Menu
Zsolt Törőcsik: Good morning. EU heads of state and government gathered in Brussels yesterday for an extraordinary summit. The focus was on further support for Ukraine and strengthening Europe’s defence capabilities. The section in the closing document on support for Kyiv/Kiev wasn’t supported by Hungary. The reason for this is one of the questions I’ll be asking Prime Minister Orbán Viktor, here at the public media centre in Brussels. Good morning.
Good morning.
It’s already become clear that there’s a difference of opinion on this issue between you and the Brussels leadership. But what was it that your colleagues couldn’t convince you of?
There’s a difference of opinion between Hungary and the other 26 countries. This isn’t new: we’ve always had this difference of opinion, and we’ve always somehow bridged it. But this isn’t possible now, because the difference of opinion isn’t between Hungary and the other 26 Member States: the difference of opinion is between 26 EU countries, the United States and the group of pro-peace countries led by the United States. And at the heart of this dilemma – or at the heart of this debate – is the question of what needs to be done: should we continue the war, or should there be peace? We’ve always said that there should be peace. We’ve been saying this for three years. Hungarians are unable to bear the economic consequences of such a war – or if we are, we’re only able to bear them with great difficulty. Now America has arrived and they’ve said what we’ve been saying: “Let there be peace.” And they’re working on this. Now we’re here for the other 26 countries to put together a counter-strategy, to prevent peace and to persuade the Ukrainians and themselves that it makes sense to continue the war. The United States has pulled out of funding the war, but we Europeans are saying, “We’ll step in and strengthen Ukraine, and we’ll decide that Ukraine should continue the war.” This is what happened yesterday: instead of taking a stand for peace, the others decided that Ukraine must continue the war. President Zelenskyy was also here, when this is what they clearly said.
What are they counting on? Because they argue that peace must be created through strength, but we can see that the international environment is changing – practically from day to day. So in the current situation, what are they counting on in their support for Ukraine?
That’s something I’d also like to know. Because if there’s been a war going on for three years, with 26 European countries and the United States united in their support for Ukraine, and the Russians are still winning on the front line, and now the Americans are pulling out, how can the remaining 26 countries stand a better chance of succeeding in this war? This is a question with no answer. So there’s simply no rational basis for the position that the 26 European Member States have now taken. And I think there are very serious financial consequences; because if you say that someone has to continue the war, then someone has to finance it – you need money. The Americans have withdrawn from it. Now it’s costing us an arm and a leg; and if the Europeans go through with this, our very last penny will be spent on this war.
Yes, because in the meantime there’s also an 800-billion-euro rearmament programme, which was presented by the Commission and also discussed yesterday. Firstly, how would this be different from – or better than – NATO? And secondly, in connection with what you’ve said, how realistic is it for the EU to collectively support Ukraine and such a major military-industrial programme?
The power relations within NATO have also changed: the United States wants peace; Turkey has the second largest army in NATO, and it wants peace; and so do we and the Slovaks. So in terms of weight, the pro-peace side is in the majority in NATO, and therefore no money will be coming here from NATO. And if I take this to its logical conclusion – and in a heated debate yesterday we took this to its logical conclusion – in terms of exactly how much money we’re talking about, then this is what we’ll see. The Europeans want to give money to maintain the Ukrainian army. Today this is an army of 800,000. The Ukrainians don’t have a penny to finance this, to keep 800,000 men under arms. What’s more, Zelenskyy has said that after the war, during peacetime, this wouldn’t be 800,000, but that he was asking for one million: for us Europeans to finance a Ukrainian army of one million. Secondly, Ukraine isn’t functioning as a state. So today we not only need to finance the army, but also the state itself. Thirdly, we’ve now decided that we have to finance ourselves, because our armies are weak, our weaponry is weak, and Europe must strengthen itself. This is the third big item. And then there’s also something else knocking on the door, which some are pushing for: Ukraine’s membership of the European Union – which is a fourth huge item. If I add all this up, there isn’t enough money – not only not enough in Europe, but perhaps not even enough in America. Well, this won’t work! We’ll have to think again. I’m sure that today it seems that I’ve vetoed this; it’s obvious that we’re not part of everything they’ve accepted, but it will only be a matter of weeks before they come back, and it will be clear that there’s no money for these goals. Hungary must be ready for this situation, so it’s time to think seriously about funding for a post-war Ukraine. Do we want all of Europe’s money to go to Ukraine? That should be their business, but it’s also Hungarians’ money, which should be coming to us from Brussels, and even our own financial resources created at home. I don’t think we want that.
This will be a subject for discussion in the coming weeks. But as you’ve pointed out, Ukraine’s membership of the EU was also discussed at this summit, and there’s even a head of government who’s given a specific target date for this. After the summit, however, you announced that you’ll be initiating a plebiscite on Ukraine’s accession to the EU. Why do you feel the need to involve the people in this decision?
There’s a concept emerging in Europe that seeks to support Ukraine, while also destroying Europe economically. It’s a very good thing to help, and the Ukrainians need help, but one cannot help them while ruining ourselves. I believe that their membership of the European Union today would mean that Europe – including the Hungarian economy – would be ruined. And this process must be stopped in time. We can only stop it if we make it clear from the outset that we cannot make a responsible decision on this now: that would require unanimity. Ukraine can only become a member of the European Union if all Member States support it. It’s important to indicate in advance what Hungary’s position is on this issue. We mustn’t speed up the negotiations, but we must think through every detail. Now is not the time to make a responsible decision on their membership. On this we must buy time, so this process must be deferred and extended.
What aspects need to be considered? You’ve mentioned that every little detail has to be weighed up, and over the past year we’ve been talking about development issues, agricultural issues and security issues. So what are the aspects that need to be weighed up when making a decision like this?
It’s best to start from what we already know. Ukraine isn’t yet a member of the European Union, but we’ve already opened up trade between Ukraine and Europe, and at that moment our farmers were almost ruined. Of course, we feel most acutely for Hungarian farmers, but the same problem has also occurred in Poland and Romania. So in the event of Ukrainian membership, the first group in Hungarian society which would be at risk would be the agricultural sector, the agricultural population. This is quite simply because Ukraine produces large quantities of genetically modified produce, goods that are produced under much more relaxed production conditions. If these are dumped on the European market, they’ll depress prices and our farmers will go bankrupt. This is the first thing. The second thing is that there are, after all, 800,000 people under arms there, and Ukraine isn’t exactly famed for its public security. So at this time, allowing the free movement of citizens from such a country to Hungary – a neighbouring country – would, in my opinion, be irresponsible. And then there’s the problem of the free flow of labour. Hungary currently has an annual shortfall of between 30,000 and 50,000 workers, depending on the year. We can take in that many from abroad, we can employ them as guest workers; but in such a situation we couldn’t absorb hundreds of thousands, the several hundreds of thousands, that would be coming in. So it would also be difficult to protect Hungarian jobs. But this kind of plebiscite is precisely the right way to discuss all these issues, just as we do during national consultations; and it’s worth conducting it in the same way, quickly and efficiently, and letting everyone have their say. The question is simple: yes or no. I think that in the coming weeks and months we can unravel all the implications of Ukraine’s possible EU membership: we can unravel them and we can discuss them.
When can we expect such a vote or such a consultation?
I don’t want to shilly-shally, so I’ll try to get this done as quickly as possible.
There will be a Hungarian opinion on this issue, but how determined is the Brussels leadership? What are the chances that this opinion will be heard in Brussels?
I think that in Brussels they’re calculating. Last night I wasn’t the only one who was trying to be reasonable; there were countries with greater and heavier economic power than Hungary who were saying “We’ll calculate this.” And now they’re calculating. I repeat: maintaining an army of eight hundred thousand to a million with our own European money; running the entire Ukrainian state, where we’d pay the pensions and salaries, while there’s no income – or if there is, it’s negligible; meanwhile carrying out European rearmament costing hundreds of billions of euros; and at the same time saddling ourselves with the burden of Ukrainian membership. So now they’re calculating how much all this will be. And I think the result of the calculation will be that we can’t afford this. So I think that the Hungarian opinion will enter this European debate at just the right time, when it will become clear that we’ll be ruined if we do what yesterday the 26 Member States saw as the right thing to do. We’ll have to change this position – not only because of the question of war and peace, but also because sooner or later life will force countries that are committed to war to come over to the peace camp. I think that people everywhere in Europe want peace. That’s one thing. But then there’s the question of what will happen to Ukraine after the war, the road map for that – which was confirmed yesterday and agreed by 26 Member States, but will have to be amended because there’s no financial basis for it.
I also asked to what extent the opinion of Hungarians will be taken into account in Brussels, because in the 2023 consultation, for example, almost 99 per cent of voters supported the reductions in household energy bills. Yet recently the Government received a letter from the European Commission in which the Cabinet’s interpretation is that Brussels is calling for the abolition of this measure. In Brussels how strong is this push to abolish the reductions, despite the earlier consultation result?
The most glaring example from which we can learn is the issue of migration. What’s happened with migration is that – unlike the European Union – we’ve defended our borders, we’ve built a fence, and we’re not letting in migrants. The European Union has always objected to this, and they’ve tried to use every means possible to persuade Hungary to abandon this policy of self-defence and to switch to the German-led idea, or to become a member of the German-led group that says “Willkommen”: “Welcome!” We’ve resisted this, and so we were sued by the Union, and found guilty in court. Today we have to pay the fine. Why are we still standing? Because there was a referendum in Hungary, in which the people made it clear that the migration policy must be continued, and that migrants mustn’t be allowed to enter. If this hadn’t been backing us, or if it wasn’t backing us now, I believe that the Hungarian government wouldn’t be able to continue to take the position – either in court or in European politics – that we’re protecting Hungary from migrants. This is only possible because the whole of Hungarian public opinion is behind us and on our side, like a block. So when a country is under such strong pressure, as for example Hungary was on the issue of migration, then unity, consultations and referendums are all important. This is also the case with the reductions in household energy bills. For years we’ve been under enormous pressure to abolish these subsidies. Let’s be frank, we’re being pressured to abolish them because we’re scalping the profits of the big energy companies. If Hungarian families had to pay the price set by the market, they’d be paying a lot, and that money would be going into the pockets of the energy companies. And Brussels thinks that energy prices should be set freely, that the Government shouldn’t interfere, and that the companies should be allowed to make their profits according to the logic of the market. We disagree with this – for a variety of reasons. We think that millions of Hungarian families would be unable to cope if every month they had to pay the same bills for gas and electricity as people are paying elsewhere in Europe. Hungarian people are less aware of this because they’re not paying the same amount. So they take for granted the fact that their bills for gas and electricity are the lowest in Europe. But if we make a comparison, and I’ll try to do this, it’s just that the numbers make it difficult, but for the sake of comparison if we look at what a Hungarian family pays, let’s say it’s 250,000 forints a year for gas and electricity. For the same amount of gas and electricity they don’t pay 250,000 forints, but in Romania 600,000, in Slovakia 650,000, and in Poland 900,000. So if it weren’t for the Hungarian system of reducing energy bills, every Hungarian family would pay an annual additional amount of between 500,000 and 600,000 forints. They’d have to find this money from somewhere. The only reason they don’t pay more today is because of the policy of reductions in household energy bills. And Brussels wants this to stop – something which runs completely counter to the interests of the Hungarian people. So on this, too, we have to hold out. And we can fight this battle because Hungary is united on this issue also, and the Government has the overwhelming majority of the population behind it. Of course Brussels has its own people in Hungary who represent the same thing as they do. These are mostly liberal economists. Earlier it was the Left that used to do this, and now [the opposition party] TISZA is saying that the whole thing is “humbug”, that we should forget it, and that there’s no need for it. But if we were to accept this position from Brussels, which is also represented in Hungary by some Brusselite deputies, then every family would pay around 500,000 forints more a year. Where would they get that from? So this is why we have to hold out.
Let’s stay with the relationship between the economy and families. Last week we talked about the fact that the Minister for National Economy is in talks with retail chains about reducing margins in order to prevent high inflation. How are these negotiations progressing? Are there any positive developments in this matter?
The good news is that they’re making progress. The bad news is that it’s not fast enough. Some retail chains have already started to cut prices. So there are shops where you can see that there’s a price reduction on the most important products that we’ve identified; but it’s not enough, so the Minister needs to continue this work. I’d like to avoid interference by the authorities, whether it’s officially regulating prices or regulating retailers’ profits – neither of which is good for the economy in the long run. But we’ll be forced to do that if we don’t get everyone on board with price cuts. Once again, prices aren’t simply rising: prices are being raised. And therefore those who are raising prices need to realise that there’s a limit beyond which they cannot go.
What specific measures should they take to avoid, say, a price freeze, and by when?
They have one week to do so.
Then next week we’ll see what developments there are on this. Meanwhile, the use of USAID funds in Hungary is also being investigated. Government Commissioner András László is already in Washington, and in the meantime the US administration has cancelled all USAID contracts. How clearly can we see this issue at the moment? Have we already seen any results from the Commissioner’s work overseas?
Hungary is a country that’s happy to see money coming into the economy from abroad – mainly because, after forty or so years of communism, insufficient capital accumulated at home to provide Hungarians with a good standard of living. There will be a time when that will exist, and I’ll live to see it – but it won’t be tomorrow. So for the Hungarian economy to perform well, there must be significant foreign investment, and money must come in from abroad. This is why we’re usually happy when we hear that money has come into the country, because we welcome this or that kind of factory, this kind of investment, that kind of development. These are the good dollars. But there are also bad dollars, there are also corrupt dollars, which don’t come in to help the Hungarian economy, but are in fact coming in to gain influence. Dollars are sent to people and organisations from abroad – in this case from the United States – in order to influence Hungarian public opinion, to influence the Hungarian government, and to influence economic decisions. These are bad dollars. These are corrupt dollars. This is what we’re talking about. The United States has rushed to our aid, because they themselves have exposed their own past practices. There’s been a change of government in America, and frankly speaking the new government has said that bad things happened under the previous government. The previous US government used US taxpayers’ money to buy journalists, politicians and fake civil society organisations in other countries, and to buy influence there. And so a lot of money was also spent in Hungary for this purpose. We’ve been on the receiving end of this: it’s up to the Americans to decide how they spend their taxpayers’ money, but we cannot accept American money being used to buy public opinion and influence Hungarian public life in Hungary. Now the American side of this fine, and over there they’re cleaning it up. The bigger problem is that this wasn’t the only source. The corrupt dollars have come not only from the United States, but also from Brussels. We must also start to investigate that. So people in Hungary have also been paid from Brussels, in order that outcomes will be what Brussels wants, and not what’s represented by the Hungarian government, the Hungarian people or public opinion expressed in Hungarian referendums. We still need to uncover this too. So this is clear corruption. The Brussels affair is even more outrageous than the American affair, because the money from Brussels is also our money. So in the case of the Americans, they spent American money in Hungary in order to change the country’s position on some issues; but in the case of Brussels, they’ve been taking money from the sums we pay, and they’ve been sending it back here in order to influence and change the Hungarian government’s position on, say, the reductions in household energy bills. So this is a dark affair, a dark story. We’re working on it. I think the legislation needed to prevent this from happening again could be in place around Easter.
How much more difficult is it – or how much more work is needed – to unravel the Brussels threads? Because this issue of funding is arising in more and more places across Europe. Most recently, for example, the CDU – which won the German elections – has begun to question what moneys have been given to certain civil society organisations, and how they were paid.
The Brussels case is more difficult than the US one because in the US there’s been a change of government: a new administration has come in and wants to wipe the slate clean. Here in Brussels the old leadership has remained, and they don’t want to wipe the slate clean, they don’t want the stunts that they’ve been pulling in recent years to come to light. But in this the Member States have tools. You’ve mentioned Germany, but there’s also Hungary. And so pressure can be exerted from the Member States, and results can be achieved. I don’t know how long it will take; I think it will take more time to investigate the Brussels cases than the American cases, but they can be investigated. And then there’s a third fund: the fund of the Soros network, the Soros Foundation. The money flows from this will also need to be uncovered.
How clearly are we already able to see what the domestic political consequences might be if this network and chain is uncovered?
Then many hundreds of millions – or billions – of forints will be removed from Hungarian public life. At last we won’t be hearing the voices of foreigners in Hungarian public opinion, which is being shaped through covert relationships; but the debates that will take place will really be those that are important for Hungary and that are rooted in the interests of the Hungarian people. In Hungarian politics nowadays we hear a lot of voices that are backed by Brussels. Their masters are in Brussels. And whoever pays the piper calls the tune. In this case, the opinions, positions, political events and organisations that influence public opinion are being paid for and being told what to represent by the people who are giving them the money. It’s a familiar story, and there’s nothing new about it. What is brutal is that now we’re confronted with this fact so starkly.
I’ve been asking Prime Minister Viktor Orbán about subjects including yesterday’s European Union summit, Ukraine’s accession to the EU, and the reductions in household energy bills.
