I would not like to define what Germany should do, because it’s your country, and you are the leader of the Germans. So if you would like to accept them, let’s do it. But please don’t force Hungary to accept regulation, which force us to accept, even we are totally against the idea.” So that was what I called the tolerance offer to the Germans. “So please tolerate each other, you have different ideas, we have different ideas.” But she said, “No, it must be a common European policy on that subject. So there was no other way for Hungary just to resist and to veto, and to build a fence, and to introduce legal regulation, which strengthens the border. And I became a black sheep immediately, in one night, just because I said that it is too risky. I haven’t said that it’s already proven that your integration concept is failing. I can’t say that. I wish you were right. My point is that it’s too risky, and we Hungarians would not like to take that risk. And I wish good luck to you – and come back to the point after ten or twenty years, and let’s see how the integration policy of Germany worked. But don’t force us. Don’t force us. So that’s how the whole pilgrimage started for me in the European politics. But I had to resist.
How did you stop the migration flow? Basically was it the question of a fence, of a wall, or how do you do it technically…?
By strength. By strength. It’s not a nice job. It’s not a nice job. But it needs police, army, border guards, weapons, fence, law enforcement. Don’t forget it’s a crazy situation in Europe that you have to excuse yourself why you use the law enforcement instruments. To cross the border illegally is a crime. Nobody can do that. If you would like to become a migrant in Hungary, please knocking on the door, not kicking it off. It does not work, just to cross. And they crossed. And more than 100,000 young, young, physically well-situated migrants arrived to Hungary and marched through the country. And we said, “We have to stop it.” Don’t forget that Hungary is the outside border of Schengen. So when we defend the Hungarian border, we defend Europe anyway, and we defend the Schengen area. So we are serving the Germans. And may I say that we spent more than 1.5 billion euro up to now to defend the borderline. And we have got nothing, financial support for that purpose from the European Union. Fence is a taboo. Fence and defending patrol cannot be financed from the European budget up to now. But I would like to be very clear: I am not against the human being of the migrants, because I understand that they are in trouble. But the political direction should be very clear that they are in trouble, so therefore we Europeans should bring the help there, and not import the problem from there to here. It’s not a solution. It’s worse for both of us. So I try to be as kind as I can, but this is the only… I stand here, I can’t do anything else just that, may I say. And on the integration, may I have one remark?
Sure!
Which is, that kind of trouble is a good mirror to look at ourselves. What was the idea, what was the philosophy behind the idea of “Let them in and integrate them into the Western societies”? There were two concepts. The first is that they became workers, and then through the economy, they will be integrated. I have seen the last football match between Turkey and Germany. Third generation sitting there, you know, fans, living in Germany. They did not look like as guys who are culturally, philosophically integrated into the German future. That was not my impression anyway. Plus, don’t forget that the migration, the most attractive thing for the migration is the social welfare they can get in rich countries. So they are not guest workers. So guest workers, you know, unavoidably, sometimes you need. But it must be a very strict regulation: how to stay, for how long, when it’s over how to leave the country. So very strict guest worker regulation is welcome. I’m positive on that. A very strict one, because we need it. But, you know, migration is not guest worker system. It’s another thing. And the second point is that, unfortunately, the attraction of the Christian philosophy and faith is losing its impact in the Western societies. And when we would like to integrate somebody in a society which is based on the Christian heritage, we would need a strong Christian, attractive, convincing energy. But look around in Europe! It does not look like that. So how can somebody imagine that a weak Christian culture will integrate a strong, self-confident Muslim culture? Because they think that they are in a better shape than we are. They are convinced that they are psychologically better than where we are, you know? So a weak Christian community, for a weak Christian community, it’s very difficult to integrate into the Christian tradition a different kind of group of people who has a far stronger belief and faith than we have. So it will be just, as we say, parallel societies. We will not live together. We will live next to each other. That’s very… it’s a different thing. There will be their life, their society, and ours. That’s what I call risk. It’s too risky. Not to speak about the social burden, not to speak about the crime making, because unfortunately, the relationship is obvious. Plus, the risk of terrorism at the same time. So, we Hungarians said: “Too risky. Don’t force us to take it, please.” Probably we are not right, but we have the right not to have the right.
I have a question here from the audience. I’m speaking about the summit of Xi Jinping, where you have visited and you have talked to the world leaders, and you have even talked to the Lord Voldemort of present times, of the Devil incarnate, whose name should not be spoken out – let’s call him Vladimir Putin. You even shook his hand, and you survived it. We’ve seen it. You returned in full shape. You even saw the eye of the devil, Xi Jinping. You have been in the centre of evil, according to some observers of human affairs. Why have you been at this summit? And what was your, for you personally, the most striking observation at this summit where the so-called autocrats of the world united?
So first of all, may I have a remark on hypocrisy? Because the Westerners were there. But not the prime ministers. Ex-President of France, “special envoy”, making business, of course. German representation, high… So be careful. So hypocrisy via to the Chinese, via to the Russians, it’s obvious. The Americans, in the last six months, doubled their buying, nuclear fuel capacity, fuel material from Russia. Two times higher this year than it was earlier. The first liquid gas products created by the Russians, the first buyers were the Americans. You know? So be careful! Look at the happy, high rocketing figures of Kazakhstan foreign trade! To understand a little bit how this trade is working on at this moment. And everybody’s aware of that. So the hypocrisy of the Westerners is annoying, may I say. That’s the first. Second: OK, on the conference. The conference is about how the Chinese would like to be part of the world economy through the so-called “Silk Road”. And Silk Road is a good economic opportunity for Hungary. So we would like to cooperate with the Chinese. The biggest investment now in Hungary, as I just mentioned, that having a huge BMW factory in one place and next to it, a battery, Chinese huge company also. And they produce for each other, you know, and cooperate on the Hungarian industrial zone. It’s good for us. Why are we not doing that? We are supporting Chinese–German joint investments in Hungary as well. So I don’t consider China which should be decoupled from our economic ties. So I’m not in favour of the blocking approach to the word economy. If there were blocs again, as it was, you know, I was raised up for twenty-six years in the communist regime when the world economy was divided into blocs. That was not good. So I’m not a supporter of that kind of approach. OK. On Russia and Putin. That’s another … OK. First, how to understand the Russians? That’s vital. Because if you don’t understand them, who they are, it’s very difficult to have a reasonable relationship to them. So Russia is not a political system as ours. And I don’t see if any time it will be similar to ours. For us Westerners, what is the main question of the political philosophy and existence? Freedom. How to create the best possible life with the biggest freedom for the citizens. That’s what we are working for. In Russia, this is not the case. The number one prerogative is security. How to keep together a country which is too big to keep together. And the other questions like freedom is just coming after that. So in the Russian leadership, the main question is always how to keep together a huge country which is almost impossible to keep together. This is number one. So we have to understand that, therefore, their political logic is different. If we just say that you should think the same way as we do, it’s ridiculous. It will never work. So that’s not politics – it’s naivety. So we should be more historically educated when we are speaking about our relation to Russia. On the war with Ukraine. That’s the next one. No question, aggression is aggression. To transgress the international law is a transgression of international law. We can’t accept it. So I would not like to speak too much about that because it’s obvious. But the question was how we Europeans will react on that. And we did not in a proper way. I do remember when the similar crisis happened with Crimea. I was there at the negotiation table at that time also in the European Council. And our leaders, we together, responded to the Crimea crisis to say that we have to localize the conflict: localize and isolate the conflict. And we sent the German and the French leaders to negotiate, and we reached the Minsk Treaty, which managed somehow – not so – but managed the situation. Nowadays, when this Donetsk conflict erupted, our response was just the opposite: globalising the conflict, not localise, but internationalise and globalise the conflict. And now this issue is a global issue. I think it’s bad. It’s bad for everybody. It’s bad for Europe, it’s bad for the Ukrainians, bad for the Russians, it’s bad for everybody. When we are speaking on that war, we have to understand where we are. What was the strategy of the West in that war? I simplify a little bit, but this is the fact. Our strategy was that the Ukrainians will fight and will win on the frontline, the Russians will lose on the frontline. And that lose will create a change in Moscow, there will be a new leadership and we can negotiate. Putin is a world-crimer, crime maker, whatever, and the new leadership will be acceptable as partner for negotiation to European Union. That was the strategy: we finance, the Ukrainians fight and die. Where we are now, it’s obvious that the Ukrainians will not win on the frontline: there is no solution on the battleground. Russians will not lose. There will be no political change in Moscow. This is the reality. What the hell are we doing now? So we just try to continue what was unsuccessful up to now. Whatever, we like it or not, it’s not the question of the emotions or your personal intention: This is reality; I call it politics. That’s politics. So we have to face the reality. So the Plan A, as it was, failed. Now we need some reflection time and put together a Plan B, in the next two or three weeks: Plan B. And if we have a Plan B, we can discuss how to finance it. Just to give money to Ukraine to continue what was unsuccessful up to now, it’s not a reasonable argument. Don’t do that. New strategy, clarify the cost, share the burden, and finance. This is the right order. That’s how we can do it. But we don’t do it. We’re just repeating that we have to continue, because sooner or later our strategy will be successful – which is not the case. So that’s where we are. So it’s a real dilemma for the European leaders. And it seems very technical, but it’s more than that – that at the same time we should not finance the Ukrainians through the European budget. Because the budget planning process is a strict something. If your budget is not in order, your economy is not in order. And if you have a spending which is not clarified, how much is it? It could be 50, but next year it could be probably 40 or 60. Nobody knows exactly. So if you have to spend huge amount of money, which is difficult to define the exact figure, don’t involve it into the budgetary planning process. Run the budget and separate the Ukrainian money in a fund, which should be financed not from the budget, but from the Member States’ budget. Keep the money there and send to Ukraine if you wish so, but not through the European Union budget, because it will destroy us. And there will be a mess in the European economy. So that’s our considerations we have. So we see how the Ukrainians are suffering. My heart is with them. They are coming every day to Hungary. 150,000 Hungarians are living in Zakarpattia, which is part of Ukraine, ex-territory of Hungary. They are conscripted: the young guys are conscripted to the Ukrainian army, and they are dying. So Hungarian guys are dying in that war. So I’m not speaking about a philosophical issue: I’m speaking in the neighbourhood country are dying Hungarian guys. So we would like to stop it, to negotiate, ceasefire, as soon as we can. So we should not first contemplate on the peace treaty; because if the peace treaty is a precondition of ceasefire, we will have never ceasefire. First, we have to have ceasefire, and then provide some time to negotiate about a bearable arrangement, peace arrangement after the war. This is what we should do. That’s very simple, traditional approach to the leadership issue. But I have only one vote in the European Union. And this vote is a small one, you know.
I got a discreet sign from the protocol director … that we should now go into the last few questions. I have two quick questions to finish. I mean, thank you very much. I got so many intelligent questions, I will send it to the Prime Minister to answer it in written form and return them.
I’ll do it.
If I look at the newspapers and many speeches from Western, so-called Western leaders, they tell us we are now entering a new world, a so-called change of tides: eine Zeitenwende. We will have a new situation where we have economic blocs. We will have a new Cold War, or an absurd version of the Cold War: the West against the rest, the West against East. That’s the cliche in the newspapers. What is your view? Are we entering such a world, or is the urge to cooperate too big? Or are we really going into dark times of this confrontation?
It’s an open question. It hasn’t decided yet. So this is one of the main issues for fighting. So there are one school which says exactly: separation, decoupling or de-risking – which is a more polite expression of decoupling. And the other school is, the other direction is connectivity. And the discussion is going on. It’s not over yet. What I always propose, is try to answer to this question from a European point of view of interest. What we are doing now, we just follow the United States, as I said. If we follow the United States automatically, we will never find an answer to that. And the Americans are following their own interest in a very disciplined way. Look at what’s going on now. The big companies of Europe investing their money not in the European Union, but they go to the United States. I just regularly accept big leaders, huge German company leaders. And they say that if we would like to do money, profit, we have to go to the United States – we can’t do it the same way in Europe and in Germany. So now we are losing the capital. If we don’t change our regulation, which is too bureaucratic, the taxation is too high, too many social considerations destroy the effectiveness. If we continue like that, the Americans will win, we will lose, and then the Americans will make their deal with the Chinese. And we will remain outside even the room – not the table, but the room. So that’s the challenge we have to face. Open question, open question – hopefully the pro-connection or connectivity camp will be bigger and bigger.
So we have to fight again for free trade and for international cooperation, friendly coexistence. My last question. You mentioned the leadership crisis in the West. And I thought, is Viktor Orbán actually missing Angela Merkel in those times of today? Probably yes, probably yes. You are missing her. But let’s look at this city and this country, which is the most important, still on this planet: it’s Washington, it’s the United States. And dear Viktor, I mean, come on, what we are seeing there, probably in 2024: we can have a president, either the one is from the – how do you call him? – from the Altersheim: he’s from the asylum for the elderly. He will rule the world. Or you have another guy who is in prison. And he will, from prison, he will rule the world. We are all, I think here in this room, we are all admirers of Ronald Reagan, of Margaret Thatcher, of all these giants. And now we look at the world and we think, what is happening here? What’s the matter with the United States? A friend of mine told me he wants to have the movie rights of the first of January 2024 when a new government in Washington starts – either way it will be crazy. What’s the course of the United States? What will happen? Will Trump come back? Can he come back? What’s happening in the United States?
To be honest, I’m biased. If the alternative as it is you described, I am pro-Trump, of course. There is a Hungarian saying I try to translate into English: “Only the dead fish is swimming with the current.” And Trump is not dead fish, which I appreciate. But the second is, think a little bit, putting aside emotions and even political sympathy. What is the foreign policy philosophy of Trump? He’s not speaking the language of philosophy, but it has a philosophy. And he said that, “America First, United States First”. It’s a very important statement. It means that if the leader of the United States can say that “America First”, we can say that “Hungary First”, “Switzerland First”. Everybody can say – who is a patriot – that “our country is first”. This is the good starting point for a foreign policy. If you think that you are the first, I think we are the first. You have your interest, we have our interest. Let’s sit down and negotiate and to make a deal. So instead of speaking on universal values, which is a hidden paravan [screen] of the American interests, instead of that, to speak reasonably, like deal makers, to negotiate, “Where is your interest, and how we can make a compromise or the deal”: this is far better for us than the present foreign policy philosophy. That’s the reason why I’m pro-Trump. And I hope he will win.
Well, we could… thank you very much Prime Minister, we could continue, we could go on. One very quick question for one sentence: what are you doing on Christmas? We look at the silver lining at the horizon. Christmas is coming. What are you doing on Christmas?
With the family. Try to keep the family for the Christmas dinner, which is very complicated logistical issue.
- Thank you very much, Prime Minister! Viktor Orbán!