Ildikó Csuhaj (MTVA): Prime Minister, today you confirmed that at the White House yesterday President Trump granted Hungary unlimited exemption from sanctions. Can you quantify the extent to which this will preserve the reductions in household energy bills, especially in light of the 466-billion-forint investment and the other cooperation and business deals that were concluded?
Foreign Minister Szijjártó is the master of numbers and knows the details precisely. I made agreements with the President. Of course this will be written down in documents and resolutions, but the point is that, because America has a presidential system, I made an agreement with the President. The President said, “We’ll exempt you without any time limit from US sanctions which would have affected the TurkStream pipeline and the Druzhba oil pipeline. There won’t be any. Let’s move on!” This means that, according to my conservative, cautious estimate, we’ve saved Hungarians from paying 1,000 forints per litre for petrol; and we have to acknowledge that without this agreement, when the heating season begins gas bills would be about two and a half times higher – but perhaps three times higher. So we’ve saved ourselves from such a major problem. We didn’t bring this trouble upon ourselves – it was brought about by the war. I always say that the war is blocking the European economy – for example through high energy prices and ever more sanctions. Imagine the Hungarian economy if energy prices had doubled or increased two and a half times. How could we have remained competitive? There would have been unforeseeable consequences for jobs, factories and businesses. So we’ve saved ourselves from a major problem. But that’s the nature of this profession: sometimes lightning strikes, and then you have to get a lightning rod. That lightning rod worked yesterday.
Eszter Zavaros (TV2): Prime Minister, thank you very much for allowing me to be there at the White House and ask a question.
It was exciting, wasn’t it?
Eszter Zavaros (TV2): It was too exciting. I thought my English was good, but for a moment I felt uncertain. On the plane here, we talked about what kind of negotiator Donald Trump is, how to negotiate with him, what the secret is, how to address him, and how to achieve success in negotiations with him so that some kind of deal can be struck. Now we’re past that, and the negotiations were successful. How do you assess the negotiations? Were you able to discuss everything, and did it go as you predicted on the plane? Was Donald Trump straightforward, honest, and did everything happen as you said it would?
There are pitfalls that must be avoided. The United States has a presidential system of government, and the President makes decisions on the big picture, leaving technical matters to his Cabinet. Therefore the trap that must be avoided – which isn’t easy for a European mind – is not to approach the whole from the details, but the details from the whole. And then, once the gist is understood, he’ll tell you how interested he is in the details. But if you start with the details, he’ll say that it’s not an important matter. So in a negotiation with him something’s important if in one sentence you can explain what it is, and why it’s important. Then he’ll decide whether he wants to know more about it. But he’ll figure it out in a matter of moments and understand. So someone having to be able to fight through the barbed wire obstacle course of an American presidential election – not once, but twice – is the final or most important means of safeguarding the American political system against incompetent leaders coming into office. So it’s not torturous because they enjoy seeing the candidates suffer, but because it represents a kind of security for Americans: whoever can get through that, whoever can solve that, whoever takes those steps, whoever wins those battles one after another, can be trusted with the fate of America. And this president, President Donald Trump, has overcome these obstacles on two occasions. So there was never any question that he’d be a good president the first time around, and now there’s definitely no question. Because there’s never been one like him before, and I think this is why America has a very good chance of having the best presidency of all time under Donald Trump, because it has a president who governed for four years while a network called the deep state, the usual deep state structure, tried to curb and obstruct any radical change. He went through that, lost, and had to survive. They tried to take his life, they wanted to kill him. He survived that too. They wanted to take away his wealth. They wanted to send him to prison on charges of conspiracy against the state. He managed all of this, overcame it all, then won and returned. So no one in America has ever been president with such a background and such experience. This is why things are now progressing with such tornado-like speed. Because two times four years: eight years – the first years in government, four years in opposition – prepared him for what’s happening now. I don’t know if during such a short visit it’s possible to grasp the depth of what’s happening now in America, but it’s much more important than it seems: a change on a civilisational scale is taking place in America. They’re bringing a world that’s shifted towards progressive, liberal, globalist internationalism back to a society that seeks to operate on the basis of patriotic, conservative, Christian, traditional values. This is an undertaking on an unprecedented scale. And, incidentally, it will also determine the future of the West for several decades to come, because beyond what we’ve discussed in Hungarian–American affairs, we both know that above us, above our level, there’s another, higher-order struggle going on for the soul of the West: it’s a struggle for the soul of Western civilisation. Progressivism, liberalism: will it be as we see it, with LGBTQ, migration, and everything we consider bad? Or, taking everything that’s good from the past, will we be able to create modern Christian governance? This is what’s really at stake in his administration. And if he can do it in America, then we can do it in Europe. This was another dimension of this negotiation. These weren’t specific points for negotiation, but they were there throughout, they surrounded it, they gave context to the specific questions.
Andrea Hagyánek (Magyar Nemzet): Prime Minister, at the end of your speech last night you said that it’s very important for the Government to remain in power, and for as long as possible.
You mean the Hungarian government?
Andrea Hagyánek (Magyar Nemzet): The Hungarian government.
We prefer that, there’s no doubt about it…
Andrea Hagyánek (Magyar Nemzet): Yes, and what are your long-term plans for the country? On the way to Washington, you told me that you’d box in Brussels, but that’s a future step. What exactly did you mean by that, and what global political vision lies behind it?
I’d like to go back to the fact that there’s currently a civilisational struggle going on in the Western world over what the West should be. In Western politics there’s always been a great struggle, let’s say between the Right – those who have remained within the Christian, national, Western tradition and build their political programmes on those foundations – and those who have left or fallen out of this tradition, who belong to the left-wing progressive world. The latter also have a vision of the world, they’re globalists, and they’re building their own system of power. This battle has been raging in Europe for 150 years. And the liberal, globalist, progressive side has shifted far toward extremes, formulating absurd plans for social engineering, especially with regard to LGBTQ families, migration and open borders. It’s shifted so far that it’s put Western civilisation in mortal danger – through migration, through demographic problems, and through transforming the public safety environment. And now we have to fix this. So, for the sake of simplicity, let’s say that the political forces that have remained within the European, Western, Christian tradition should be called the “Right”. We must win this battle and bring the world back within these boundaries. So that’s what’s at stake. My plan is for Hungary to first understand that this battle is taking place. Hungary must understand that it’s in danger. In good time it must understand what’s going to happen; because if a small country is late in responding, it’s game over. So in order to be able to adapt and prepare for such a change, in good time it must understand the deepest connections of this civilisational struggle. I’m working on this, so that every Hungarian understands it. And ultimately we need to find answers to these civilisational challenges: migration; security; the family; demographics; education, what we teach our children; adaptation to modern technology; internationalism versus patriotism; and the question of sovereignty. So I have a plan for Hungary to participate in this great international cavalcade while knowing exactly what our interests are, understanding the situation, and taking the appropriate steps before anyone else. I’ve been doing this since 2010 – from migration to constitutional amendments, the economic system, family support, and so on. So this isn’t an intellectual game, trying to be smarter than everyone else, which is also a fine goal, but for Hungarians it’s a matter of survival. If you’re late in sensing the connections, there will be trouble. That’s the first thing. And then there are the specific things. Because there are opponents on the field, which we haven’t mentioned yet. Yesterday I also signed an agreement with the US president on a financial protective shield. The situation is that if Hungary – or its financial system – were to come under any kind of external attack, the Americans have given their word that in such a case they’d protect Hungary’s financial stability. This is a very important thing! And in the event that Hungary were to be attacked from outside, let’s say for speculative or political purposes, we can count on an American financial protective shield, I can count on it. This is how I’m calculating what the future holds. Wake up and smell the coffee, Brussels!
Krisztián Lentulai (Mandiner): Prime Minister, it’s well known that you stood by Donald Trump even when his approval ratings were at rock bottom, and especially when no one would have bet a penny on his re-election. If the Hungarian negotiation strategy was mapped out in a notebook, could the tactic of appealing to a certain kind of “honour among thieves” have played a role in this meeting? I don’t know if there’s an English word for this expression, but I suspect there isn’t.
This could be expected. So we could be sure that we’d be welcomed there in a friendly atmosphere. Nothing in Hungarian–American relations has been spoiled. There have been accidents in the past: the Biden administration and the like, they picked on us for four years, but we didn’t take it to heart, and we figured it would pass – Trump would come back, and then we’d fix those things. There have been such incidents, but if you think about it, we’re not burdened by any historical mistakes or sins in our relations with each other. I even consider the bombing of Budapest to be something that happens in war: it hurt us a lot, the Anglo-Saxon bombing during World War II caused very serious destruction, which we don’t talk about much, but that’s how it is. But even these things didn’t cause such deep wounds that resulted in either side viewing the other as an enemy. And of course there’s this bitter issue that we tend to bring up, and Americans are fair enough to admit that it wasn’t decent of them to abandon us in 1956. Ronald Reagan said that several times. In this sense Americans have a capacity for self-reflection, and so historically there’s no such problem. This is important. If you look at Hungary’s relations with other countries, there are few countries of which we can say that there are no deep-seated wounds that keep reopening. In this relationship there are none. That’s number one. Two: politics is practiced by people, and if you’re not careful, you can easily cause offence to the other side – and many people in Europe have done that to President Trump. There are very few prime ministers – other than myself, if any – who aren’t responsible for a long list of hurtful and malicious things they’ve said about the American president. And Hungary isn’t on that list; so we’ve never done anything like that. Hungarians are essentially loyal types. A friend losing an election is no reason for us to desert him. Of course, there’s a reality, but after Trump lost the presidential election I didn’t call President Biden first: I called the defeated President Trump, because he’s my friend. So, since politics is practised by people, an important factor is whether human relationships have been damaged – or, conversely, whether we’ve sent each other messages in difficult times or learned from each other that we can count on each other. And that was the situation here. My view was that it wasn’t the American president’s job to represent Hungary’s interests or to comply with Hungary’s requests. His job was to represent American interests and serve American interests. But I was sure that if I could propose a solution to the conflicts that wasn’t bad for the Americans but good for us, he would say “yes”. So he agreed to everything that wasn’t bad for America but good for us, and he agreed to everything that was good for America and good for us. Where America is neutral on a particular issue, he could have said “no”. But in every such situation, he said “yes”, and the explanation for this lies in the several years we’ve shared.
Ákos Bittó (Blikk): Prime Minister, not so long ago some relatively alarming figures were announced, so in light of these, I think the Washington agreement really does seem to be a relatively important and significant agreement. Looking ahead to the next few months, are there any other issues of similar importance that need to be resolved or settled?
There’s still an energy battle affecting Hungarian households and businesses: the issue of Brussels sanctions, which needs to be fought. In general it’s vital for the Hungarian economy to have access to sufficient financial resources. And today I can safely say that we’ll of course get back every forint, euro or penny that we’re entitled to from the European budget, just as I’ve already recovered half of it; but I can say with certainty that if there’s no money from Brussels now, there is money from the US. There’s no need to be alarmed. The current series of negotiations has resulted in the Hungarian economy not having any financial problems, not having any financing problems. We’ve also agreed on investments, and so on. On the other hand, energy is a more important issue than many people think, and here we’re in a race against time. Because it’s obvious that we can’t survive for long in a situation in which we’re at the mercy of fluctuations in world market prices for natural gas and oil, a war in our neighbourhood, and a misguided sanctions policy in Brussels. The only way out of this is to have energy sources that are independent of these factors, of traditional fossil fuels. This is why nuclear energy is a key issue, and a matter of independence for Hungary. A key issue is that we can build our solar panel system, our energy system, and behind it we can build power plants that guarantee safe operation. This will cost a lot of money. Three or four such power plants are currently under construction in Hungary. So we have a complex energy strategy that will save Hungary from having to rescue itself from something bad year after year or decade after decade, as is currently the case, and ensure that we have a type of energy source that doesn’t depend on anyone else. And now we’ve taken a big step in that direction, because the Americans are getting involved in the Hungarian nuclear energy industry, where they weren’t previously present. It sounds a bit pompous, but perhaps it’s acceptable to say that Hungarians need the best of everything, including technology – I don’t care if it’s Chinese, American or Russian, as long as it’s the best available to us. Of course, political considerations limit this free choice, but this should always be the Hungarian approach. No matter where it comes from, it should be the best, as in the case of vaccines when COVID was here. And there are two or three areas of nuclear technology in which we know that today the Americans are by far the best. We’ve been able to reach agreements in these areas and bring the best technologies to Hungary. There are small modular nuclear power plants, of which there are almost none in operation anywhere in the world yet, but which many people are talking about, and in this the Americans are far ahead in terms of technological standards. In fact they’re already building one in Ontario, there’s one such investment in Canada, which we’re following closely in order to learn from it. So we can obtain a technology, small nuclear power plant technology, which will enable us to continuously supply cheap energy – whether connected to the grid or not – to the huge industrial developments currently underway in Hungary. There’s a legitimate debate in Hungary about where the huge energy demand of the massive industrial capacity developments we’re currently implementing will come from. We have several answers to that question, and this is one of them. Similarly, since data will be at the heart of the economy of the future, and because every decision will be based on data-driven analysis, and planning will also be done this way, data requires energy. Over the next decade the most important issue is what I call “data sovereignty”. And Hungary still has to make quite a few decisions in order to preserve its own data sovereignty. One of the most important aspects of this, though not the only one, is that we need to be able to produce large data management systems – which consume enormous amounts of energy and electricity – in a sovereign manner, so that our databases aren’t vulnerable in terms of energy supply. Today we’ve taken a significant step towards this solution, through American technologies.
Vilmos Velkovics (HírTV): Prime Minister, how and to what extent can the fact that these US sanctions agreements have been concluded – and that the US president has so clearly and openly stood up for Hungary – help Hungary to somehow circumvent Brussels’ sanctions policy? I know that this is thin ice.
Hungary is a member of the European Union, and a loyal one at that, so in our disputes within the Union I’ve never sought the involvement of external actors or forces – and nor will I do so in the future. This is a battlefield on which we must fight on our own terms, using our own strength. Hungary’s task is made easier by the fact that certain Brussels tools that could be used against Hungary can now be considered to be blunt. The fact that we have a financial protective shield eliminates quite a few of Brussels’ plans against us. They’re not even worth thinking about. The idea that Hungary or the Hungarian currency can be attacked, that the Hungarian budget can be put in a difficult position, that the Hungarian economy can be strangled from the financing side, can be forgotten – that’s over. We’ve resolved this with the Americans – not against Brussels, but independently of them. But we’ll have to fight our internal battles in Brussels – for example, the issue of Brussels’ energy sanctions. But I’m in a much better position when I sit down at the next Brussels summit than I was a month ago. This matters.
Dániel Bohár (Megafon): Prime Minister, the left-wing, liberal, globalist world found yesterday very difficult to bear. This morning they came up with a way to attack and belittle this huge achievement by the Hungarian government, saying that the exemption from sanctions is actually for only one year. What’s the reality?
I shook hands with the US president on the understanding that this would mean sanctions relief with no time limit. Period. Anyone who doesn’t believe me can sit down with me in a year’s time and we’ll see.
Dániel Bohár (Megafon): And what’s it about, what results have been achieved?
Beyond that? We’re getting access to very high-quality technology, especially in the nuclear field. There are national security considerations here, so I’m phrasing this carefully, but certain weapons systems have become available to Hungary. We also have a major military modernisation programme, but the Biden administration prohibited Hungary from purchasing certain equipment, so we didn’t have access to certain American military technologies. That’s now in the past, it’s been eliminated, and now we can purchase all of those technologies. And Hungarian investments are going to America. Hungary is a country that used to only talk about attracting inward investment, because we’re an economy with a shortage of capital, we don’t have enough internal capital for growth, and we need external strength as well. We don’t have good technology in every area, so we need modern technology through investment. So we can’t manufacture BMWs unless BMW invests in Hungary. Or we can only manufacture parts for Boeing if Boeing invests in Hungary – as has happened. So far, Hungarian public opinion has been focused on attracting as much investment as possible, because that means jobs, technology and money. And it’s true that American investments are coming. But today Hungary has regional champions, companies with serious capital, who are looking for investment opportunities abroad. And now there’s a policy in America that specifically wants to attract investment there. During the negotiations, large Hungarian companies agreed on major American investments, which are expected to be profitable and bring profits to Hungarian companies. This isn’t receiving much attention in Hungary, even though it’s important that Hungary is no longer just a buyer of oil and gas, but that we now have our own holdings. We’re owners of oil and gas fields, both state-owned and private, thanks to our cooperation with Central Asian countries. So Hungary now has a much stronger economy than it did a dozen or so years ago, when it was just waiting for someone to bring in capital through investment. Today we’re also looking for places where Hungarian private companies can go, and in the case of MVM, Hungarian state-owned companies are looking for investment. And for that to happen, doors need to be opened. In this case the role of politics is to create favourable political conditions for Hungarian foreign investment. I can safely say that Hungarian investments have never been as welcome in America as they are now. If anyone wants to do business in America, now is the time to go. Even the most technologically advanced investments are open to Hungary, which is why we’ve agreed on cooperation in space research and state-of-the-art military industry. So, to sum up, with this current series of negotiations we’ve averted serious problems, opened doors for large Hungarian companies, and, overall, earned a lot of money for Hungary.
Dániel Deák (Megafon): Yesterday evening the Prime Minister also met with US Vice President JD Vance. What topics were on the agenda? And since you’ve known him for a shorter period of time, what was your first impression of him?
Fidesz has had a good relationship with the Vice President for a very long time, but I’ve had less of a personal relationship with him – my personal connections have all been with the President. But within Fidesz, in the think tank world surrounding Fidesz, in the world of researchers and brain trusts, we have connections more with Vance’s world. This is because during the campaign he was responsible for what we might call “idea generation”, and as far as I can see he’s still responsible for it. The President is responsible for power, decisions, money and things like that, but the Vice President is responsible for idea generation, for thinking about what, how, in what larger context, for understanding these horizons and revealing these dimensions. So I had a European-style intellectual conversation in Washington, which is a pretty rare experience. The Vice President communicates in an Anglo-Saxon category system, but in a way that’s understandable to us, describing complicated issues; and on top of that he’s a man of the people, so we can easily get on the same wavelength. Nevertheless I think Felcsút was a better neighbourhood than the one he grew up in – at least that’s what I can safely say after reading his book. But in any case, we know what it’s like down near the bottom: we weren’t born with silver spoons in our mouths, and that made communication easier. The second thing is that there were areas that I was unable to bring up with sufficient emphasis during the negotiations with the President, because the specific bilateral agreements and the issue of war raised such complex issues that they took up the negotiation time. We didn’t talk much about the Balkans, for example, even though we should have. I was able to discuss that subject at length with the Vice President now – and talk about the friends in that network who support America for intellectual reasons, much as they support Hungary for intellectual reasons, and who seek cooperation with us. These are people we can rely on in the region, and they include those both in the European Union and in non-EU Balkans countries. I was able to discuss these issues with the Vice President, but not with the President. This is why it was very important to have a meeting with the Vice President after the meeting with the President. Together, the two of them achieved almost 100 per cent of what I wanted.
Csongor Gáll (index.hu): Prime Minister, a lot has been said, and we’ve already discussed these issues. But now I’d like to ask about something that hasn’t been mentioned. Yesterday you responded to a journalist’s question by describing Hungary as a patriotic country in Europe that stands for peace, and America as a country that stands for peace overseas and is fighting for it. And I think the most important thing was that the American president basically didn’t react to that, he didn’t dispute that Hungary is the only country in Europe fighting for peace, and America is the only country fighting for peace overseas. In your opinion, to what extent does the fact that the American president essentially accepted this narrative and this communication validate the Hungarian position and narrative, the Government’s position? And, excuse me, allow me one more question: Did you invite the American president to visit you in Budapest?
As far as invitations are concerned, I’ve invited several people, and the peace summit in Budapest is one of those visits, which I believe will take place. I wonder whether the word “validate” that you’ve used is the right one: whether Hungary’s pro-peace stance is validated by this shared platform with the US president. I can’t answer that question in these terms. I don’t know if there’s a need for anyone to validate the Hungarian position, because it must come from a deeper affirmation – partly moral and partly in the Hungarian national interest. So perhaps I wouldn’t use that word. What is certain is that it helps a lot. So our opponents… What does our opponent say about war and peace? It’s the usual joke: there are twenty-seven of us, and everyone is stupid except you lot. Right? On the motorway you’re driving towards us – and you’re the ones making bad rules, not us. So it’s very difficult for a country of our size to say, “Yes, there are twenty-seven of us here, we’re right, and I think you’re wrong. Your strategy isn’t good, but what we’re saying, what we’re doing, would be the good strategy.” It’s not that simple. In this context it helps my cause somewhat that this has already happened once with the migration issue, and now everyone knows that the Hungarians were right, so it’s possible for one to be right against twenty-six: there’s been an example of that. But this is still fragile ice, or thin ice. I can say that not only does the example of migration show that we may also be strategically right about this peace issue, but if a world power as great as the leading force of the West – the United States – says the same thing, then perhaps what we’re saying isn’t so foolish, and perhaps there’s some truth in this Hungarian view after all. This makes it much easier for me to represent this in Europe, because it’s not about me going it alone on the highway, but about there being a huge truck and me in my little – I don’t know – Opel Corsa driving behind it. Because that’s not the same as just being in our little Volkswagen… I’m not saying that this validates it, but it gives it weight, it makes my job easier, and it means it’s taken seriously – perhaps that’s the right expression. Validation is perhaps a deeper thing: it’s more based on moral or national strategic foundations, and in that I’m not interested in what the Americans say – there has to be a deeper Hungarian conviction at work there. But related to the Americans, you could say that if Biden and his team had won, it’s questionable whether Hungary would have been able to maintain its pro-peace stance without becoming ridiculous, marginal, insignificant, or even crippled by isolation. And we can’t rewind and replay, so we can’t give a 100 per cent certain answer to that question; but it’s quite possible that we wouldn’t have been able to hold out. So President Trump’s return to the pro-peace corner in the ring is like a revival for Hungary. It’s hugely significant.
Mátyás Kohán (Mandiner): Prime Minister, you’ve just spoken in broad terms about the financial shield. Now I’d like to ask you to give us as many specifics as possible about this major political agreement. Was an agreement reached that essentially negates or reduces the impact of the withholding of EU funds on certain channels: the exchange rate channel, the channel of investor confidence in Hungary, the channel of lack of investment, or the channel of the profit equation that you’re closely monitoring? Or has a decision been made on an investment that’s even larger than the largest one this year, Diligent’s 37-billion-forint product development centre? These are my two questions.
Yes, agreements on even larger investments have been concluded. And we can safely say that – leaving Brussels aside for now – if a financial attack were to be launched against Hungary from any corner of the world, whether it affected our exchange rate, our debt rating, or our credit rating, American assistance to ward it off would be available to us. We’ve gone through two or three technologies to see how this could happen. And we can also say that in America we have almost unlimited financing options with which we can replace any money from Brussels. So I can say that the fact that I still need two or three years to obtain every forint from Brussels doesn’t mean that Hungary will have to give up its major economic plans of national strategic importance. So there’s no need to postpone or reschedule anything: we can achieve everything. This can be seen in the financial markets and in the forint exchange rate, and it will also be seen in future borrowing. Hungary’s position on the international financial market today, the day after the negotiations, is much stronger than it was earlier. The American financial protective shield strengthens us and will create a more favourable international financial situation for us. That much can be said.
Máté Kulifai (Hetek): You’ve mentioned several times that your good personal relationship with Donald Trump greatly contributed to the success of this summit and to the effectiveness of Hungarian–American relations. In December, however, there will be a big event in Brussels, as you mentioned en route, at which there won’t be the same kind of personal rapport with, say, von der Leyen or Manfred Weber.
Even though I’m constantly courting them.
Máté Kulifai (Hetek): If there isn’t such rapport, what instruments are available? How are you prepared, what strategy will you use in negotiations to ensure success?
First of all, we pray that Prime Minister Andrej Babiš will take office before the Brussels summit, because then the situation there will be different. So, from Brussels’ point of view, I’m considered a soft touch compared to President Babiš. He may not express his opinion as boldly as we often do, with sweeping hussar-like gestures, but in the manner of slowly fermenting Czech beer, which is unstoppable. So he gets going, and if necessary he’ll continue for three days and nights, day and night, without giving up. And he focuses on an issue that’s key from our point of view: the green transition. There’s a danger here, and I don’t know if I should bring it up. There’s a system called ETS2, which is extremely complicated – only Brussels could come up with something like it. The essence of it is that if you use a certain amount of energy that emits CO2, above a certain level you’ll have to pay a penalty. And now they’re extending this. It already applies to companies, and as a result some Hungarian companies have gone bankrupt. In a sense, this is unavoidable, but now they want to extend it to residential heating and passenger cars. So if a country uses fossil fuel to heat homes above a certain quota, it will have to pay a penalty and raise prices. There are various estimates, but this is almost as big a threat to household budgets as the US sanctions were. The same applies to cars. Above a certain level you’ll have to pay a penalty for fuel consumption. This is calculated in national quotas and distributed in an extremely complicated way, but that’s the gist of it. This must be prevented at all costs. This will be one of the most important issues in Brussels in December. And this won’t be possible without Prime Minister Babiš. Other Central European countries have already taken action, but in this regard the most determined and best prepared of us all is Prime Minister Babiš – who was also a finance minister and knows all the figures off the top of his head, like a mathematician. And in a debate like this, that’s worth its weight in gold. So I pray that he’ll be the one arriving in Brussels – not the current Czech prime minister, but Prime Minister Babiš, representing the Czechs. That’s the most important thing. Two: I’m paying close attention to Poland, where, as you know, there’s been a political shift, because the President is a patriotic president, as opposed to the progressive-liberal left-wing candidate. But Poland isn’t represented in the European Council by the President, but by the Prime Minister. So I’m watching what’s happening there, but the Polish prime minister has already adapted to the new situation and in this matter is now on our side. This is despite the fact that if there’s a government anywhere that’s supported or upheld by Brussels, it’s the Polish one. But change has begun there too. So I believe that by the time we arrive in Brussels in December – and I discussed this with the Italian prime minister last week – Hungary won’t be alone in this matter, but will be acting as part of a strong and determined group. The odds are better than usual; I’ve won bets at longer odds.
Tamás Király (Ultrahang): Prime Minister, there are those who are critical of the current agreement. They say that America has priced Hungary at 466 billion forints, and that it’s committed this amount of money to be spent in the coming period. Is this a good deal for us? They also say that it will put Hungary into debt and that actually it’s not a good deal. How would you respond to that? And a question related to domestic politics: why are Antal Rogán and Gergely Gulyás – whom you’ve previously called your most important ministers – not here on this trip?
Then who will look after the shop? Someone has to be there. So it’s not as if all the strong people are coming. The other question needs to be broken down. So I suggest that those who are doubtful or uncertain about the agreement should take a look at each item individually to see what agreements we’ve made, and examine whether or not they’re good for Hungary. So this isn’t linked to other things, but as it stands it’s sui generis. And then you’ll see that every single agreement we’ve concluded – and I’ll give you a few examples of this in a moment – is good for us as it stands. For example, we’ll buy LNG. We definitely need to buy some LNG – roughly the same amount that we’ll be buying from the Americans. The question was who we’d buy it from. And after we were able to reach a good agreement with the Americans, there will of course still be a debate over the price; so it’s good to buy this amount, as it’s absolutely necessary for the diversification of the Hungarian energy system. It could have been European or Arab, but we bought American because that was the right thing to do. But we definitely needed it, and it’s good for us. Nuclear waste storage technology. We need a technology that allows us to store spent fuel without having to transport it out of the Paks area – so in the safest and cheapest way possible. The system we’ve now purchased is better, cheaper and more advanced than the previous one. So we’ve done well. We’ve agreed on several items related to military industry matters. Hungary is implementing a military industrial development programme, and so the money we’re now spending on purchasing weapons definitely needs to be spent on purchasing weapons. The question was what kind of systems we’d buy. Not all of our systems are American. When I was Prime Minister for the first time, for example, I resisted switching Hungarian air defence and the Hungarian Air Force to American systems, because I thought it was good to stand on a European base. That’s why we chose a Swedish–British solution, with the Gripens. We’re not replacing that now. Obviously the Americans would be happy if we replaced it, but we’re not replacing it – that wasn’t even discussed. But there are systems, weapon systems, primarily HIMARS, if you know what I mean: a missile-based defence system that’s the best in the world. So if today someone wants to ensure security through this kind of weapon system, that’s the best one to buy. What’s more, our regional rivals have also bought them, so we have to keep up. This makes sense in itself, as it stands. And I could go on. So, we’re buying reactor fuel from Westinghouse, right? Hungary operates Russian-type reactors. We have to be very careful with fuel from other sources, to avoid technological problems; there have been examples of this in the world, which is why we’ve been examining this issue for many years. And at the suggestion of Minister Lantos, the decision was made to stand on two and a half or three legs, so to speak: this means that we’ll also allow the French to supply fuel, and of course they’ll cooperate with the Russians; and he also suggested that we allow the Americans to participate. This is better in terms of security of supply than sourcing from a single source, and our experts can now say with sufficient certainty that we can use French and American fuel in Russian-type and Russian-built nuclear power plants, so it makes sense to diversify. I was unsure about this for a long time, but this debate has been largely settled at the scientific and professional level, and we’ve accepted the Minister’s argument. So this is also good for Hungary. Therefore I suggest that if anyone thinks this isn’t a good deal, they should break it down piece by piece and see if there could have been a better deal with someone else to fulfil these functions that are important for the Hungarian national economy. And I don’t think anyone could have found a better source, with a higher level of technology and at a lower cost. So I think this is an excellent deal for Hungary. We’ve earned a lot of money for Hungary.
Dániel Kacsoh (Mandiner): Prime Minister, we’re going back to Hungary, where we’re seeing the continuation of an election campaign with perhaps the earliest ever start in Hungarian history. How do you see the chances, the division that’s increasingly characterising society? And what’s your view or your comment on the opposition leader’s remark that when he becomes Prime Minister he’ll renegotiate all the agreements with Donald Trump?
No. I don’t comment on unserious matters. A certain degree of seriousness is required in order to respond to something at the prime ministerial level. We made a promise before the election, and the current agreement is a good example of this: in the campaign leading up to the last election, I promised that even those who didn’t vote for us would benefit from our policies. Here we have the defence of reductions in household energy bills. Today, both socialist and liberal voters have benefited from the fact that their utility costs won’t double or triple. Or the fourteenth month’s pension will be received not only by Fidesz pensioners, but by everyone. So I stand by my commitment that our government will also benefit those who didn’t vote for us. I think this is a serious matter and worth talking about. And these agreements are all good, good for all Hungarians, regardless of their party affiliation. It’s campaign season. Campaigns necessarily present people with a range of choices, so they’re always divisive: one side says one thing, the other says another. After the election, the country must always be reunited. After every election, it must be reunited, again and again. I’ve been doing this for five terms now. I think it will work for a sixth.
