Zsolt Törőcsik: Minimum wage earners, teachers, and those working in several other fields – including culture and social care – are receiving their first pay raises [in the current round]. Increased benefits and pensions are also on their way. But does the state treasury have the funds to cover these additional expenses? Shortly I’ll be asking these questions of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, whom I welcome to the studio. Good morning.
Good morning.
Let’s start with some breaking news from last night, as US President Donald Trump posted on his social media page that he unconditionally supports your re-election. Compared to the US attitude four years ago, this is completely different, and a turnaround.
Yes. Back then they assured the opposition of their unconditional support. So a left-wing US government considered it important to support the Hungarian left-wing opposition. Things have changed since then. There’s an old alliance between the current US president and Hungary. We worked well together when he was President of the United States the first time round. Our philosophy is that we must make friends – that’s the essence of our foreign policy. We’ve been successful in America because, while they’re big and we’re smaller, there’s a major international issue on which we agree and where they also need us: the war in Europe – or rather the Ukrainian–Russian war, the question of war and peace. And in Europe we’re the only ones who, since the outbreak of the war, have consistently taken the following position: one – if Donald Trump had been President of the United States in 2022, there would be no war; two – if the Europeans were not now tripping up and obstructing the American president, there would have been peace long ago; three – he’s the only international leader who’s not giving up, who’s constantly coming up with new attempts, who wants peace, and who needs European allies for this. We’re not the largest country in Europe, but we’re the only ally of the United States in the cause of peace. And we can be proud of that.
Could this support have domestic political significance, and how might it manifest itself in the next two and a half months?
Large and medium-sized American companies are coming here. We’re living in a world where the official national strategy of the United States is to bring home its companies and businesses which are invested elsewhere around the world. I see few exceptions to this, but we’re among them: American capital isn’t being taken home from here, but instead being brought here. Since he became President, we’ve been able to agree on at least a dozen American investments that are clearly in the top category from a technological point of view.
Could there be more concrete manifestations of his support in the next two months?
We’ll see. If you mean whether he’s coming, there’s no way of knowing. Since he comes from the business world, an important part of the American president’s political strategy is that no one can know anything for sure in advance – only later, when he decides.
Let’s talk about economic issues then. I’ve mentioned many areas where wage increases are being implemented, with employees’ January salaries; but at the same time, last Friday it was revealed that last year the Hungarian economy grew by only 0.3 per cent. Is this sufficient coverage for these additional expenses?
It represents sufficient coverage. Last year and this year the Hungarian economy has been operating with a 5 per cent budget deficit, and public debt of 73–74 per cent. This puts us in the middle of the European pack. Of course it would be better if we had a surplus rather than a deficit; and it would be good if we didn’t owe money to others, but others owed money to us. But this is how things have turned out historically, as they say. It may have been since the First World War, or it may have been since the Second World War, but we’ve been carrying these financial difficulties on our backs ever since. We’re living with them, and at the same time we’re delivering strong economic performance. This is why the question is always whether budget planning is viable. I’d say that the Hungarian economy can expect to show a budget deficit of around 5 per cent last year, this year – and, in my opinion, next year as well; so it’s stable and predictable. Investors accept this, and Hungary is in the recommended investment category. What’s more, it’s not the credit rating agencies who decide what they think about a country, but the investors; and, as I said earlier, it’s clear that large investments are coming to Hungary – not only from America but also from Asia and Europe. At the same time, I also see that there’s a perception or opinion that the Hungarian economy will be forced into austerity, that there’s overspending, that the Hungarian economy is in trouble, and that the Hungarian economy has this or that problem. The reality, however, is that there has indeed been economic growth of less than 1 per cent, and at the same time there has been an 11 per cent increase in the minimum wage. So the reality is that even with 1 per cent growth, the Hungarian economy is capable of this performance. It’s capable of providing interest subsidies for fixed 3 per cent loans for first-time home buyers. We’ve been able to double the family tax credit. Of course, like every European economy, the Hungarian economy is suffering from the war, because the war is blocking growth; but even while the war is blocking growth the Hungarian economy is capable of delivering tremendous performance, and of noticeably improving living conditions for people – especially families. There’s the increased minimum wage, home creation allowances, income tax exemption for mothers, doubling of family tax allowances, and from July we’ve been able to make CSED [infant care allowance] and GYED [child care allowance] tax-free. These measures represent tens of thousands of forints in each family’s budget; and when multiple benefits coincide, there will be quite a few families for whom this could mean an additional monthly income of 100,000 forints. So very serious things are happening here in terms of building a family-based economy and a family-based society. We’re putting important keystones in place. The work we started over a decade ago can be completed in the next four years, meaning that we’ll transform the Hungarian economy into a family-based system. Of course this is based on the fact that we live in a world where everyone must do something, everyone must work – otherwise they cannot survive, and cannot support their families. I believe that linking work and family – something we started a decade and a half ago – has brought results; and even with modest growth, we can provide significant help to families.
The first instalments of the thirteenth and fourteenth months’ pensions are being delivered today. But this week we heard from an expert in the opposition sphere, who said that these should be abolished, that they’re not necessary in the Hungarian pension system. What would happen to these benefits if Fidesz weren’t in power?
Well, let’s respect opinions that differ from ours – after all, democracy is about peaceful disagreement. In the past, people who disagreed would crack each other’s heads, but now we count heads. So that’s a big difference. It’s not forbidden to hold such an opinion, and we must tolerate it – but it’s obviously asinine. Why would it be a problem if pensioners receive higher pensions? Why would it be a problem if a country’s economy can generate enough money to give more to its citizens who have worked their entire lives? A pension isn’t a gift or a favour, but recognition that there was a time when these people were active and carried the country on their backs. And they deserve to feel secure in their old age. The economy must be organised in a way that enables it to provide these pensions. This is the job of the Government, and this is what I’m doing: we’ve restored the thirteenth month’s pension, and we’ve begun to introduce the fourteenth. This is very good. It’s true that Brussels opposes all such measures, so those who say this in Hungary – and whom I’ve called asses, for which I apologise to them, of course – aren’t coming up with this on their own: Brussels is asking them to do so. Brussels writes this into every document, and even wants to enforce it as a requirement in Hungary. I always have to stop this and say no, that we shall not abolish the thirteenth month’s pension in its current form, the form in which everyone’s receiving it. In Brussels they’re spitting bile over the fourteenth month. So the idea that we shouldn’t give the money to Brussels for Brussels’ purposes, but distribute it here among the people, that we should tax Western European companies heavily – and indeed we do tax them heavily in certain sectors – and give this money to the people, is a heretical idea in Brussels: it’s something that must not be done. There’s nothing else like it anywhere else! So, in order to be able to implement the thirteenth and fourteenth months’ pensions, the family support system and so on, we must constantly say no to Brussels, or oppose Brussels. They want the money we give to families to be left with their multinational companies, or to be paid to Brussels; because they’re preparing to increase Member States’ contributions in the coming period – mainly so that they can then send the money to Ukraine. We say no to this, because we believe that the money is better off with Hungarian families than in Kiev/Kyiv.
At the same time, in Europe we also see storm clouds gathering at the national level. In the Netherlands, the Patriot-led government has now been replaced by a People’s Party-led government, which is planning a “freedom tax”. This would effectively be an income tax increase, cutting social spending and increasing people’s healthcare costs, with the goal of leaving more for defence and security spending. What lessons can Hungary learn from what’s happening in the Netherlands?
This isn’t happening only in the Netherlands, but in almost all Western European countries: there are austerity measures everywhere. The reason for this is that Brussels has issued an order to switch to a wartime economy. So everyone’s preparing for the fact that over the next ten years, as the Ukrainians have actually submitted in writing, Ukraine will have to be given 800 billion dollars just for the functioning of the Ukrainian state: Ukrainian pensions, salaries, and so on. In addition, the plan is to give 700 billion dollars for armaments – making a total of 1.5 trillion. This money has to be collected somehow: they can only give this money to Ukraine if they take it from someone else. The other option is to take out a loan. This aim of sending money to Ukraine for its support is why everywhere in Europe there are austerity measures, or why loans are being taken out. Hungary is a country that says no to both. This is why we don’t have any of that. Since we don’t have those things here, people aren’t sensitive to the danger that’s threatening them. This is even though Hungary could have energy bills three times higher than they are now, instead of tax cuts there could be austerity measures like those in all Western European countries, and here there could be only slight wage increases – or they could be eliminated altogether, as in the West. Instead, alongside 1 per cent growth there’s an 11 per cent increase in the minimum wage. So if we manage to continue to say no to Brussels and don’t allow our money to be taken to Brussels and from there to Ukraine, then we can continue this economic policy – this national economic policy, as I call it.
At the same time, Tisza also says that it’s not preparing to introduce austerity measures. Do you think the Tisza Party could also say no to Brussels?
That’s not what they’re famous for. Tisza is a Brussels creation. I don’t want to offend the sincere and enthusiastic activists who believe that they’re building and strengthening their own party, especially not with bad news first thing in the morning, but they’re mistaken, they’re misinformed. The organisation they support and work for was created in Brussels. It was created to form a puppet government in Hungary and to implement what Tisza itself admits it wants: a change of system in Hungary, replacing the current national system with a Brussels-based system – he calls it European, but it’s Brussels-based. Therefore it’s not what Tisza says that’s important, but what it will have to do. And I know what it will have to do, because Brussels gives us written instructions on what to do – but I say no. The Brusselite government that they’re conjuring up there – Tisza – is financed from two places: Brussels and Kiev/Kyiv. They clearly want to set up a pro-Ukrainian government that will send Hungarians’ money to Brussels and Kiev/Kyiv. That’s the plan, whatever they say. The other day I saw a prominent Tisza expert say quite bluntly that on the one hand there’s deception of the masses, of the “peasants”, dumbing down and fairy tales; and then there’s reality. They’re working with two programmes: one aimed at Hungarians, and the other at Brussels. So we need to be prepared for this. Incidentally, I’m also surprised at this – even though I’m no stranger to the profession. This is when there was a trick, which I didn’t notice at the time, thinking it was just a slip of the tongue, but in fact it was a strategy: already a year ago Tisza had essentially said that they were going to lie. So they defend themselves against accusations of fraud and lying by saying at the outset that this is how it will be. They said that they wouldn’t reveal their true programme because that way they couldn’t win the election. And with that, they exonerated themselves from accusations of fraud and lying. I didn’t think this was possible, or that it was some kind of absurd drama. But no, this is reality! “We’ll announce that we’re going to cheat, so we can’t be held accountable for not telling the truth.” This is Tisza’s strategy.
Since you mentioned the reductions in household energy bills, let’s go back to that for a moment, because a decision has been made to ban Russian energy imports to the European Union. You said that in this event the reductions in household energy bills would be unsustainable, and you’ve challenged the decision in the EU court. At the same time, the EU Commissioner for Energy has said that this decision is 100 per cent in line with the law. It’s a bit like both sides are speeding headlong at each other, waiting to see who will be the first to turn their steering wheel. Who will be the first?
He who gains time gains life. We won’t turn the steering wheel, and we’ll defend the reductions in household energy bills. We had to defend them in America too. So the Americans also imposed sanctions on countries that were using Russian oil and natural gas; we had to defend ourselves against that. I didn’t turn the steering wheel, but I went to Washington and agreed with the American president that he should understand the Hungarian situation if what he said came true, and the general rule was also applied to Hungary, with no access to Russian oil and natural gas. Today Hungarian energy bills average around 250,000 forints – some people pay more, some less, but in Hungary it’s around 250,000 forints per year. Now, the same natural gas and electricity consumption in Slovakia is 650,000 forints, which is 400,000 more. In Romania it’s 600,000, in Poland 900,000, and in the Czech Republic it’s more than one million forints! So if we hadn’t been able to prevent the American rule from being enforced in Hungary, if we hadn’t been able to agree with the President on an exemption, today Hungarian families would be paying between five and six hundred thousand forints more. Therefore Tisza’s claim that it will wean Hungary off Russian natural gas and oil while maintaining the reductions in household energy bills is quite simply a lie. It’s not possible! Anyone who says this either doesn’t know what they’re talking about, or is deliberately misleading people. So I watch their energy expert, who was sent here by Shell: a large oil company. He obviously wants us to break away from Russian natural gas and oil, and he wants to see the abolition or reduction of the undoubtedly high taxes now imposed on oil companies and energy companies – through which I pay, through which the Government pays, for the reductions in household energy bills. He has an interest – and the big energy companies have an interest – in them being exempted from this extra tax, this tax on excess profits. But if this tax is removed, how will we pay for the reductions in household energy bills? Energy costs money – only now it’s not families footing the bill, but the big energy companies, the traders and producers, companies like Shell, from where the Tisza Party’s man has been jettisoned. They’re the ones paying the extra tax. And it’s from this tax that I can ease the burden on families. If there’s no Russian natural gas and no Russian oil, then that will be impossible. The big profits for companies come precisely from importing cheaper Russian oil and natural gas, from which they generate extra profit – most of which we’re taking away and giving to families as reductions in household energy bills. So anyone who claims that it’s possible to maintain reductions in household energy bills without Russian oil and natural gas is either not telling the truth – because they don’t know what the situation is, they’re not familiar with the situation – or they’re lying.
The ban on Russian energy would be aimed at supporting Ukraine in the Brusselite sense; but there’s also financial and military support, which NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte took to a new level in Kiev/Kyiv this week, when he said that if a peace agreement is reached, Western armed forces will immediately appear in Ukraine, and there will be aircraft in the air. What would this entail? How do you assess this statement?
When we talk about war and the danger that war poses to Hungary, we need to distinguish between two phases. There’s the current, immediate danger. Today the immediate danger is that Hungarian money is being taken to Ukraine. The next danger is that young Hungarians will be taken away to serve as soldiers, conscripted into the army. This is what they’re talking about in Europe: a European army, a joint European command. We probably won’t be the ones to provide this, or we wouldn’t provide it, so in that case someone else would have control over the deployment of young Hungarian conscripts. That is unacceptable! And in this second phase there’s a third or subsequent step, which is evident in the words of the NATO Secretary General. And it’s not only evident in the words of the NATO Secretary General, because there are written agreements between the French and the British, and there are German statements confirming this verbally, saying that they want to station soldiers on Ukrainian territory. I believe they call this a “security guarantee”. The Russians have responded to this, and continue to respond every day, saying that this mustn’t be done, because if Western soldiers enter Ukrainian territory, they’ll be military targets for the Russians – meaning that they’ll be shot at. This means that if we send soldiers to Ukraine without an agreement with the Russians, then European armies, European soldiers, will be fighting the Russians on Ukrainian territory. This kind of thing doesn’t usually turn out well; and it would also bring with it the danger that the front line would move closer, bringing the war closer to Hungary’s borders. So today what we primarily feel is the financial danger. But if the Western plan is implemented, the war could come closer to Hungary, we’d be much more directly affected, and the destructive effects of war – not only economic, but also physical – could reach Hungary. Therefore we must now make it clear from the outset that under no circumstances will we go to war with Russia – either on Russian territory or on Ukrainian territory. Hungary is only willing to participate in a defensive alliance.
Yes, but in this regard it’s very interesting that, as you’ve said, at the European People’s Party congress just a few days ago – almost at the same time as Rutte’s statement – there was also talk about them examining how to implement the passage in the EU Treaty stating that Member States shall provide assistance and support to one another if an EU country is attacked.
This is the problem with Ukraine’s EU membership. Here in Hungary what I’m trying to say – and there are some whom I’ve already convinced, but there are others whom I haven’t yet convinced – is that Ukraine’s membership of the European Union would mean that we’d be taking in a country that’s at war with Russia. And if one member of the Union is at war, the others will inevitably be drawn into that war. Ukraine’s membership of the European Union would mean immediate war with Russia; and even if there were peace at a particular moment in time, it would represent the constant risk of future war. We’re talking about a front line of 1,200 kilometres! Even if there’s peace, it’s impossible to know how long it will last; and so Ukraine’s admission would pose the direct threat of war to every European country. Of course people on the Atlantic coast are sitting back and asking for another coffee – they’re not too concerned, because they’re far away. But we’re here, we’ve been to Russia, we’ve been sent to war in Ukrainian territory belonging to Russia; we know the consequences, we know that if the Russians launched an attack from there, we’d be the first to suffer. We want to prevent that at all costs. This is why we want to talk our European friends out of this foolishness, the risky move of stationing soldiers in Ukraine without an agreement with the Russians; because that would mean war – first for Central Europe, and then for the whole of Europe.
Meanwhile, Hungarian–Ukrainian relations have further deteriorated, after another Hungarian citizen lost his life due to forced conscription. In response to this the Government has imposed entry bans on three Ukrainian leaders responsible for forced conscription. What can be done? Could this serve as a deterrent to forced conscription?
I don’t think it will cause much alarm among the Ukrainian military leadership, but it’s certainly an important signal. So Ukraine can’t hope that we’ll tolerate it and won’t say a word when they forcibly conscript, torture and capture people; when they catch Hungarians – even those who are unfit for military service, like the latest Hungarian victim – or kill them, beat them to death, like the previous Hungarian conscript. It’s true that Brussels is running cover for Kiev/Kyiv. So we initiated proceedings in Brussels, asking Brussels to speak out on this matter and indicate to the Ukrainians that under these circumstances they – we, Brussels, Europe – won’t support Ukraine. But Brussels has rejected this. So we can’t count on Brussels to protect Hungarians living in Ukraine, because Brussels will have no qualms about sacrificing Hungarians living in Ukraine in the Ukrainian–Russian war. They’re not interested in the fate of Hungarians. This is only important to us. This is why we must stand up, we must speak out, and we must make it clear to the Ukrainians that we’re watching, we’re recording all their crimes, and we shall take retaliatory measures: there will be consequences for such incidents. So they shouldn’t hope that they can continue with impunity. We must make this clear, and sooner or later we shall enforce it. The first step is that we’ve banned them from entering.
Everything we’ve talked about so far – the continuation of the war, the financing of Ukraine, the attacks against the reductions in household energy bills – can be rejected in the national petition. At the same time, the Secretary General of NATO, EU leaders, and the leaders of large Member States are saying that it’s vital to maintain support for Ukraine. How much weight is given to their words when compared with the voices of those who fill out and return the petition?
Well, Hungary isn’t undertaking – at least I’m not undertaking – to confront more than twenty European countries that are larger than us, or most of which are larger than us, defeat them in a debate, and enforce Hungary’s will. That’s beyond the bounds of what’s possible. Of course I’m working to ensure that the people of Europe rise up against the war and increasingly take the side of peace. This isn’t seen as a friendly gesture by pro-war governments – but that’s life. The only chance for Europe to escape war is if the people who want peace – and who are in the majority there, just as they are in Hungary – force their own governments to pursue a policy of peace instead of a policy of war. This is why we’re naturally organising ourselves at the European level with the party alliance called the Patriots. But no Hungarian voter can seriously believe that the Hungarian prime minister will be able to win a majority for a policy of peace over a policy of war in a debate in Brussels with the French, the Germans and God knows who else – including the Poles; in other words, in opposition to the big countries. That is unrealistic! Hungary’s size and strength don’t make such ambitions realistic. Therefore our only option is to stay out of it. What the Europeans are doing is bad. Since we can’t change it into something good, our ambition is to stay out of what is bad. It’s also very good if we’re not involved in what’s bad – I could say that. So my ambition – and I think Hungary should aim for this because it’s a realistic ambition – is to keep Hungary out of the war, not to take part in the steps that are bringing Europe closer to war every day, and not to allow Hungarian money to be taken to Kiev/Kyiv, to be taken to Ukraine. We must stay out of it! To do this, we must say no and accept conflict with Brussels. If you don’t accept conflict, you can’t stay out of it – they’ll grab you by the scruff of the neck and drag you in too. That’s why it’s not good to have a Brussels puppet government in Hungary; that’s why we need a national government, because only that can provide security for Hungary.
I’ve been asking Prime Minister Viktor Orbán about subjects including the recent pay rises and family allowances, forced conscription in Ukraine, and the importance of the national petition.