Interview with Viktor Orbán on the ATV programme “Mérleg – Rónai Egonnal” (“Balance – with Egon Rónai”)

Egon Rónai: Welcome, everyone. You’re watching a new edition of “Balance – with Egon Rónai.” Today’s guest is Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. It’s a pleasure to welcome you here.

Good evening.

It’s been fifteen years since you were last on ATV. That’s such a long time, and there are so many questions that haven’t been asked, that I won’t even try to tackle them all…

But I have been elsewhere.

…as this format is too limited for that. But here we’ve been waiting for you, and now that you’re here…

Thank you for inviting me.

…obviously, I’ll try to focus primarily on the present and ask questions related to that. I think that will be fine.

I’ll do my best on that score.

Let’s start with the trip to the US. 

Right.

You travelled with an unusually large delegation – as large as the ones Donald Trump, your host, usually travels with. He usually travels with a delegation of a hundred people…

More. 

…with journalists and staff members. But you flew with Wizz Air. Was this because of accusations of extravagant indulgence? Was it intended to show an example of not indulging in luxury?

No. There was no state-owned aircraft that I could have used. It was force of circumstance. There are rules: the rule is to use an aircraft used by the armed forces, if there’s one that’s technically suitable and available. If that’s not possible, then a substitute is used, which is what I do. And if you can’t substitute it with a rented plane, then you buy a ticket on a commercial flight.

How uncomfortable was the Wizz Air plane? I’m not saying that because it’s Wizz Air, but because it’s a low-cost airline, and you’re not used to that.

Okay, Wizz Air is a serious company. Well, I flew there with Wizz Air, flew back from Reykjavík to Manchester with easyJet, and then flew home with Ryanair, so the three low-cost airlines…

You maxed out on low-cost airlines.

Yes, I know everything about them. But the Wizz Air plane was good, and it was a new plane. Wizz Air is a serious Hungarian company, they were good to us. But this wasn’t a question of whether it was comfortable or not, because when there are so many people on a plane, you’re talking and working the whole time. So I concluded a number of matters with my ministers. You can’t get bored, it doesn’t matter what the plane is like, it’s rainproof, they give you food, you arrive. That’s enough.

There was a government meeting and a press conference all in one, and I guess a little rest on the way there. Wasn’t it strange that they weren’t waiting for you at the airport with the usual state protocol?

The US government is paralysed. So at the moment there isn’t one. They call it a shutdown.

Yes.

There’s no budget, and the Government is effectively at a standstill. So even their minor problems are more serious than who’s arriving where, because the police, the army, and quite a few disaster response units have to operate even when there’s no budget. So there’s a chaotic budgetary situation over there. 

So you knew in advance…

Of course.

…that there would be no red carpet, no big band, no military pomp.

I was rather expecting to be asked how they could get such a situation without a budget, since this year is the thirty-fifth budget I’ve seen – the thirty-sixth!

And always well in advance – but we can talk about that later. President Trump’s sanctions policy has completely rewritten the global political agenda. There have been a lot of negotiations recently that were obviously called at short notice. Did you know what was going on? So before you set off, when you were in discussion with Trump, either as a team or personally, did you know that you’d get an exemption from Trump? Or did you have to negotiate that there?

Nothing. He’s a businessman, the American president is a businessman – and not just any businessman. He doesn’t do things like agreeing in advance and then just going through the motions: he leaves everything open until the last minute and then closes it when, from his point of view, the moment has come to close it. I went there so that he’d close it when he thought it was good for him, but also good for us. That’s how you have to prepare.

Did everyone win?

The President’s been in office since January, but for various reasons I have a long-standing relationship with him. And, as you know, in such cases – especially for countries the size of Hungary, but also for larger countries – there’s a race to get things done as quickly as possible. I chose a different strategy. Since we’ve known each other for a very long time, this was our sixth meeting, I had no reason to rush. I told my colleagues that we’d go when a large, serious package of agreements was ready. Because in such negotiations there’s a lot of work to be done; and I said that all important Hungarian–American issues must be put on the table and concluded with an agreement, even if it takes a year. But it didn’t take a year, just eight or nine months. And, as you say, added to this was the sudden, recently introduced US sanction, which we had to steer our way out of. 

I asked if you knew in advance that the agreement on sanctions would be reached, because a week or a few days earlier, Trump had quite loudly told the press that were no concessions for Hungary.

Yes, I knew then that it would happen.

So you did know after all.

I figured it out. I didn’t know, I figured it out. When a businessman raises the stakes on something, you know he wants to make a deal, don’t you?

I thought we were talking about politics. Have you learned this, have you got used to it? Because this is a different way of thinking from the one politicians used to adopt.

There are different characters, so you can’t expect everyone to be the same. For me, he’s… Let’s count, how many presidents have I known? The first was Bush senior in 1989, whom I met here in Budapest. The second was Bill Clinton. Then came Bush junior, then Obama, and I talked with all of them. So then came President Obama, with whom I never held bilateral talks, but we did talk or meet at NATO summits. Next came Trump, and I met him, and then came Biden.

Not with him.

And then Trump again. And if you go through it…

But they’re different characters.

But each one is different. So, indeed, a “maverick” as the Americans say: President Trump is a one-off, in a category of his own. But the others were also very different personalities within their own categories. So you had to negotiate differently with a young, dynamic Bill Clinton than, say, with President Bush senior – a different story altogether. 

During the negotiations…

Excuse me – this simply means that politics is an empirical genre. You can come up with theories, which are important, and analyses, which are very important; but in reality, the only things that matter are the moments you’ve experienced – that’s the real knowledge, that’s what’s of value.

I was going to ask about something that’s related to that. When you go to negotiate with, say, a Trump-type figure, who’s a businessman, who doesn’t come from a classical political background, you can argue like this, for example: “I need this agreement because there will be elections in Hungary next year, and how would it look if I can’t reach an agreement?”

That’s how you should argue – not exactly like that, but that’s close. So that’s how you should start, but that’s not where you should end up. You need to know who you can be wily with, who you can be tactical with, who you can steer through negotiations so that you end up where you want to be. And you need to know that there are some people with whom there’s no chance of that, and wiliness is pointless – it’s better to state your intentions at the beginning. And that was the situation here. I told him, “Look, Mr. President, the situation is that if you do this, you’ll destroy Hungary. Me? Well, what happens in the election is a secondary issue – we’re talking about the Hungarian economy being brought to its knees. Look, this is a landlocked country, we have no access to the sea, we have pipelines, those two, and we have additional, smaller pipelines. How am I supposed to solve this? If you do this, the price of energy will triple in every Hungarian household, and a significant portion of Hungarian businesses will go bankrupt. That’s what’s at stake, that’s what we’re talking about.”

Did he believe you?

Well, that’s how it is. They’re people too.

Okay, but we’re not the only landlocked country. 

They have their papers and calculations, and if you say something that’s a bluff, they’ll catch you out, and you’ll be done for. It’s not worth bluffing with President Trump. I’m telling you, he’s a businessman, he sees through you in an instant, and he’s someone who doesn’t like to be cheated. So it’s not worth trying. To be honest, I had the numbers, so if there had been a dispute about whether or not that was the case, I’d have pulled out the three numbers. But he had those three numbers too, and he didn’t want to put himself in a position where I’d correct his numbers, and then… 

One only sits down at a table like that when one’s prepared. But there’s some confusion regarding the issue of exemption from sanctions.

Well…

Because you said that this agreement you made with Donald Trump is open-ended. The international press has been told – by White House sources on the one hand and the US State Department on the other – that this is a one-year agreement. This is effectively equivalent to the situation that awaits us in the European Union, where we’d also have to wean ourselves off Russian resources – either natural gas or crude oil – by the end of 2027. Is there actually a written record of what was agreed?

We shook hands. So how does this work? The President said he’d listened, he said he’d understood, and he’d give it to us. And we shook hands on it. This means that this will remain in place for as long as he’s President and I’m Prime Minister. If conditions change, it will have to be renegotiated.

In fact, Péter Magyar also says that if conditions change, he wants to renegotiate.

Best of luck with that! All I can say is that the American president is the President: he doesn’t run an institution, he’s not a bureaucrat. He says, “Okay, we understand, we agree, that’s how it will be, work it out.” So this must now be understood to mean that as long as he’s President there and I’m Prime Minister here this agreement – which is vitally important in terms of reducing utility costs in Hungary – will stand. If it’s for twenty years, then it’s for twenty years.

How much is this worth to us? Economists estimate that, based on these promises, over the next few years we’ll be spending trillions of forints in the United States.

Yes, but let me return to my original point. I didn’t offer anything in return. So I didn’t want to make a deal. I said to the President: “Mr. President, please understand. We are ten million Hungarians, and this is the situation.” 

Well, as a businessman, didn’t he say that it would help him to be understanding if they received certain orders from us?

He didn’t say that. He could have said it, but he didn’t; because in business it’s not just about interests – it’s also about trust, loyalty, long-term partnership. And he thought that’s why he wouldn’t ask for anything, and he didn’t. I wouldn’t have given anything anyway.

What we give…

I wouldn’t have given anything anyway.

Nothing?

Well, how?

Well, let’s say that people calculate – and obviously did calculate – how much damage it would do to the Hungarian economy if this wasn’t agreed. So, “I can sacrifice this much or a little less, and we’re fine.”

Yes, but…

It’s business, isn’t it? Business. 

I thought it would be impossible for such a situation to arise. I became friends with the President of the United States when he was at a low point – don’t forget that he’d lost the election. In fact, I supported him even before he won the first one. I was the only European who dared to say that it would be good for the world if the next leader of the United States were called President Trump, not Hillary Clinton. No one else said that! And when he lost the election, I called him first, not the new president – because we were friends. And I thought that if one finds oneself in a situation like this, through no fault of one’s own, because it wasn’t through our fault, with his decision putting a friendly country in an impossible situation, then he’d understand. I didn’t think he’d ask for something in return for reversal of the decision, but that he’d say, “I understand, you’re exempt from this, you won’t lose out on this.” I think that’s right. Of course, the proportions are very different, but I’d have done the same, if I may say so. 

The official briefing from the US State Department – I wrote this down myself – states that we’re purchasing power plants, power plant fuel, LNG and military equipment for a total of 7 trillion forints.

Within a range – that’s how it should be understood. So there’s no specific, fixed amount. There are areas where we’ve established cooperation, and this cooperation has financial implications; that’s how I’d calculate it. But what you’ve mentioned isn’t in this package – although in reality it is, because American investments are coming.

But the foreign ministry didn’t put that in writing. Obviously, the foreign ministry can’t put that in writing.

Which foreign ministry?

The American one.

I negotiated with President Trump.

I understand that, but the rest was written down by the Americans…

But it’s not sure that…

…but not that.

Yes, but I’m not sure you understand. I apologise, because this is something special, which isn’t so easy or natural to understand. It doesn’t matter what the US State Department writes. That’s what I’m trying to say. It’s a presidential system. The State Department or any other ministry carries out the technical implementation. The President says, “This is what I want, this is how it should be, find a way to do it.” This is why what’s important is what the President says, not what others put in writing.

Is that also how the Hungarian government works?

No. The Hungarian government doesn’t work like that at all, because we have a parliamentary system. So our system is different. Theirs is a presidential system – and not even a semi-presidential system…

Do you like it?

…like the French one.

Is that the solution?

Each country chooses for itself. In 2010, when we first won with a two-thirds majority, I had several very exciting discussions. I listened mainly to the elders – I mean the great elders, led by János Martonyi, for example. They said that there’s a two-thirds majority, and it was clear that the functioning of the state had to be made more efficient, and a lot of burdens had to be removed. It was also clear that we didn’t have a constitution, but a transitional constitution – as the old constitution was itself called transitional. People don’t want to live in a transitional state: they want to stand on solid ground, they want to know about values, they want to know about goals, about the goals of the state – and obviously these needed to be laid down. What’s more, we have a very strong cultural, national, Christian identity, so we needed to create a national, Christian constitution – that much was clear. But what about the system of power? We knew all this, I didn’t need to spend hours or days trying to find the right answers. But the other question was how to shape the power structure, what suits Hungarians and what doesn’t. I didn’t want…

Would you have liked a presidential system?

What I’m getting at is that that’s the question I asked. I said, “János, now there’s an opportunity: Should we move to some kind of presidential system, or a system of governors reminiscent of the Horthy era? Or, in today’s Europe, Romania, France, and now Türkiye, where there are all kinds of presidential systems? Should we go for that?” And the long, very exciting, rather intellectual, political–historical discussions ended with us agreeing that what suits us best is the parliamentary system. The question isn’t which system is better in theory, but what’s better here and now, with the cultural conditions we have and the knowledge we have. Because politics is also about knowing how to operate a very complex machine, and the structure of the machine is completely different if there’s a presidential system and completely different again in a parliamentary system. We decided not to touch it. And even though we’ve won two-thirds majorities again and again, when every time I asked whether their opinion had changed, they said “No, let’s stick with the parliamentary system.”

When was the last time?

Four years ago. I always ask this question. “We’ve got two-thirds, should we change the system of power?” Because politics is built on experience. You’ve governed for four years, then eight, then twelve. You know things. New questions always arise. And then we always re-examine everything. The Church always needs reform; this is the right approach in politics as well, and we have to look at that. The first very long discussion was when we decided to stay with the constitutional system and not push for a presidential system. And then, with the victories that followed, we always automatically said that this was fine, there was no need to change anything. But it’s always been on the table. I’d advise Hungarians never to consider these issues as definitively closed. The question is this: Here and now, with the history we have, with the knowledge we possess, and with the challenges we face, what’s best for Hungarians? This is the question we must ask. We must always ask this question.

Let’s go back to America for a moment. In terms of orders and deals, did our hosts have any expectations that, while they’re friends with us, we should buy, say, weapons or LNG from them?

That’s been around for a long time. There are always people like that, on everyone’s side – it’s just that the Americans are big. But wherever I go in Europe, there are always people like that too.

They’ll try to sell something, of course.

Of course! Oh, sorry – me too. Well okay, that’s fine, but…

What could we sell now?

We often sell water technology capacities, for example. We’re very good at that. The Hungarian economy isn’t competitive in everything, but there are areas in which we’re competitive. Or similarly, for some reason there wasn’t much public interest in it, but in recent years we’ve bought a gas field, for example. We don’t have our own, so let’s buy… 

In the Middle East.

In Central Asia, yes. And oil fields. So I think about a lot of things, about what Hungarians need. I look at that – where I want to sell, where I want to buy. I want to improve the position of the Hungarian economy. This is how everyone does it. This is also the case with the Americans now. There have been issues on the agenda for a very long time, and there are things we accept and things we don’t accept – because, you know, you should never buy something just because the other party wants to sell it. We’re in Budapest, where there’s a culture of trade, so people here know how it works.

But now it seems that natural gas had to be bought.

That’s why you always have to buy things in a way that’s good for you. So if you buy natural gas, you need to know what you’ll be getting – and also who you won’t be buying from. Because there’s a certain amount that we use. You buy from one supplier, you buy less from another. The point is that the one you do buy from should offer a price such that the supplier you’re giving up would have been more expensive – so that in the end you come out ahead. That’s how it should be done.

Is that how it is now?

Of course!

So we get it from the Russians at a higher price than if we’d got it from another terminal?

No, we don’t just buy from Russia: we buy from Qatar, Azerbaijan and Russia. Hungary has diversified its supply system. So we have smaller-scale pipeline systems in all directions, with the exception of Slovenia. There’s some kind of system or electricity system everywhere. Slovenia is the only problem, through which we can’t reach Italy ; there are always tough negotiations there. We’re at a more advanced stage as far as electricity is concerned, but I’ve never been able to reach an agreement with them on gas. They have their own points of view, and we have to accept that. If you remember, a few years ago they even held a referendum against us on certain issues. You don’t remember. 

Are you negotiating these, or is MOL?

It depends, because we have two options. Budapest has to be a sharp cookie, we have to be smart. When do we push ourselves forward? We have MVM, which is a 100 per cent state-owned company. Sometimes we push them forward. There are times when I see that they only want to see private companies, and in such cases we need MOL. We have to say to MOL, “Here’s an opportunity: are you interested or not? If you’re interested, get started – I’ll open the door, go ahead.”

Okay, we haven’t been getting along with the Slovenians, but there’s this American connection.

But back to gas.

Is it cheaper this way?

Yes. First of all, it’s not that much. We’re buying for five years, I think, 400 million cubic metres per year – in one year, not for five years – so that’s 2 billion in total: we bought 2 billion over five years. But for five years our total need is 45 billion. That’s how you have to calculate it.

A few years ago we heard from Péter Szijjártó that in terms of nuclear technology the American solution is no better than the Russian one – and moreover, it isn’t compatible with the system. Now we have an American agreement. Have they changed, or has our position on this issue changed?

When we talk about nuclear energy we’re talking about two different things. They have one technology that’s better than ours. That’s the storage of spent nuclear fuel, which is the second most important issue in the entire nuclear energy business – or perhaps even the most important, as it’s a matter of perspective. So we use up the…

In environmental terms, it’s certainly the most important thing: something must be done about it.

Yes, but in environmental terms it’s also important that nuclear energy is less polluting than fossil fuels – and in the end, everything becomes an environmental issue. Anyway, these are complicated issues, but what I want to say is that the technology used by the Americans to safely store spent fuel elements that still have ongoing isotopic decay or radiation is better than what we have now. So we bought better technology there. You can never achieve 100 per cent perfection, but the guiding star or guiding principle I follow is that we need the best of everything. If we’re going to buy something, let’s buy the best. You can’t always do that, and I could give you examples of that; but if possible, buy the best technology. That’s how it is. Fuel is different. That’s another thing – excuse me – the storage of spent fuel. And another agreement is that we’ll also buy American fuel. There are two questions here. The first is that it’s better to have a nuclear power plant that can accommodate multiple types of fuel. Right now we have Russian and French technology, which is better than it used to be, and now American technology is coming in. For many years I’ve been asking the power companies to give me a straight answer as to what other fuel can be used in a nuclear power plant built with Russian technology without posing a safety risk. This is because politics is an empirical discipline, and elsewhere I’ve seen instances where something else was put into a Russian-type nuclear power plant, and a malfunction occurred. This issue has been under investigation for many years. Even before the American trip, I asked them where they stood on this issue. They said that what Westinghouse is currently offering is fine, and that we can use it. So, Russian, French, American – that’s where we stand.

With this clear support from Donald Trump for next year’s election, it’s obvious – from what he said, how he welcomed you, how he sat next to you, how he spoke about you, and how you talked – that this is quite a conspicuous situation. But something else is also conspicuous – it’s as if Hungarian politics is beginning to change.

Let’s pause here for a moment, if you don’t mind.

Of course!

Because the election is an important issue, but there’s life before and after the election, so let’s not confuse the order of importance. The question in US–Hungarian relations isn’t whether the US president supports me, and what effect this might have on the elections, but what’s good for the Hungarian people. What’s good for Hungarians is for America – which is still the world’s strongest power – to maintain good relations with Hungary: friendly relations – and, if possible, deep friendly relations. This is good for Hungarians. This is what’s important; the election only comes after that. 

How personal is this friendship?

Always, in America, it always is.

The other half of the question is that in recent years you’ve been subjected to a lot of attacks – and Hungarian policy has been subjected to a lot of attacks – because of what appeared to be full spectrum exposure to Russia: from political relations to economic relations. And in this context I’m primarily thinking of energy relations. And now it seems as if something’s changing. With the American connection, these agreements, the French agreement, it’s as if the great ship of Hungarian policy has started to turn.

No, no.

No?

That’s not my method – I don’t like that kind of thing. For that there’s a helmsman, or whatever – that’s why someone sits atop the mast, to see what’s going to happen.

Well, okay, but if he shouts, then the captain will turn.

Yes, yes, but we’re not rushing. A problem is something that the person sitting in the crow’s nest sees too late. You have to put someone up there who isn’t short-sighted, so they can see clearly. The reason someone sits up there is so that they can say, “Lads, in three years, four years, ten or fifteen years, things will be different.” So right now there’s no jumping around, and we’re not jerking the ship’s wheel back and forth: we’re moving calmly. If there’s a change of course, we won’t take sharp turns, we won’t take any hairpin bends – we’ll move smoothly and calmly. 

But are we changing direction now?

We’ve been given an opportunity. What would I have done with President Biden? Imagine that! What could I have achieved with him?

I don’t know, maybe a business offer would have worked with him too. 

Is that how you remember him?

I wasn’t able to test that – and in the end, you weren’t either.

There are situations or opportunities, what we in the trade call “open windows”: a moment when something opens up, and you have to try to seize it. Here and now a window has opened, it’s an opportunity, and opportunities must be seized. Now, I’d be more cautious talking about exposure than perhaps your phrasing suggests. Because first of all, we have no political exposure to Russia – we have historical exposure. That’s not the same thing. Here we are: we’re here, Moscow is there, Berlin is there, Istanbul is there. We could call that exposure, but I’d rather call it a historical given. But the Russians aren’t able to influence Hungarian policy decisions. The Hungarian government’s policy decisions are made exclusively by us, based on Hungarian considerations. What we take into account…

Was there ever a time when…

No.

…they tried to exert influence?

No. The current president?

Yes.

No. Look, I sat down with him in 2009… I don’t know, is our story interesting here?

Extremely interesting! You’re accused of having made a deal with Putin in 2009.

Yes, that’s true – but it’s not an accusation, it’s an acknowledgment.

And, you know, you’ve heard it a thousand times, you’ve heard it yourself: “Putin must know something that made you agree to everything.” 

Why not the other way around? Maybe I know something about him! But let’s leave that aside for now.

Yes.

What nonsense!

It’s unlikely.

Okay, but as an aside, I consider it more of an inferiority complex. So up until 2008 I thought it made sense for the Western world to push eastward and stabilise as many countries as possible. That’s what happened with us. After all, the collapse of socialism means nothing more than that the Western world and its alliance system – the European Union and NATO – moving eastward. We’d also been a buffer zone, just like the Ukrainians are now. In 1990, the Russians left.

Of course.

We left the Warsaw Pact, we weren’t in NATO: this is what they call a buffer zone. Thanks to several heads of government, we managed to get ourselves out of this situation, seize the moment offered by history, and stabilise Hungary. And we joined the EU and NATO. Up until 2008, I thought that in a geographical sense this process could continue. But between 1990 and 2008 the Ukrainians were unable to strengthen themselves sufficiently, and we didn’t see the emergence of Western unity over such “Westernisation” of Ukraine. I don’t know if you remember, but it was in 2008, rather than 2007, when the NATO summit was held in Bucharest, where Ukraine was on the table… 

Its accession…

It’s accession to NATO.

Yes. 

It’s accession to NATO. The United States supported it, but the Europeans didn’t. The Europeans didn’t. And then I understood that it was over: the Europeans didn’t support it because they felt that Russia was already too strong – if we’d done that, it would have led to conflict. And from that point on, I understood that Western expansion towards the East was over. And the Russians have grown stronger, they’re here to stay, they’ll be here, they’ll be a world power, and we have to reckon with that – whether we like it or not.

Was that the basis for the 2009 agreement?

That’s why I went there in 2009. In Russia, too, it’s worth being straightforward. In presidential systems – as opposed to parliamentary ones, where there’s more room for scheming – it’s better to talk straight, especially when you’re the size we are. So I went there in 2009 and sat down with the President. And I said that I was going to win the election. Please excuse the presumptuousness, but in 2009 it didn’t seem like such a risk…

It was obvious, of course…

Yes. I said, “It looks as if from 2010 I’ll be leading the Hungarian government, and you’ll be the Russian president. That’s the situation, and I see what’s going on: this expansion is over. And if there’s an idea of how we can work together – and I have one – I’d like to ask how, and let’s try to agree on that.” And then we agreed on the framework for cooperation. For example, we wouldn’t bring up historical issues: everyone would be able to think what they want about them, and the historians would decide. So I didn’t want to discuss 1956 with him, for example, because that would lead nowhere. Two: there would be a direct line of communication. So we’d have a relationship in which, if there was a very important matter and we needed to talk directly, we could do so.

Is that still the case today?

This is still the case today. The third thing is that we’d meet once a year. So the relationship should be transparent. So once a year there should be a summit meeting at the highest level – either in Russia or in Budapest. We proceeded in that way until the sanctions came into force. That was every year. Every year we’d review what was going on, who had what problems – there are always problems, especially with the Russians – and we’d resolve them at the highest level. Our colleagues would work on them for a year, and then we’d come back. So I created a transparent system. I had a clear picture in my mind of the role Russia currently played and the role it would play over the next fifteen to twenty years in the history of Europe and the history of Hungary. And I wanted to make the most of this, of this state of affairs. 

Back to America: the defensive shield.

So I wanted to clarify the word “exposure”.

I understand, I understand, and I think it’s clear. This defensive shield thing is still a little vague. Everyone here is trying to explain it, even though you’re the one who agreed it.

The easiest thing is for you to ask me.

That’s right! So how much is it, what are the terms and conditions, and when can we draw on it? When do we have to draw on it?

We don’t have to draw on it. We can draw on it whenever we want, in whatever form we want.

What does the “form” mean?

There are several international forms. I can mention terms such as “swap line” and “flexible credit line”, among others. There are instruments that national banks use among themselves to stabilise a given currency. There are instruments that are used not by national banks, but by governments. The American system is like this. The Government also has such a system. I’ve reached an agreement with the President – and we’ve also shaken hands on it – that if Hungary has any financial difficulties, then we can draw on and use whichever of the four or five instruments that are currently internationally recognised – which are transparent, visible and well-known – is the most suitable at that time. This, of course, will be after I’ve discussed it with him again. But I have an agreement which means that Hungary won’t find itself in a financial situation that causes difficulties for the Hungarian economy. In such a case, the United States, and its President, will be behind us and will help us.

Is there a limit on the amount? 

No, but it doesn’t take much imagination to figure out that the amount we need for stability – 10–20 billion dollars or euros – isn’t a significant amount from America’s perspective. The Argentinians, who are struggling with a serious currency crisis, used a 20-billion instrument, not related to the National Bank, but to the Government. Our currency is stable and we don’t need that type of tool, but it’s available, for example. But the fact is that we’ve now instructed our colleagues to work out which instruments seem to be the best when necessary, and when to use them. So there’s such a process underway…

But are we in such serious economic trouble?

Always. Hungary always is.

Well, that’s how it’s been for as long as I can remember…

Even before that.

…probably. But is the problem that big now?

Hungary has been in trouble ever since the First World War. Anyone who doesn’t know this isn’t familiar with Hungarian history. Due to its size and unique geographical location, Hungary has always struggled with difficulties, and is viewed as a target by many around the world. We always have friends and we always have opponents. And in the modern world, these struggles are also fought with financial means. Since the end of historical Hungary and the beginning of life in “Lesser Hungary”, our country has always struggled with financial problems. If we go back to the Bethlen government between the two world wars, its greatest achievement was financial stability. But we can also recall the mixed legacy of the talent that was János Fekete – who, when there was a problem, certainly had to use these networks of relations. Hungary is a country that I’d like to turn into a creditor. That’s one of my dreams – perhaps one level lower, so it’s part of my strategic plans that…

There have been instances when our lending to African countries caused problems. 

Yes, yes, but you need to look at the big picture. So I’d like our country to be one that lends money to others, rather than borrowing from others. But we’re still a long way from that.

If I understand correctly, this won’t happen now.

You’re right, but I’m working on it.

But does this agreement aim to create a reserve that can be drawn on when the budget’s in trouble?

No, there’s no such connection. I repeat, since the end of the First World War, Hungary has…

I understand that.

…always needed some kind of financial defensive shield. Sometimes we’ve managed to create one, sometimes we haven’t. Now we’ve succeeded.

Wouldn’t European Union funds serve this purpose?

European funds could serve this purpose, although they’re not like this. The Central Bank is separate from the European Union. So when the currency needs to be stabilised, it’s not the EU or Brussels that needs to do it, but Frankfurt. We have all kinds of cooperation agreements. If someone were to write an account of Hungary’s modern financial history, they’d see that relations between the European Central Bank in Frankfurt and the Hungarian central bank have seen better times, and they’ve seen more difficult times. So it’s better to deal with it there. But overall, today we can’t count on Brussels, because Brussels views Hungary with hostility, and doesn’t want to support us. 

Hungary or your government? It matters. How do you see it?

Well, right now the two coincide. 

But not entirely.

Yes, entirely.

There’s a country, and there’s a government; they’re not the same thing.

Yes, but in Brussels I represent the country. So that’s how it is – whether you like it or not, whether at home or there. Today no one except me can represent Hungary’s interests.

But how is it phrased? “We’re not giving anything to the Hungarians”, or “We’re not giving anything to Viktor Orbán?

No, that’s what I’m trying to say. Right now, it means the same thing. So that’s the situation today, isn’t it?

Well, not entirely.

Let’s go over it again. If they won’t give, they won’t give.

That’s how it is.

Doesn’t it matter what they refer to? They’re not giving.

If you look at it that way, you’re right.

But I have to remedy this situation. Now, at the moment it’s secondary that they don’t like the colour of my eyes, or that the Hungarians said “no” to migration in the referendum. The fact is that Brussels now sees us – our country, our government, my government – as an obstacle to achieving its goals.

Is this offset by the Trump-style agreement?

Yes. In the sense that Hungary’s financial exposure is made worse by its negative relationship with Brussels, but it’s improved by its good relationship with the United States. It offsets it. 

One last question about the United States, then I’ll drop the subject, as there are plenty of other things to talk about.

No, this is exciting, I’d love to…

Will President Trump come to Budapest, regardless of whether the Trump–Putin meeting in Budapest takes place?

With the condition you’ve just mentioned, I can’t answer yes. What I can say is that the Russian–American summit in Budapest is on the agenda: a major peace conference in Budapest, which has been delayed. But the Hungarian language is a good language: “What’s delayed is on its way.” It won’t be when we want it, but a little later – but it’s not impossible, let’s put it that way. So the American–Russian agreement hasn’t become impossible: the negotiating delegations are talking, we’re also involved to a certain extent, we know certain things, and matters are moving forward; we also know where it got stuck, and we also know what needs to be changed. In my relations with the Russians, I’m also trying to be helpful in bringing about an agreement. So I haven’t given up on the peace mission. It’s not the most important thing right now…

Where did it get stuck?

It got stuck on the issue of territory. It wasn’t always like that, but now it’s stuck on the issue of territory.

What are the Russians asking for, and what are the Ukrainians conceding?

Twenty-two per cent of the Donetsk Oblast isn’t yet under Russian occupation. The Russians wrote it into their constitution, after the unfortunate failed agreement in Istanbul in April 2022, when they were close… So in April 2022, a Russo–Ukrainian agreement was on the table, and I saw the documents…

Yes, in hindsight, everyone says that was the chance.

I saw the documents. I saw them, but it doesn’t matter what I saw – the point now is that we were close then, and it was destroyed. It was the Anglo-Saxons who destroyed it, not the Ukrainians. They smashed it, and the Russians responded by saying, “Okay, then we won’t occupy two provinces, but four.” Because up to that point they’d only been talking about two: Luhansk and Donetsk. At that point, they decided on two more. And they wrote this into their constitution. And the Russians don’t want to make peace until they’ve occupied those territories, because they think that time is on their side and they’re winning. I’m trying to give them perspectives on how victory can be interpreted differently. So, you see, there are differences in weight here, and the logic of a country at war is always different from the logic of an outside country that wants peace. So this war isn’t on paper, and these aren’t paper tigers. These are two very strong armies that are inflicting serious wounds on each other every day. Every day this can mean hundreds – sometimes thousands – of widows, orphans, and parents burying their sons. So these are terrible things. And on top of this, these are two Slavic countries. Slavs are famously good soldiers, and when they have to fight they can be quite cruel – or, to put it more positively, they’re determined. So this is a bloody, very serious, very painful war, which also has a lot of civilisational implications – which, I regret, we never take into account. Because, after all, Christians are killing one another in Eastern Europe, in Europe; meanwhile we live with the fear of Islamisation. So, on a strategic level, there’s no coordination whatsoever. If there’s something that’s not good and I want to oppose it, why would I weaken my best tool for doing so? Why would I kill Christians, or why would I let Christians kill one another? What I mean is that, from a European perspective, the whole war is not only disorganised financially and tactically, but also in terms of Europe’s strategic future. Let’s start from the position that it’s not in our interest for any Christian, or anyone else for that matter, to die in war – but especially not that any Christian should die on a continent that’s struggling with a shortage of Christians.

Péter Szijjártó has said that he’s discussed peace with President Trump and that Hungary has a plan for how this could be achieved. Dmitry Peskov, the Russian president’s press secretary, responded by saying that the Kremlin isn’t familiar with your peace plan.

Yes, they don’t need to know about it officially. Hungary shouldn’t claim, seek to obtain, or demand the position that peace will come about as a result of its proposal.

Are we too small for that?

Yes, essentially – it’s weight that counts. 

Yes, of course, that’s clear.

We’re fine there, everything’s in order in the control tower, we’re competitive up there in terms of smarts.

Surely the Hungarians aren’t the ones telling them…

But power is weight. Know your place.

But then what chance do we have of moving this issue forward?

We sit down with the American president and talk about how we see the situation. He asks questions, we answer. We raise issues with the necessary tactical sensitivity – so no smart-aleck remarks. And it’s the same in Russia. When I negotiate or talk with President Putin, I raise points. I listen to him. I ask questions rather than talk.

Have you already told Putin what Trump just said? Was there such a message on this occasion?

I don’t have that authority – and even if I did, I couldn’t say. We’ll see.

I see. Do you have a Trump cap autographed by him?

What, me? Since 2015.

When I saw that picture I thought, isn’t it embarrassing – a bit toe-curling, as they say – to stand there waiting for the President to autograph a cap for him?

No.

Another leader standing there – please!

No. Look again. The question is not whether you stand there, but how you stand. And our standing is good.

Our standing is good? 

[János] Lázár and I are standing well.

A Hungarian space station has been announced, which is funny in its own way, because it’s not a Hungarian space station: we’re just going to be part of the Voyager company’s programme, and we’re contributing money, technology and brains.

Wait, wait. What are we talking about now?

About the fact that it was announced that there will be a Hungarian space station, but there won’t be: the contract was signed with Voyager, a private company.

Wait. Let’s not get confused.

Let’s not.

Are we talking about a satellite?

No, the Earth station.

That’s different, okay, that’s different. Because it should be a Hungarian satellite. Sorry.

We also signed up for that. I think there was some news about it in the last few days.

First of all, we have the right – so let’s start from the premise that we have the right. In the modern world, not only is the Earth divided up, but so is the sky, and there’s a designation as to which country has the right to put its own satellite into orbit in which region of the sky, in which region of space. There are low-orbit satellites and high-orbit satellites.

How simple it would be to say that what’s above us is ours.

Yes, you should enter the political arena.

That’s all we need! 

That would indeed be the solution. We’re not far from that anyway, because there are many irrational things in politics. But not everything’s nonsense, and we have a satellite in a very good position, satellite rights. But satellites – these Strato satellites – cost a lot of money, and previous governments were unable to take advantage of this opportunity. This is why we basically signed a foreign agreement with the Israelis, and in the end we used their money and technology on our own terms. I’d like to change that. I’m happy to work with everyone, but on our own terms and with our own capital. If we had more time, I’d also say that, to my mind, the most important thing is sovereignty – and in the future data sovereignty will become one of the most important elements of sovereignty. Therefore Hungary must be a data-sovereign country. To achieve this, we need to own not only data storage and organisation systems, but also data collection systems – which is why we need our own satellite. Hungarian companies discussed how we’re going to create this, because we don’t have the technology. It’s like the old cigarette joke in the Soviet Union, or the Soviet system.

I don’t know that one. How did it go?

“Have you got a cig?” “No.” “Got a light?” “No.” “What have you got for smoking?” “Just my mouth!”

Yes.

We have the right, but our technology…

But we don’t have anything else. Is that how it will be?

Now we have the money and we’ll have the technology, yes. We only had to negotiate so that when we build the satellite on an American basis, using American technology, we’ll be able to manufacture as many components as possible ourselves. But that’s a job for the experts. And we want to be part of this. This is why space isn’t as absurdly far from reality as it seems from your question: “A small country, how can this happen?” No! We have rights, and we have opportunities to use them. 

We’re exercising them. Márton Nagy’s announcement today, at noon on 11 November, is that next year’s budget deficit will be 5 per cent, and that the Hungarian government will raise the bank tax by 185 billion. This shows that the Government is facing significant financial difficulties.

Let’s look at this. If we choose what you’re now recommending as the measure of these difficulties, the budget deficit, which ultimately is what you’ve said.

That’s what we’re talking about now, for example. But there are other figures too.

That’s right. So the picture is complex, but the situation with the budget deficit is that in 2024 the deficit was 5 per cent, in 2025 it will be 5 per cent, we’re now in November, and in 2026 it will also be 5 per cent. I wanted to bring it down to 3.7 percent, I can’t, we can’t, so it will be 5 per cent, but – just to be clear – it won’t go up.

It will go up compared to the plans.

Yes, but the reality we live in is that in 2024 it was 5, in 2025 it was 5, and 2026 it will be 5. And I must also say that until the war is over… We can’t establish peace, it’s very difficult for us to do so, and this has now undermined my intention: I wanted to get it down to 3.7. If, say, the war had ended in July and there had been peace, then maybe we could have done it. But now I can see that it won’t happen…

You always say that about growth too. What was it? Last time you were hoping for 3.4 per cent. Now we’ll be happy if we get 0.6 this year.

Yes. That’s how you have to calculate it…

Is that because of the war too?

Of course. Rule of thumb. The rule of thumb, which we’ve learned over the past three years, is that if there’s no war, our growth is about three times higher. But this isn’t a Hungarian rule of thumb, it’s a European rule of thumb – or perhaps I could say, with slight exaggeration, a German rule of thumb. So countries that are closely linked to the German economic area – including Germany itself and Austria – are following this path. This is why it’s in our fundamental interest to end the war. A 1 per cent increase can generate approximately 400 billion forints for the budget. I could also say that this is how much we’re losing due to the war. So if there were no war and our growth was 3 per cent instead of 1 per cent, we’d have an extra 800 billion forints – but we don’t have that now.

Let me ask you a question, because I forgot to ask it just now.

I’m sorry, but…

Yes.

If you’ll allow me, back to the deficit. The deficit isn’t an end in itself. We could have a 3.7 percent deficit.

What aren’t we spending on? That’s the question in such situations. 

Yes. That’s how you ask it, but to my mind, it’s about what we give up. After all, I’m in a system of accountability: you run for election, you make a commitment, and if all goes well, people accept it, and you have to make good on it. And in 2022 I made quite a few commitments, and I don’t want to renege on any of them. This is despite the war, the fact that we couldn’t make peace, the bad sanctions, and Brussels messing the whole thing up. There’s a separate conversation to be had, incidentally, about how so many smart people could have made so many bad decisions, messed up, bungled it, leaving us to pay the price. But I don’t want to give up on any of my goals. I have to accept that it’s not easy for a stubborn Calvinist like me, it’s not that simple…

Stubborn?

Yes, yes – but I have to accept that we can’t achieve everything at the pace we’d like to. But I’m not willing to give up on any of my goals. I’m willing to reschedule, to slow down, but not to give up. And now we’ve reached the dilemma that with a 3.7 per cent deficit I’d have had to give up on one goal or another. Since we’ve already announced many things and there are still some things ahead of us, the goals that are most at risk are those that we haven’t announced yet – but I want to achieve them because I committed to them in 2010, and I have a duty to deliver. 

 What are the directions that haven’t been announced yet?

Ever more forms of support for small and medium-sized enterprises.

This will happen before the election – or, I think, on January 1.

Next week I’m going to sign an agreement, and I hope that if we can negotiate it, we’ll agree with the Chamber of Commerce and Industry [MKIK] on a 70–80-billion-forint tax reduction package for small businesses. That money has to be collected from somewhere.

Which taxes will be affected?

There’s a list on this, which the Chamber requested, and then we negotiated it with them. We’ve already agreed with the Chamber, but next year it will be really expensive to reduce the interest rate on the Széchenyi Card. This means we’ll be giving more interest support.

That’s 300…

Yes, and that’s 300 billion forints. We’re not talking about child’s play here. Then we have a “1+1” programme, which means that if a Hungarian small or medium-sized enterprise submits a development plan and is willing to put in one forint, then we’ll add another one to it as part of the Sándor Demján Programme. This is the old Széchenyi Plan, if you remember it…

Yes.

The one from 2002. This will cost 130 billion forints. So the agreement with the MKIK is 70, the Demján Programme is 130 and 300, which will be covered by the lower interest rate of the Széchenyi Card. And I have to get all this from somewhere – I don’t want to abandon it, so the price for this is that the deficit will be 5 instead of 3.7.

It occurred to me that I didn’t ask what would happen with Trump’s visit, because you said that if there’s a summit in Budapest... 

Yes.

…between the two presidents, then that’s clear. And otherwise?

That’s why I told you I couldn’t answer that.

Have you invited him?

There’s a standing invitation. I invited him a long time ago. When he first became President, I said to him, “Mr. President, your wife is Slovenian. Slovenia is Hungary’s neighbour…”

“Come visit the family.”

“…come home.” That’s exactly what I said. I know his wife.

“Okay, thank you very much…”

I also know his wife’s father.

From where?

On one occasion, when I was negotiating with the President, there was a dinner at Mar-a-Lago afterwards, and his wife and her father were sitting there, and that’s how I met her father. He’s a typical Central European – he could easily sit here and talk with us. He’s Slovenian, a fine Slovenian.

Back to the economy. There are some truly appalling figures here. The Central Statistical Office has revised the poverty figures. I assume you’ve seen them.

No, I haven’t. 

They indicate that in 2024, around 19.4–20.2 per cent of the population was affected by poverty or social exclusion. And there’s another data point, which is related to child poverty. It was adjusted from the 9.5 per cent that you and the public were previously told, to the reality that is 20.9 per cent. One in five children lives in extreme poverty, or is affected by poverty.

Threatened. Threatened.

Yes. Threatened or living in it.

There’s a difference.

Well, but…

They’re exposed to the risk.

This is a lot of people.

Of course, but how do we look at it? Of course it’s a lot – even one is a lot.

That’s right. But this is also a strikingly bad figure in European Union terms.

No, that’s not true.

Yes, it is.

No.

Regarding the latter, even the Hungarian Central Statistical Office says that it’s serious. 

Let’s come back to this in the next interview.

Let’s do that.

I always look at data from two perspectives, because data alone doesn’t explain itself. The first thing is where we started from and where we are now. Are we improving or deteriorating? I think the situation isn’t good, but it’s better than it was. The other is where this data fits into our cultural sphere – say, the European Union. I always look at these two things. And if they’re okay, then I can say that we’re on the right track – we haven’t reached our goal, we have a lot of work to do, but we’re on the right track.

Do you feel that this is the right track?

In terms of poverty, absolutely, of course!

Because here they tend to say that the ones in trouble are those who don’t receive family support through various channels.

But I don’t think there are any children in Hungary who don’t receive family support. There aren’t any!

Then how can there be so many poor children?

That’s why I say I’m really happy to prepare, and next time we can come back to this, to look at those figures. Because right now you’re talking about statistical data.

Of course, of course.

A single figure.

It was published a week ago by the Central Statistical Office.

Yes. It’s called a breakdown. Let’s take a look at it, and I’d be happy to discuss it with you. Let’s take a look at the breakdowns, see what it looks like, where it is geographically, where it is ethnically, whether we’re talking about Roma children or Hungarian children, from Budapest or the countryside, from the east or…

Well, Roma children are Hungarian children too. 

Yes, yes, but they’re still a specific group, so there’s a difference. When you identify a problem, it’s very important to understand its underlying causes or underlying structure. There’s a specific course of action if an average number is bad, but then it turns out that there’s a huge regional variation: in that case you don’t have to intervene where things are going well, but where they’re going badly. And there’s no point in being shy about it: in terms of poverty, Roma children are obviously more affected than non-Roma Hungarians.

That’s true.

So they’re both Hungarian, which is why we’re talking about them – because otherwise what business of ours would they be? We’re talking about them because they’re us. Let’s start from there. But the medicine must be taken to where the illness is, not where everyone is healthy. So, we need to look at the breakdowns.

Okay, let’s look at that next time.

This isn’t to relativise the problem – I don’t agree with doing that.

This is also a promise that we won’t have to wait fifteen years for your next visit.

We haven’t reached the end of the interview yet – let’s wait for that.

All right. Pensions. The average old-age pension is currently 243,000 forints, which isn’t enough.

Is that right?

The average pension? Of course it is! The Hungarian Central Statistical Office.

Yes, but…

This pension amounts to 53–55 per cent of the average wage.

Yes, but wait a moment. With pensions too, you see, it’s not pensions, but pensioners. 

 Well, but the amount of the pension…

Yes, yes.

Obviously, it goes to the pensioner.

Yes, but with an average, what matters is how it’s composed – how many higher amounts and how many lower ones there are.

Then let’s look at the median pension, because this median pension is a better number, but in fact a worse number…

Mathematically worse.

…because it’s 214,000 forints.

That’s right.

That’s very little. From Márton Nagy we know that the first weekly payment of the fourteenth month’s pension – which was also announced today – will come next year. Is it already known when that will be? It will be on 13 February, won’t it?

Let’s go back to the starting point, and then I’ll answer, if you don’t mind.

Okay.

So, when it comes to pensions, what was the biggest blow to pensioners until our government took office, until the national government took office? Let’s call our government that for now, and let’s not start arguing about the fact that the other one was also Hungarian and national.

I didn’t even say anything.

We have to somehow call things by their names.

Did you see it in my face? 

Yes, yes. We have to call things by their names. And “national, Christian” is long, so for the sake of simplicity let’s call it “national” governance. So since national governance has been in place in Hungary, I’ve learned that the greatest fear – obviously stemming from the previous period – is that pensions will lose their value. This is why in 2010 I made an agreement with pensioners – not with the pension system, but with pensioners – that no pensioner would lose the value of their pension. And, when the economy allows, we’ll not only preserve the value of pensions, but we’ll also increase them.

But pensioners have seen their pensions lose value.

No, that’s not true. Every…

Well, if we measure it against wages…

…not a single…

Prime Minister, we have to, because that’s how everything’s priced.

That’s not true. It’s not wages that we have to measure it against, but prices – and the fact is that pensions haven’t lost their value. There’s not a single pensioner in Hungary whose pension is worth less today, who can afford less than they could in 2010 – I can assure you of that. There are only pensioners in Hungary who can afford more or the same. And for me this is a personal commitment, which is why I’m fighting with you here now, because it was my personal commitment in 2010. I have an alliance with pensioners. We gave back the thirteenth month’s pension – it wasn’t there in 2010, because they’d taken it away.

That’s right.

Now we’ve managed to pay that back. Please add that to the calculation. And now the fourteenth month’s pension is coming. Look, it would be best to pay it all at once – but, as you can see, we’ve just been talking about the budget situation, and that’s not realistic. How did we do it with the thirteenth month? When the economy was strong enough, we started by paying it back, one week at a time. We paid back the first one, the first week. I think that now as well this is to be expected: pensioners will receive the first week’s portion, instalment, or part of the fourteenth month’s pension. 

Is it clear when that will happen?

There’s an order to this. When it comes to the pension system I’m usually one of the most cautious people. You can’t imagine it! You can’t imagine the complexity of the Hungarian pension system! So if we had to lay out a piece of paper now on which we’d calculate who gets what and when, this table wouldn’t be big enough for the paper. I don’t know whether this is a strength or a weakness of the pension system, but that’s the situation.

Well, when something’s opaque it’s…

It’s suspicious.

…not much of a virtue.

All right. But that’s how it looks now. Because, you see, pensions in Hungary are calculated based on how much you’ve worked, how much you’ve paid in contributions during your working life: how many years you’ve worked, and how much you’ve paid in contributions. And they combine all of this, and then they take different years into account with different multipliers. So if you want to get to the bottom of it you need a lot of determination. But I’ve done this several times. We’re talking about two and a half million people, so it’s not child’s play – you have to dig deep, again and again. And that’s why I’m telling you that there’s a system, the pension system, and you can do good things in the pension system, but the most dangerous thing is to disrupt its logic – and as an expert, as an expert in government, I can say that I’ve never seen anything more dangerous. If you turn one dial here, you do something good, but somewhere else another dial moves automatically, and that’s where it goes wrong. So you have to think things through very carefully. Therefore, to answer your question, I think the fourteenth month’s pension should be paid in the same way as the thirteenth, and it should be based on this system. Provided the Minister for National Economy doesn’t come up with something else at tomorrow’s cabinet meeting, I’m starting from here; the cabinet meeting is tomorrow, and in it this is where I’ll be starting from. 

For those watching and listening to us later, tomorrow means Wednesday. I wonder whether it’s possible to say that pensions have retained their purchasing power when median pensions are constantly falling in relation to median wages.

Yes, but wages have nothing to do with it.

But the thing is, everything from inflation to food prices is measured against purchasing power. In this respect pensioners’ purchasing power is lower.

No, no, no.

No?

No.

So if you have a hundred thousand forints, that’s not less than two hundred thousand?

No, you have to measure it in terms of a pensioner’s shopping basket.

Yes.

There are no wages in that.

No, there aren’t.

Let’s forget about that. There’s this left-wing thing…

People don’t buy a TV or a car as often…

I don’t want to cast you in a bad light with my malicious assumptions, but the logic you’re presenting, that pensions should be measured against wages rather than the consumer basket for pensioners, is a left-wing idea. It’s already caused a lot of trouble in the world, and I don’t recommend that we switch to it. There’s another method, which Hungary is pursuing. There’s a pensioner consumer basket, which is always the subject of huge debate. Inflation and the perception of price increases are always higher than the figures show, and people – not the figures – are probably right. So it’s not a simple matter. But there’s a pensioner’s consumer basket, which we calculate every year. And pensions must increase by at least that amount. So if it’s true that we’ve increased pensions each year in proportion to the amount in the pensioner’s consumer basket, then no one’s pension has decreased. Meanwhile, everyone, or at least the vast majority of people, would like to have much higher pensions – and rightly so, because that would be fair. I also think it would be better, and I’m working on this – to increase pensions as soon as possible and as much as possible.

Well, pension experts will pick this conversation apart, and I can already see it happening.

Please defend me then.

Let the numbers defend you. You say there are numbers for this.

What matters is logic. Because you see, that’s why I’m saying that if you compare pensions with wages, and we’re in a period when wages are rising sharply, then there will be a gap; but this is irrelevant from the point of view of the real-life situation of pensioners. It’s dangerous to link pensions to wages, because there are periods when wages don’t rise. This has happened before in Hungary. Now that we’ve been in government, wages are always rising, but people shouldn’t be misled into thinking that this is natural – it’s more of an exception, and a feat. When wages don’t rise but prices do, what will happen to pensioners if pensions are linked to wages? This is why I recommend this, and we have an established system. For thirty years everyone’s been criticising this system for being opaque and difficult. And there’s a lot of truth in that – there are internal injustices, all of that’s true. But my argument is that disrupting the system carries greater risks than continuing on the current path. The current path means raising pensions. Let’s not change the calculation method: let’s give more money to pensioners. This is what I’m working on.

Over the past five years food inflation has been mercilessly high: over 81 per cent, which is terrible.

You’re telling me… 

The retail profit margin cap is a kind of answer to that, I understand; but once it has served its purpose, how can it be phased out? And anyway, is there any intention to phase it out at some point?

That’s a good question. But it’s not about what my intention is; it’s about whether it will be possible. We don’t yet even know whether the world is moving in a direction which will allow it to be phased out. Because, you see, we’ve become accustomed to living in a world of very high inflation, and we think that the situation we were in before inflation is normal. But if inflation remains high in Europe or the Western world for a long time, then – even while using the tools to manage it – we may have to live with high inflation for a longer period of time. Unless I adopt a doctrinaire stance and close the door on this from the outset, I can’t answer the question of whether or not it will happen. So all I can say now is that if there were no food price cap, then dairy products would be 50 per cent more expensive and milk would be 50 per cent more expensive. Eggs would be 40 per cent more expensive, flour 50 per cent more expensive, and certain dairy products would be 130–140 percent more expensive. And imagine if I removed this – or rather if we, the Government, removed it. What would happen then? So this can’t be allowed – not only for the sake of pensioners, but in general. Hungary can’t live with the level of food prices which would exist without price caps.

Could it stay this way?

I don’t know, but we have to be vigilant. I check every day, I pay attention, I receive the reports. You see, I start my day every morning by reading the national security reports, and energy and food prices are listed in the first third of those reports.

If Budapest goes bankrupt, which looks likely this year due to the high solidarity tax, it won’t only be a problem for the people of Budapest and the city’s leadership, but perhaps for the whole country. Even credit rating agencies may be watching to see what happens here. Is this risk worth taking? Shouldn’t one come to an agreement with the capital?

I think the Chinese are right when they say that if there’s no order in language, there’s no order in thought either. Let’s bring order to the language. So my first statement is that I don’t think the capital will go bankrupt; and my second is that the capital is bankrupt. That’s the situation. The capital has long since ceased to manage its finances in the way that’s customary in our civilisation or cultural sphere. I’m not saying that the Government always manages its finances in that way, but we’re closer to doing so. The budget figures haven’t reflected the capital city’s real financial situation for a long time. We learned from [former prime minister] Ferenc Gyurcsány that “hundreds of tricks” can be used to prevent budgetary bankruptcy in a given year. 

 Are you talking about its debt, and deferring payments?

The debt and the loans received from companies…

Yes, yes.

This is the modern financial world – I’m older, and it’s too complicated for me, at least. When I was young and still studying, and I dealt with these matters, the financial system was much more rudimentary and limited than it is now. Now there are sophisticated financial systems, like in Western Europe.

Are you saying that the city is playing tricks?

That sounds like I’m accusing them. I’m not accusing them. They are playing tricks, of course, as they couldn’t balance the budget.

Okay, but this obviously can’t go on forever, so a solution has to be found at some point.

Gyurcsány and his people dragged it out for quite a long time. But what I’m trying to express is that, from a classical point of view, according to traditional budgetary logic, we can say that the capital has long been bankrupt; they’re simply manoeuvring, ducking and diving, as they might say in the barroom. But this doesn’t change the fact that, as you say, it’s difficult to survive in the long run. Nevertheless, this is a very rich city – in fact, it’s full of money. It’s full of money!

They say that the amount taken from them is more than they get…

That’s not true, they’re not telling the truth.

…so they’re constantly in the red.

Excuse me, what should they receive? How much do you think…

There’s an agreement, and even the Constitutional Court and the High Court have said that it’s not right for the Government to take away more than it provides.

No, neither the High Court nor the Constitutional Court said that – that’s a mistake.

That’s what the capital city is referring to.

But then it wasn’t the High Court that said it – it was the capital city. With respect, that’s not the same thing. In any event, that’s not how it is. There’s no such ruling.

So what’s the situation?

The situation is that in the capital today, investment worth hundreds of billions of forints – but I think a trillion forints – is taking place; this isn’t coming from the capital’s budget, but from the national budget. So the capital is the biggest winner of the last fifteen years. Things have happened in this city that the city could never have done on its own. There’s still a lot left to be done, but most of it’s been done with government money. So when the capital city says that it’s being treated unfairly by the Government, it’s a wonder the sky doesn’t come crashing down. There’s no city or region in this country that wouldn’t be happier with a tenth of the money that the capital city receives each year for development. That’s the first thing.

Okay, but how much does the capital city produce? A lot.

Yes, but I’d like to draw your attention to something. It’s true that I’ve only read about it, I haven’t seen it myself, but Minister Navracsics has just had a fantastic committee hearing in the Hungarian parliament. Ministers are required to appear at a committee hearing once a year, and he’s the person responsible for regional development. I’ve only seen the transcript, but everything’s written down there. Minister Navracsics said everything: 1.7 million people live in this city. The catchment area of this city and the number of people driving the economy – who don’t live in this city – is 5 million. So be careful! I think it’s a mistake to talk about the situation of the entire capital through the lens of party politics, and it’s a mistake to take the attitude with which this city has been governed for a very long time – not always, but often. This attitude is, of course, always the cheapest political tool: “The Government is bad, the capital is good; if the Government gave us more money, we’d be better off.” That’s pretty lame, isn’t it? In the case of a city like this… 

Now I’ll try to translate that.

Excuse me, but we’re talking about a city that’s developing at lightning speed compared to all other settlements in the country. Where’s the truth here?

Yes, but it also generates a lot of resources for this itself.

Of course. Excuse me, I don’t want to underestimate Budapest.

I’m curious to know if there’s any attempt to reach an agreement in Budapest. Are you trying to reach an agreement with [Mayor of Budapest] Gergely Karácsony?

But what’s needed isn’t agreement – the city needs to be governed. And if they don’t succeed, they’ll come to us, and then we’ll solve it. We’ll help. That’s what the Government is for. I don’t want to reach an agreement – an agreement exempts the city from proper governance. Govern well! They took it on, it’s a very rich city, it has a lot of money, it has a lot of assets. I’ll say it again: any provincial community would jump at the chance to have even a fraction of the opportunities that exist here. So it’s a legitimate expectation – not from the Government, I’m not talking about the Government now, but from the rest of the country – that this city should be run properly. If they fail, then of course the Government can be blamed for it. If they fail, then it’s no big deal. Since I’ve been in government, since we’ve been in government, no one in this country has ever gone bankrupt, no city here has gone bankrupt. We help everyone. In 2010 we started by taking 300 billion forints of debt off the shoulders of this city, of the capital. That was our first step. Three hundred billion in debt! And from all the other municipalities as well. The Government isn’t there to make life difficult for others, but to make it easier. So if they can’t solve it, the Government will help. 

How disappointed are you personally with György Matolcsy and the way the National Bank operated – based on what we know from Mihály Varga, for example, about what he found when he took office there? 

I don’t see this clearly yet. And, of course, I have a very strong emotional connection to the governors of the Central Bank, both the current one and the previous one. I owe a great deal to the previous one, György Matolcsy – not just me, because that’s secondary, although personally it’s also true, because intellectually I gained a lot from him, or I learned from him. And he saved the country several times, pulling it out of difficult situations in a way which, in my opinion, no one else could have done. He helped me a great deal in planning and designing the completely new Hungarian economy that Hungary has become since 2010, and I think that what has happened since 2010 is fantastic. It is a different Hungary, especially in terms of the economy.

However, many people dispute whether this is a good thing.

That doesn’t mean that everything’s fine – unlike Franz Joseph, I don’t think, “Everything’s very nice, everything’s very good, I’m satisfied with everything.” I’m not stupid, excuse me, I can see what difficulties there are, and we still have a lot of work to do. But this is a different economy. It’s a much better economy. It’s a resilient economy, an economy capable of development. Why did you vote for us in 2010? Because, excuse me, let’s not forget, why do you think they called me back here to govern? Because they loved me?

They didn’t love you?

I don’t think the majority did.

Yet they believed you were capable of doing it.

Ah yes, but why did they believe it?

Because they were disappointed in the previous lot, and they had fond memories of the four years between 1998 and 2002.

Well, they brought us back because of our work. Because of our work, excuse me…

But aren’t you going to answer? While… 

…and what I want to say is that in 2010 I don’t think people voted with their hearts, although of course some parts of the country did, because when we talk about the country, we’re talking about something very diverse; but a large part of the country were listening to reason. This is why they called us back. And, because they’re listening to reason, I think a large section of them will stick with us now. But that’s another conversation. We already know the past, however, so there’s no need to guess about that. So that’s how it happened. And in 2010 we didn’t just patch up holes, but we built an economy with a completely different structure. Our time here is running out, but I could list for you how we have a completely new tax system compared to that in 2010. Everything is about performance. So since 2010 I’ve only allowed or wanted to introduce elements into the Hungarian economy that improve its competitiveness. Taxes are lower, and the system is different. Labour regulations are much more flexible. Those who want to work are much more able to do so. We don’t give money without performance, except to those who are truly unable to contribute to the community in any way. There’s the public works system, and so on. In the family support system, which is the subject of great debate, wherever possible I’ve linked demography with family support, performance and the economy.

I understand that. This is what I asked. I asked about Matolcsy. Five hundred billion forints has been pocketed.

It’s not that much now, but I’ll come back to that. What I want to say is…

But even 400 isn’t a small amount.

Yes, but not that much. Let’s rewind. What I wanted to say is that you should treat my answer with caution.

Okay.

So, considering what I’ve just said, that this is a different economy, and it’s a different economy in terms of its structure, we couldn’t have built this different economy without György Matolcsy. Period. That’s all there is to it. And whatever has happened since then, that’s how it is. It’s a rock that’s been placed here, that’s how it is.

You won’t forget his merits, I understand. 

That’s right.

Yes, that’s fair.

Look, fairness – a sense of equity – is the most important virtue of government, perhaps the most important human virtue: moderation and fairness. These are the two key words. If you’re on this path, there can be no major trouble. So let’s be fair. And the other matter is the management of the National Bank, which has been the subject of huge debate. Was there waste, was there theft, where did the money go? And so on. This is currently being investigated. It doesn’t look good. I’m not seeing what I’d like to see. I see problems there. But I’ll wait for the investigation to be completed, and then I’ll be happy to answer your question. 

The Tisza Party digital application…

If only because in Hungary, I don’t know how much the people listening to us know this, but it’s not as if you go in there with a crowbar, pry open the safe, pack the cash into a bag, and leave. That’s not what the Hungarian economy is about anymore. Now, the point is that every financial transaction is based on a decision. Every single one! So it’s possible to know who made the decision. Because everywhere there’s a board, as they say, a management board. There are supervisory boards everywhere.

In fact a parliamentary decision in 2017 also paved the way for certain things.

Yes, but even so, when a specific decision is made about a forint – a single forint – there are documents, there are auditors, there are accountants. Do you see that? So it’s not as if Matolcsy or someone else just shouted himself hoarse, and then…

That’s why they say that getting the financial wheelbarrow moving was an intellectual achievement.

This is why I say that, since this is the case, as you say, we have to wait until the investigation is over – because what I’ve seen so far doesn’t look good. You also referred to the statement by the new governor of the National Bank. It doesn’t look good, but in order to be fair we have to wait until we see everything, and then make a judgment. Of course, if even one forint disappeared from there in an unauthorised way, it must have an owner, so someone must be held accountable. It will be tough. 

There’s currently a case of data theft or a data leak – although it’s not yet clear what it is – in connection with the Tisza Party’s digital application, and investigations are ongoing. This is an issue that could even influence the conduct of a free election, as we saw or others could see data, specifically data that they have no business seeing – about who is a voter for the strongest opposition party.

Yes, perhaps I feel it’s an exaggeration to say that this has a significant impact on the election, but it’s a very emotive area, and we’re learning about it. This is to do with what I said earlier, with the country learning what data sovereignty means at the national level. And there’s data sovereignty at your own level. You’re a sovereign person, aren’t you?

I hope so.

But if you’re not sovereign in terms of data, then your sovereignty’s compromised, isn’t it?

What I think is that here…

We’re learning this now.

Many people now feel, or may feel, that who they sympathise with is no one else’s business.

Yes, yes. That’s right. So this situation we’re dealing with now is a can of worms, isn’t it? Understanding this isn’t easy either. I’m also learning about this whole situation.

What did you think when Russian hackers casually gained access to the Foreign Ministry?

I didn’t think anything, I just sent all the appropriate experts there.

Do we know what happened yet?

Of course. Look, as far as this modern… What are we used to? You walk into a room, turn on the light, it’s bright; pretty simple, isn’t it? Now data appears on a screen, then disappears, and we don’t even know what or where. So it’s a different world. I wouldn’t dare say that every case – every case in the world of IT fraud – can always be completely solved. I don’t dare to say that. It may be possible to uncover it, but it requires an expert, and I don’t dare to claim the courage to say that. But I do know one thing: the data controller is the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the data controller is the Hungarian state. Their duty to pursue it as far as they can. After all, what’s this about? People have entrusted you with data, right? They’ve given someone their data in the belief that it would be kept there, and that only those they want to know about it, or those they want to show it to, would know about it. No one else can know anything about it, right? So if you ask for data, you become a data controller. 

That’s why it’s especially…

This is also true in foreign affairs. And if you’re a data controller, you also have a moral responsibility: you owe this security to them, you have a legal responsibility, which is laid down in legislation, and the data controller must ensure this. If you don’t know…

I’m glad you brought up morality.

Of course. Being a data controller is fundamentally a moral issue. You’re handling other people’s data. That’s why…

Well, it’s also a moral question that I should not publish it in the media.

You’ll have to discuss that among yourselves. If I understand it correctly…

The government media has quite clearly fallen into that trap.

Look, don’t push the government media on me.

I’m not pushing it on you, I’m asking for your opinion.

This conversation isn’t like that – you haven’t done this to me so far. 

 I’m interested in your opinion.

Don’t hold me responsible for something you don’t like, and that’s not my job. I didn’t even mention the words “government media” or “opposition media”.

No doubt about that.

That’s another conversation. I’m available, but that’s not the issue right now.

Okay, let’s do it differently. There are some media outlets – mainly online ones – that have published data which, as you know, raises personal and ethical issues regarding personal data. What do you think about that?

I think that the data controller must protect the data. The data controller cannot claim that it’s true that they’re clumsy, incompetent, irresponsible and unable to protect your data, but “Look, these bastards are publishing it.” What kind of argument is that?

Does the Government already know that this is a Ukrainian source?

The starting point…

Because that’s what’s been said.

The starting point is still that there’s a data controller who has a moral responsibility towards you. That’s where we start from. The legislation also has something to say, but you’re right – it’s not irrelevant, but secondary. I don’t understand that either, because I haven’t received an answer to that question yet, but of course I’m paying attention to why it was necessary to create a program that was partly, or largely, developed by Ukrainians – that’s also not clear yet. We have plenty of brilliant Hungarian computer scientists. Secondly, I also don’t understand why one of the eight to ten key data hosts is in Ukraine. What’s the point of that? But it’s not up to me to answer that question. The secret services are investigating it, the Government will receive a report on it, and then I’ll be better informed, and perhaps able to answer your question. 

Why don’t you want to debate your challenger, Péter Magyar? You’d have an opportunity to do so in Győr this weekend, as you’re both in Győr, and the Mayor of Győr has said that he’d organise everything. But rumour has it that you thought about it and then decided against it.

I didn’t think about it at all.

No?

I do have a challenger, but it’s not called the Tisza Party – it’s called Brussels.

But the citizens here aren’t going to vote for Brussels…

Yes they are.

…they’re going to vote for the Tisza Party.

I’d like to make it clear that they’re wrong. They’ll vote for Brussels. That’s the situation, because Tisza is a project that’s been built from Brussels: it’s financed from there, it’s maintained from there, and the power centres that keep it alive are located there. Anyone who votes for the Tisza Party is voting for Brussels.

But there are two million people here who think that this isn’t the case, that they’re the ones who maintain it…

Yes, I understand that.

…and that they came up with this idea.

I understand that.

Don’t they deserve that much?

I understand that this is what they think. With all due respect and humility, they’re wrong. It’s not my job to reinforce their misconceptions, but to help them understand the truth.

So that means that there will be no debate at all. So this is a settled issue.

Yes, there is a debate.

Face to face with Péter Magyar, in public.

I’m debating with those who are opponents of Hungary and who want a government that’s different from the national government. They want a Brussels government. The head of this snake is in Brussels. I’m not debating with its Hungarian emissaries or representatives, I’m debating with Brussels itself. I don’t go to newspapers or forums that are financed from abroad, for example. So for me, media isn’t pro-government or opposition. I don’t go to places to talk to people who are paid from abroad – either through their media or personally. I don’t go there.

How much does the presidential pardon issue still hurt? The way the news broke, the way it was handled, and the consequences.

But let’s see, this is what I wanted to talk about. Let’s look at what really hurts in this.

What hurts you?

The lack of judgment, the deterioration of judgment. Because what happened? If I understand what the [former] President said correctly, because I can only refer to what the President said, what happened was that she granted clemency to a man whom she believed didn’t commit the crime for which he was convicted. That’s the starting point for everything. She shouldn’t have granted clemency, she should have said that she trusted the court’s verdict; or I don’t know what she should have said, but in any case the President shouldn’t have taken it upon herself to decide on such a moral, sensitive and important matter instead of the court. This is what I call a lack of judgment. This is what happened there.

Annoyance or a challenge…

Pain.

…which has been happening in Hungarian domestic politics ever since.

You see, I’m building a castle out of people. That’s my job. Indeed I’m building a very strong castle out of people, which is called a government and a nation. And there’s no exaggeration or pathos in this. That’s how I see my work. And very strong pillars were knocked out of this structure. So that happened to the President of the Republic, and then the Minister of Justice was pulled down with her. I consider it a huge loss – not from their personal point of view, because that interests me less, although of course I’m on friendly terms with them, so it hurts on that basis too; but it was a huge loss to the country to lose two honest women, because that’s what we’re talking about, two honest politicians, with fantastic experience. We have very few people who can be sent to any corner of the world, and whatever the debate, can represent Hungary effectively and in terms of quality – and, importantly, represent Hungary at a world-class level without any sense of provinciality. When you look or count how many such people are in politics today, there aren’t many. This is a huge loss for the entire Hungarian nation, for Hungarian politics, including the Right, then for Fidesz, and for me personally. It hurts, in this order. Every single element of it hurts.

Did you try to call Judit Varga back, or was that a media rumour over the past month or two?

I never called her back.

You said she was a politician of prime ministerial quality.

Well, you see, the tense matters.

Past tense?

You said it. 

Could you have imagined her as your successor?

Not directly, but in the second step, yes. Because, you see, we – and poor young people – have become used to seeing me since whenever. This is something exceptional in the history of a country, although I think it’s very advantageous. Opinions are divided on this, but I think it’s very advantageous – in fact Hungary’s greatest competitive advantage is that it has the most stable government in Europe. It has the most stable government. This represents a capacity for action, knowledge and expertise, including in the international sphere – as seen in the American negotiations. These are invaluable advantages. But this doesn’t mean that the next Hungarian prime minister will sit here forever or do the job like I do. So faster changes are also conceivable. I don’t want to search for who will be the leader on the Right after me, but for the people who have leadership capability. And then life itself will decide – at that time the members of our political community will make their own decisions, according to their own wisdom. So from that point of view I didn’t think that she’d be prime minister the following morning, but that she was among those who would be in the next two decades. We’re talking about young women.

János Lázár launched a strong attack on Judit Varga…

Because he has a different…

…when the question of her returning came up…

Yes, János has a completely different way of thinking. And I can’t say that there’s no truth in it. He says you can talk about anything: preparedness, intelligence, the world stage, talent. But then, he says, there’s work. János is a working man. He lives by it, and he believes that “One thing matters, my dear friend: what you’ve put on the table. And if you’ve signed the wrong paper, for whatever reason, and you’ve made a mistake on a matter of moral content, then what are you doing here?” That’s János. He’s from a different school – not like me. As I’ve said, I build castles out of people, with all their virtues and weaknesses. No one’s perfect – and I can say that especially of me.

Well, now you’ve described a bunch of people… 

I just want to say that I lead a community, I try to create a situation that offers as many options for decision-making and as much room for manoeuvre for policy as possible. János isn’t that kind of person. He’s straightforward, and he says: “My friend, that was your job, that was your responsibility, as President you misjudged the situation and granted clemency. Minister of Justice, you countersigned it. What do you expect?” That’s János.

I understand about Brussels, I understand your position – or at least I think I do. But after all, Péter Magyar is still a challenger for you. Now that you’ve described so many other people, how do you view him?

But only those in my camp.

You can’t describe your opponent? You don’t want to?

That’s not my job. How could I get involved in that? I see things, and I think others see them too. Sometimes I’m forced to say something in the political hurly-burly – it doesn’t feel good, but the situation requires it.

A worthy challenger?

I don’t say things like that. I don’t. If you want to know about dignity or worthy qualities, if you didn’t ask me as a provocation, but because you’re curious to know whether the gentleman in question is honourable…

Absolutely.

…then ask his wife, his ex-wife. That’s my advice to you.

You went to a football match at the weekend. After the Trump meeting you still had the energy to go to a Liverpool match.

Ho ho! No, there was more to it than that. 

So what was it about?

I was on a study tour. How can I put it? I was on a study trip.

They showed you the stadium.

Now, now, now…

That’s what a study tour usually means, right?

That’s for day-trippers. No, no, no, no.

Yes.

I’m considered an expert. Excuse me.

Excuse me!

A new chapter is beginning.

Did you analyse Liverpool’s tactics?

I try to approach my work with appropriate modesty, but I have a different relationship with football. I spent thirty-five years in locker rooms. I’m not saying I’m an expert, because I don’t think that’s a meaningful statement, but I do know what’s going on. And the owner of Manchester City is a good friend of mine. Take what I say literally.

He’s a businessman from the United Arab Emirates.

An Emirati. An excellent man, by the way. I often ask his opinion on economics and international affairs. He’s an excellent man. And he’s like me, he’s been bitten by the bug, you know: football has somehow got under his skin. And he built a club from nothing. And when I was coming home from America I changed roles, ended my official trip and became a private citizen, and I asked him to invite me on a study tour like that. I also invited him to the Puskás Academy, incidentally. So he visited me, I spent a day with him, and showed him everything. 

It would be quite ironic if I asked what he learned in Felcsút.

You’d be surprised, because there are things we don’t do badly. With all due modesty, I’ve been involved in this for twenty years, so I think I know what I’m talking about. I’m not saying that everything’s as it should be, or that we’ve achieved everything, but there are some serious things going on. And I showed him everything. I showed him everything I could show him, from the boys’ and the academy students’ accommodation to the meals, because that’s important in modern football, to the changing rooms, the talent scouting system, the coaching system, and the professional structure. He did the same, showing me even more – he even showed me the financial books. They have twelve or fourteen clubs – it’s not Manchester City, that’s a misunderstanding.

A network.

It’s a large global network, and he showed me how it works, what the legal framework is, how much money’s involved, and so on. So I saw a lot of things that aren’t of any use to me, because a global financial thing or flying high internationally isn’t the mission of Puskás or the Puskás Academy; it’s to educate talented, good people and talented footballers. We have a different goal. That’s why our business model is completely different from theirs. So a lot of things aren’t applicable.

But of course it was interesting.

Well, I saw the talent assessment system, and I met Guardiola before the game, and I met about half of the players, because as we walked through the changing room…

 Well, now I envy you.

We went through the changing rooms, and I talked to the big Norwegian guy, who spoke very warmly about Szoboszlai, saying what a good friend he is – because, you know, they were together at Salzburg. And these guys are multi-millionaires, of course, so compared to us they’re in a different world. But when it comes to the changing room, I’d say it’s the old world of Gerozin [liniment] – there’s still the smell of Gerozin there. They don’t call it that anymore. 

It’s the same strong smell.

No time for fairy tales there, it’s the same as it was: you have to stand your ground. And that’s where I learned the most in my life. High school was important too, but nothing can replace thirty-five years of locker room experience. Oh well, never mind. And the fact that I got to watch the game too was just the icing on the cake.

It wasn’t a great pleasure. But, as a match, it was good, only Liverpool…

I have a completely different, unorthodox opinion about the whole thing, which we can’t discuss now – but maybe next time.

That’s a pity.

With someone else, yes.

Someday we’ll get into a conversation about football.

But people aren’t interested in that, and rightly so.

Will you come here again soon, or will we have to wait fifteen years?

Sorry, yes. People aren’t interested – and rightly so, because who cares about the Prime Minister’s hobby? That’s his business.

People are interested in football.

Well, you see, that’s fine. But unfortunately I’m not the first person you need to talk to about this – there are others ahead of me in line. So, will I return?

Of course! 

I’d ask ATV not to accept money from abroad. If you want to interview me, my request is that you don’t accept money from foreigners – and then I’ll come.

I don’t think we’ll change our position on that matter.

I wish you all every success!

Prime Minister, thank you very much! And thank you all for your attention. You’ve been watching “Mérleg” with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. See you next time on this programme. Goodbye.