Menu
A summit of EU heads of state and government ended yesterday, with leaders of the Member States discussing a number of important issues. Among them were the war, migration and competitiveness. In the next half an hour I’m going to ask Prime Minister Viktor Orbán about these issues. Good morning.
Good morning.
Coming to the summit yesterday, you mentioned three battles to be fought – firstly the war in Ukraine. Then President Zelensky of Ukraine presented all of you with his victory plan. How was this received by the heads of state and government?
In relation to the war in Ukraine, there are two groups in the European Union: us and the rest. This is how I can describe the situation. One day historians will write about how all this came about; but Hungary, of course, announced at the very outset that we didn’t want to participate in the war effort. Today all the other European Union countries are involved in the war. Some say it in stronger language, some in more subtle language, but basically they’re all talking about the fact that they’re fighting a war against Russia. They’re not in direct conflict with Russia, because Ukraine is there between them and Russia, and the Ukrainians are fighting on the battlefront and dying there. But in fact the European Union is behaving like a belligerent. And from the very beginning Hungary has made it clear that this is the wrong strategy, that it’s been miscalculated, that this war cannot be won, that the Ukrainian–Russian conflict cannot be settled on the battlefront, and that instead of escalating the war negotiations are needed: negotiations, diplomacy, contacts. And we must try to bring the war to an end as soon as possible, so that as few people as possible die, so that Ukraine loses as little territory as possible, and so that we Hungarians and Europeans in general can return to a peaceful life. We shouldn’t have to send billions – billions of dollars and billions of euros – to the war, and see all that money burnt up. Let’s not impose sanctions, let’s not destroy European trade, let’s not destroy the European energy system, let’s not create a situation in which energy prices suddenly rise, generating huge inflation. Let’s not behave in a way that results in the price of gas in the European economy being four or five times higher than in the US, let’s not behave in a way that results in the price of electricity in Europe being two or three times higher than in the US, meaning that our factories aren’t able to sell their products and aren’t competitive. So let’s not do all that. This was the Hungarian position. And we also said that the end result would be defeat. Now here we are. So now the other twenty-six countries were astonished to hear President Zelenskyy say that now he has a victory plan. But what was it that he had up until now? We thought they were already proceeding according to a victory plan. But it turns out that they weren’t. What had existed as a plan turned out to be a plan for defeat. Now they want to switch from that to a plan for victory. We’ve been saying – and I said it yesterday – that we’re part of that. It’s not our victory plan, and although we wish that the Ukrainians were right, we don’t think that they can win with this victory plan, and that with it they can only lose again. We had an animated discussion about this, in which we had to make it clear that we stand outside this war, that we haven’t been involved in it, and that we won’t be involved in it.
What’s the chance or risk of the fighting intensifying, increasing or even widening? Because, for example, according to [the German newspaper] Bild, Zelensky has also suggested that if the Russians move again towards, say, Kyiv/Kiev, Ukraine could be a few weeks away from perhaps developing a nuclear bomb.
I’ve seen reports of this in the press. It wasn’t part of what I heard from President Zelenskyy personally at this meeting. We communicate through interpreters, so there may be nuances that aren’t perceived, but during the talks it didn’t seem to me that the Ukrainians were serious about developing themselves into a nuclear power. That’s difficult to imagine anyway. But one is also frightened by the possibility of that. So the gravity of the situation alone shows that a wave of panic can be sent through the European public by such a Ukrainian plan – whether or not it exists, it’s undisclosed, semi-secret, completely secret, or perhaps non-existent. We’re so close to the possibility of this – everyone feels that we’re so close to war suddenly breaking out all over Europe – that it creates a breeding ground for this kind of partial information. So we need to confirm what the situation is. Our services are working to clarify whether Ukraine really does have any plans for nuclear weapons.
Incidentally, it’s interesting that ever more politicians are talking about peace. But perhaps NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte expressed the Western position most precisely when yesterday he said that Ukraine should start negotiations with Russia from a position of strength. So the path to negotiations is seen differently from the way you see it. What do you think are the chances of a consensus being reached and negotiations being able to start in the short term, say?
In a war there’s little room for speculation. That leads a country astray, so you have to start out from the facts. So of course you have to negotiate from a position of strength; but since the war started the positions have changed in favour of Russia and to the detriment of Ukraine. So it’s a good idea to negotiate from a position of strength, but the problem is that we’re weak. And now the victory plan is about how we’ll be strong. But in fact we’re losing the war! I love these fine phrases coming from the politicians’ salons, while thousands are dying on the front line – on both sides, but including young Ukrainians. The flower of a nation is being cut down, and we’re giving advice on how good it is to negotiate from a position of strength. I think that the good idea is not to fight, the good idea is to make peace – or at least to have a ceasefire, and to try to end the conflict with as few casualties as possible and with the best possible prospects for the future. So I can say that all the other countries in the European Union have a war strategy, and Hungary has a peace strategy. Interestingly enough, it’s the European People’s Party that’s breathing the most fire. So it’s Manfred Weber who’s most strongly committed to war. The European People’s Party is a German party, after all, and behind it are the CDU, the Christian Democrats – who, surprisingly, are the most committed advocates for war in the entire European political arena.
Speaking of the European People’s Party, this week this conflict between Budapest and Brussels has also escalated on party political grounds. The European People’s Party [EPP] issued a post on social media showing you in front of a red background with the caption “Time to go”. Never before has the largest party family in the European Union said this openly. How do you assess this turn of events, this move? What can this be attributed to?
It’s certain that in this there’s the war, which we’ve been talking about. As I’ve said, the Hungarian position isn’t about continuing the war. But I’ve also put forward the proposal that it’s time for negotiations, and it would be good if the German chancellor and the French president were to start negotiations with the Russians – either on their own behalf or on behalf of Europe – before the Americans enter the scene. The People’s Party takes a different view. And clearly the war is part of the reason that they’re calling for my departure in Hungary, and thus for a change of government. But a lot of other things are also part of this. The EPP envisages a Europe that’s bad for Hungarians. And we – I and the Government – have been fighting against this for years. And the European People’s Party has really moved up a gear, as we saw in the last debate in the European Parliament last week, when they presented their own demand. They said that this government should go, and this party – the Tisza Party, that’s a member of the European People’s Party – should come in. They said that the new party should come in, the old government should take with it its policies – that Brussels doesn’t like – and the new government should enact policies that Brussels likes. So let in the migrants, enter the war, accept gender ideology and abolish the child protection system in Hungary. And they also have a lot of economic demands: don’t tax their multinationals, don’t hound their banks – things that we’re familiar with, as this battle has been going on for years. It really is true that Brussels wants to see a government sent here as a proconsul that it has appointed – a proxy, to replace the current government. This is something the Hungarians will decide on, a long way down the road – and now we have more than a year and a half to go. Instead of campaigning, I’d say that now we should get to work and ensure the success of our programme – which is different from that of Brussels, both in economic and foreign policy terms. And this is our correct response. “Bunk” – as Petőfi could have written in a poem or something similar in 1848 or 1849. That’s the reaction to the Germans trying to tell us what we should do in Hungary.
We’ll talk about economic policy in a moment, but you mentioned that this battle has been going on for years. What could be the reason for it coming to a head now?
There are problems in the European Union, and Hungary has different answers to precisely those problems that pose the greatest challenge. Now of course on its own Hungary shouldn’t be an issue: we’re a country of ten million people, our gross domestic product isn’t the highest in the European Union, we don’t have the largest army, we don’t have the greatest influence – so we could be left in peace. They could say, “Well, that’s how they’re doing it, and in the end we’ll see who does better.” It could even be an honest, fair and equitable contest. The problem is that in the meantime it’s become clear that what we’re doing in Hungary is more or less what the people of Europe would like to see in their own countries, while their own governments are doing the opposite. So today the situation is that everyone in Europe is against migration. I might be exaggerating, and perhaps there are still pro-migration forces, but apart from governments no one today is arguing in favour of migration, and no normal person in Brussels or in Europe is doing so. Well, they’d give their right hand to have the same migration situation as us. So the fact is that there’s a country where there’s no migration crisis, because we don’t let them in. Meanwhile they’re banging their heads against the wall, wondering how they could have been so wretched as to let in millions of migrants who they can’t deal with, and who just keep coming and coming and coming. So in Europeans’ eyes Hungary is an example to set against their own governments. Or one could ask, for example, why it is that in Hungary – which is far from being the richest country in the European Union – families pay the lowest prices for electricity and gas, and for utilities in general. Why is this so? And why isn’t it like this in their countries? Here is Hungary, with its ten million people and the capacity that it has, and there is Germany, with eighty-four million people, and there is France, a huge country with sixty or so million people, a huge industrial powerhouse; and why is it that in Hungary people pay less? People aren’t stupid. They’re asking this question. Why is it that their governments are up to their necks in war, while Hungary is on the side of peace, which is also the side that the majority of people in Europe are on? So since for the time being we’re alone, I think that Hungary is a conspicuous thorn in their side, a splinter under the nail that’s putting European governments in an uncomfortable position. Incidentally, I’m trying to play this down, I’m trying to turn down the heat: I’m not provoking them, but I just want them to leave us alone so that we can do things in the way that’s best for us. But the leaders sense the challenge, they sense that this isn’t simply about Hungary, but that European policy could be done differently: economic policy, military policy, energy policy, migration policy, all these things. And the biggest problem with us is that we’re successful. So we look at the economy and say that Germany is stagnating, while Hungary will have growth of 1.5 to 1.8 per cent. Next year we’ll have growth of 3 per cent, while everywhere they’re talking about stagnation, about treading water. But I can give you a thousand other examples. Migration, for example. Why should French or German citizens be afraid to let their children go out in the evening? Why is it that at a big public event you have to be careful about what will happen in the crowd? Why is crime on the rise? Why are people living with the threat of terrorism? Meanwhile none of this is happening in Hungary. So the truth is that we’re inadvertently presenting a challenge to the others. This is why I try to stay in the background by keeping a low profile; because it’s not in our interest to beat our chests and show off, but instead we want to ensure that we can run our own lives in the way that suits us. But anyway, that’s the way it is now, and the European People’s Party has staked everything on one roll of the dice. We left them [the European People’s Party] because what they were demanding from Hungary was untenable. So anyone who joins the European People’s Party is clearly against the interests of Hungarian society today. They’ve found a party, which has joined them, and now they want to bring it to power and use it to implement a programme that Hungary has rejected, because it would be bad for the people living here. So this battle is in progress. We don’t just have domestic politics: Hungary’s domestic politics is also present in Brussels.
How does this escalating battle affect the country’s room for manoeuvre or its sovereignty? And this question is also interesting because in recent weeks we’ve talked several times about the fact that in order to implement a policy of economic neutrality, what’s needed is precisely this room for manoeuvre or sovereignty.
Strangely enough, this situation which I’ve described here in a negative way – that we’re inadvertently presenting a challenge to EU countries that are pursuing bad policies – is also enhancing our stature. So of course the attacks on Hungary aren’t pleasant – and I could speak about this personally, but naturally they’re not good for the country either; but they’re enhancing our stature. After all, the Chancellor met me in Berlin last week, and next week I’m visiting the French president. So it’s clear that the fact that we’re doing things differently – and doing them successfully – is giving Hungary a higher profile in the world of foreign policy. What’s more, yesterday’s most important news is that [Slovak prime minister] Robert Fico is back after all. He’s the man who they tried to take out with the help of some left-wing activist gunman – and one day it will turn out what the conspiratorial background to the whole thing was. But he survived, and has come back in explosive form. And next week there will be a Serbian–Hungarian–Slovak tripartite summit on migration. So what I’m trying to say is that while the situation I’ve described is a challenge to Hungary, with the Brusseleers seeking to delegate another government here with another programme, it’s also increasing our stature in the region, and increasing our stature in the European Union. I believe that our influence is greater than would otherwise be justified by our country’s size and its real economic and military strength. Now, as far as the economy is concerned, in the coming year we’ll be taking off: a plan is being developed with which we can get moving next year, and which will give the Hungarian economy a major boost. There will be much amazement when the economic figures for the first quarter come out in 2025, when we launch the twenty or so precise plans that the public will gradually be able to see. There will be a national consultation, to which I attach great importance, because it will be the means for laying the foundations for the new economic policy. You see, Europe is treading water, it sees that the world’s changing and that it should adapt; but it can’t, or it doesn’t feel right, or it doesn’t want to. So somehow it’s not succeeding. But in comparison Hungary will be at full speed. Because by adapting quickly, by proclaiming and reinforcing a policy of economic neutrality, we can get ahead in this race – provided that the public also confirm this through the national consultation. Because a new economic policy comes with difficulties, it will be difficult to gain momentum, a lot of work will be needed, and there will also be some risk. And we should only embark on this if the people support it and accept that Hungary should pursue an economic policy that is its own.
If within the framework of economic neutrality we talk about the three pillars which, of course, were decided this week, we see what the big political dimensions of this programme and economic neutrality are. But if we also think about the consultation, it’s also worth looking at this in terms of people’s everyday lives, what the purpose of these measures is, or when we’ll see the results of these measures.
There are two fundamentals. One we’ve talked about is the war. So of course if there’s war, the plans that we’ve forged here and that we’re now trying to turn into a collective plan in the national consultation will stay in a drawer – because in times of war this isn’t the kind of economic policy that we need. But, quite apart from praying for and cheering on Donald Trump, I’m very confident that we can avoid getting drawn into war. Just don’t let there be any more victory plans – I’m saying that as an aside. The other foundation or premise of our economic policy is that at all costs we must protect the country from migration. So the economic policy that we’re now preparing can’t work in a country that’s flooded with migrants, where refugee camps have to be set up, and where people from cultures that are different from ours have to be allowed in. Because now migration not only brings with it the threat of terrorism, crime and tensions, but it also eats up a lot of money. So now, for example, we’re being punished by Brussels for not letting in migrants; but this penalty is still far less than the financial burden we’d have to bear if we let them in. So we must definitely stay out of the war and keep Hungary a migrant-free zone. This is the basis of economic policy. And then, of course, we can raise wages, because the time has come to do so, and the accumulated performance of the economy justifies it – as employers are also saying. Housing. Housing is expensive, and it must be made cheaper, so we need to create specific housing conditions that are affordable, especially for young people. The time has also come to help families, and in this new economic policy the tax credit for families with children must be doubled. With the Sándor Demján Plan we can help small and medium-sized enterprises, we can offer them prospects, they can move forward, and we can involve them more in economic growth. So, if confirmed in the consultation, this new economic policy will make a highly visible impact on everyday life, and in the coming year there will be a highly visible change in people’s everyday lives.
We’ve already spoken about the need for a turnaround in the European Union’s competitiveness, and that while this is a problem that practically everyone agrees on, there are differences of opinion on the solution. What would it take for Europe to be able to compete again, with either China, the Far East or the United States?
The most important thing is to make it clear that there’s no lack of intellect: we’re not dealing with an intellectual problem. So we see an increasing number of studies and presentations that take a realistic view of the situation. And the report by the former Italian prime minister, which is haunting Europe as the Draghi Report, speaks clearly about the problems. So the decision-makers cannot claim that they’re facing some kind of intellectual challenge, because it’s been solved, described, and we’ve been told what we should do. It should be done, but they can’t do it. Now, there are many reasons why in the West they can’t do it; but I’m less interested in that, and frankly I’m much more interested in whether we Hungarians can do it. And I think that we’ll be able to do what these studies and analyses say about competitiveness. The first and most important thing is that you can’t compete while paying energy prices that are three to four times higher than those of your competitors. That form of competition is unwinnable: don’t even enter it – you’ll fail, you’ll be finished. Well, you can’t compete with an American company if their electricity or gas bill is a quarter or a fifth of yours. There’s no company in Europe that can economise its way out of that. This is the most important thing. The second thing is that high taxes can’t be borne. In the West they’re increasing taxes! So if you tax companies, companies and people’s incomes, you lose competitiveness. Taxes must be cut! In the West recently almost no one has cut taxes except us. So I’m confident that we can do all this. And we’ve put it together. Since 2010, when we came to office in a time of great poverty, if I may put it like that, we’re now looking at a different Hungary – if you look at its capital strength, if you look at businesses, if you look at the financial situation of families, if you look at savings. Of course we’re plagued by all sorts of problems, but in 2010 Hungary set out on a path. The situation is different now in that in the meantime a situation has arisen in the world that in 2010 was unforeseeable: Europe’s competitiveness has declined as a result of the events of the last ten or so years, while America’s and China’s has improved. And Europe is reacting to this situation by closing itself off, by forming into a bloc, with protective tariffs. In essence it’s adopting a “hedgehog position”, which is bad. Our lives will be increasingly bad if we adopt this hedgehog position, closing our eyes to reality or burying our heads in the sand, not competing but closing ourselves off, instead of competing, understanding why others are better, identifying where their advantages lie and then catching up, and putting ourselves in a better position through our own reforms. Therefore the essence of Hungarian policy – what we call “connectivity” or “economic neutrality” – is that we must trade with everyone, we must compete with everyone; and we must somehow participate in, partner with and cooperate with every international company that’s competitive, so that Hungary also benefits from the large amount of economic profit generated in the world.
In the last half hour I’ve been asking Prime Minister Viktor Orbán questions about the war, the national consultation and the new Hungarian economic policy.
