Zsolt Törőcsik: Welcome to our listeners, and welcome to our studio guest, Prime Minister
Viktor Orbán. Good morning.
Good morning.
We’re talking here in Abu Dhabi because today you’re meeting the President of the United Arab Emirates, who’s also the ruler of Abu Dhabi. This is your second visit here this year, and the President visited you in Hungary in July. What’s the purpose of the current talks?
We need to strike while the iron is hot. We’ve succeeded in establishing a very special relationship with the leaders and with the economic life of the Emirates, and very rapid, fast-paced economic cooperation is emerging on the horizon. This is something we need, and it offers enormous opportunities for Hungary. We can attract significant investments in industries… There’s a lot of money here – and incidentally I’d like to note that although this country is the world’s fifth largest oil exporter, they’re smart people, who aren’t simply living off the profits from raw materials extracted from the ground, but are trying to invest them. They have a very active investment policy. Up until now they’ve overlooked Central Europe and Hungary. They’re present in Serbia, however, and I noticed them there when I saw that the level of investment in Serbia from the Emirates had started to increase. They’re not present in Central Europe, so we thought we’d seize this opportunity and establish a special partnership with them. When it comes to business they’re Western-minded people, and we could be their strategic partner in our region. We’ve also identified the industries where we’ll be able to cooperate on a large scale. Today there will be an important round of negotiations on the energy sector, artificial intelligence and digital infrastructure – in other words the construction of large data centres and their supply with green energy. Artificial intelligence has enormous energy requirements, which require large investments. So we’re ahead in these matters, and we’re making good progress. So we didn’t launch it today, nor are we in the middle of it anymore – in fact, by the next round, I think we’ll already be able to wrap up some of the more significant, large-scale programmes.
We’ll see the outcome of these negotiations and report on it, but now let’s talk about…
Excuse me, let me just say that as a result of the strategic cooperation that began this year, trade between the two countries – which was of course at a low level – grew by 24 per cent. So things are looking promising.
Let’s move on to European issues, and issues that we’ve already dealt with or are still involved in. This week the war situation deteriorated further after Russian drones entered Polish territory and were shot down by their air defences. Following Wednesday’s incident, how dangerous is this situation at the European level – or even for Hungary?
Wednesday’s incident is an embodiment or example of the dangerous circumstances in which we live every day, but which we’re unaware of because of the hustle and bustle of everyday life, the challenges and tasks of daily life, work, children and family. These things consume our attention, and we don’t have time to think about the danger that our daily lives are in. But everyone suddenly sits up and takes notice when trouble strikes – in the form of a few drones, say, in Poland. This could have happened yesterday, the day before yesterday, or tomorrow – in Poland or in Hungary. So the threat of war is immediate. We’re not involved in the war, while the Poles are in it up to their necks. We’re keeping our distance, this isn’t our war and we’re not participating in it; but we’re neighbours of the country where the war is taking place, and this poses a constant and permanent threat of war.
Yes, but just the night before our last conversation, US president Trump and Russian president Putin met, and it seemed that things were moving towards a solution. Compared to that, in the past two weeks it seems as if that’s not what we’re seeing. What’s happened – what could have happened – to cause the momentum that seemed to be there at that time to subside?
First of all, let’s be modest and admit that we don’t know everything. We’re in direct contact with both the Americans and the Russians, and the Hungarian foreign minister often has telephone conversations with his counterparts in the European Union, America and Russia. So we know a great deal, perhaps more than others – but we don’t know everything. For example, we weren’t sitting there at the meeting between the Russian and American presidents. And my opinion is that things there are moving forward at a rapid pace. We Hungarians just need to keep in mind that the Russo–Ukrainian war is the most important issue for us, but not for the world. The world has other problems related to Russia – the world’s energy supply, for example. Is it possible to buy energy from Russia now, or not? Is it subject to sanctions, or not? Recently the Americans tried to impose sanctions on India for this very reason. Can companies that are considered to be Western participate in Russian energy production? Can they participate in this trade? Can they invest in Russia? Can they accept Russian investment? So what I’m trying to say is that we’re focusing on the Russo–Ukrainian war – and rightly so, because it’s a key issue for our security; but meanwhile the big boys who are in negotiations aren’t just negotiating about that. And I think they’re making great strides in clarifying all the other issues. About whether or not to reintegrate Russia into the international system. The Biden administration and the Europeans pushed them out of the G7 and G20, so they’re not there; but the Americans are already saying that if there’s peace or a ceasefire, then the Russians must be reintegrated. Or they mustn’t be, according to the Germans. So there are still quite a few issues to be resolved in addition to the war in Ukraine. This is why I think that progress is slow in the war – or slow in the peace process. But in all other matters I have the feeling that the negotiators behind the scenes are making good and rapid progress. Since we’ve already mentioned drones, let’s not forget that this happened in Poland. Regardless of the current political wrangling, the Poles are our friends. In historical terms, they’re our historical allies, close to our hearts, and therefore truly our friends. Even friends have arguments, and so Hungary must be among the first to react immediately and clearly to anything that harms Poland or compromises its sovereignty. From the very first moment we considered the incursion of Russian drones into Polish territory to be unacceptable, and we stand with the Poles. We are 100 per cent in solidarity with them.
You’ve just mentioned that we’re not at war. By contrast, this week Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, gave a speech in which she said the opposite – clearly stating that Europe is at war. Incidentally, this speech took place on the very day of the drone incident. What conclusion do you draw from this statement, and from von der Leyen’s speech in general?
The fact is that for three years – or rather three and a half years – we’ve been suffering all the adverse consequences of a war that we’ve had nothing to do with, for which we bear no responsibility, and in which we’ve never taken part. But these ladies and gentlemen in the West – like von der Leyen – want to drag us into this war by our ears or the scruff of our neck. We must resist. I don’t want to exaggerate with historical analogies, but I just want to say that we’re Hungarians, and history pulses in our blood – or rather, history pulses in our veins together with our blood. And we’ve already been dragged into two wars, the consequences of which were devastating for Hungary, and through which we lost the entire 20th century: two wars in which we didn’t want to participate. We didn’t want to participate in either of them, but Western politicians like von der Leyen dragged us into those wars by the scruff of our neck. István Tisza wanted to stay out of World War I, but Vienna dragged us into it; and Horthy – Regent Miklós Horthy – also wanted to stay out, also wanted to stay out of World War II, but the Germans dragged us into that. Now, once again, German-speaking ladies and gentlemen in the safe West are trying to drag Central Europeans – including Hungarians – into a war. This is unacceptable! My two predecessors failed to resist. I have vowed that I will succeed.
Many have criticised von der Leyen’s speech on account of what wasn’t mentioned, or what was mentioned only briefly – such as competitiveness issues and the US tariff agreement. And then the Patriots for Europe were among those submitting a motion of no confidence against her. This is interesting, because a recent opinion poll showed that 60 per cent of Europeans would be in favour of her resignation. But what would change in terms of European policy if she weren’t President of the Commission?
I attach only moderate importance to such polls because, as is often the case in politics, public opinion fluctuates: sometimes it supports someone, sometimes it turns away, then it returns, then it wants them gone again. So political decisions can’t be tailored to daily measures of public opinion. It’s undoubtedly true that in the long run only the people can decide – but the people shouldn’t decide every day, because then what’s the point of having leaders? So a politician, a leader, must have enough stamina and strength to be able to endure temporary unpopularity. Therefore I wouldn’t draw any conclusions from the poll ratings regarding von der Leyen’s departure. But I would draw conclusions from something else: the facts. So what does Europe need? We need to review the green transition, because high energy prices are partly caused by the green transition, and this will be fatal for the European economy. We need to review our policy on Ukraine; we need to review sanctions; we need to review trade policy, because we’ve made a bad deal with the Americans; and we need to review migration policy. In essence, all the important issues need to be reviewed, because under von der Leyen’s leadership the European Union is heading for the abyss. So it’s not poll ratings that are important here, but misguided policies and poor leadership. This is why I say that it would be better if the President of the Commission packed her bags, went quietly home, and left Brussels to those who are capable of pursuing better policies; because everything she’s firmly stood up for so far needs to be reviewed. So the problem isn’t whether people like her or not, but that she has a policy with four or five pillars, and those pillars are bad – they need to be replaced. Well, she won’t be able to replace them. She’s not going to say, “I was wrong up until yesterday, but from tomorrow we’ll do it this way…” That’s not going to happen. And we’re not talking about one issue here, but four or five important issues. Hungarian girls have just been raped in Sicily. We stand with them and wish them a speedy physical and psychological recovery. The absurd fact is that Europe has lost its security because of poor migration policy. Energy prices in the European Union are two, three or four times higher than in the United States. How are we going to compete with them? This green policy is bad! We’re continuously losing the war. The Russians are winning, we’re losing, and money – which is already scarce and should be in Europe – is going to Ukraine. I haven’t even mentioned competitiveness. A year ago in the Draghi Report – we’re talking about a serious person, the former president of the European Central Bank, not a Hungarian prime minister currently in office – we read a description of what needs to be done if we don’t want to go bankrupt. We discussed this in Budapest. We even adopted a declaration – the Budapest Declaration, which is about saving the European economy. That’s what we should be doing. They’re doing the opposite. So with leaders like these, we can only end up in the abyss.
Applying this to the Hungarian situation, in a recent post you wrote that changes are coming, whether we want them or not, and the question is what answers we’ll give: the Brussels answer or the Hungarian answer. What will determine the answer here at home, and why would anyone here at home give the Brussels answer to these questions?
There’s a tradition in Hungarian politics, which is an old one: some Hungarian political parties are constantly at the service of foreign powers. There are national forces and parties, and there are those who are, let’s say, in the pay of others. This is an old tradition, whereby they were controlled either from Moscow or Berlin, and now from Brussels. So Brussels has a party in Hungary. That’s not what it’s called, but rather Tisza or DK [Democratic Coalition] – but it’s the party of Brussels, the party of Brussels’ political leaders. These people, I’m talking about Hungarians now, don’t even hide the fact that they openly represent the view that Hungary should do what Brussels does, demands and requires – from migration to the economy to war issues. So we have a Brussels political power group in Budapest, in Hungary. And if the people empower them to govern, and the people have the right to do so, then they shouldn’t be surprised – nor should we be surprised – if suddenly the failed policies of Brussels appear in Budapest. So what Brussels is botching in Brussels today, a Hungarian government serving Brussels will implement in Budapest and Hungary within two weeks. We’re in the middle of an unstable region, after all. It’s very difficult to pursue national policies and stand up for national interests here, but Hungarian politics has a tradition of doing that: it stands on rock-solid national foundations, pursues Hungarian interests, and exclusively looks to and serves the interests of the Hungarian people. And there are always parties controlled from abroad – and what’s more, they’re also being blackmailed. DK would have ceased to exist long ago if it weren’t for funding from Brussels. The Tisza Party wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for funding from Brussels. All the non-governmental organisations and media behind them were financed from Brussels and before that from Washington – but President Trump put a stop to that, and now it’s happening from Brussels. They’re blackmailing them in matters of immunity, while not waiving the parliamentary immunity of opposition party leaders. This is clearly blackmail, because if their immunity were waived, they’d be subject to prosecution. So what I’ve just described to you is very elegantly and analytically put, but in terms of power it’s something brutal. There’s a power centre in Brussels that, to put it politely, has some Hungarian party leaders in its grip, blackmailing them, keeping them in a vulnerable position, and perhaps even changing their convictions. And it wants to bring them to power, so that Brussels’ migration policy, Brussels’ war policy, Brussels’ economic policy and Brussels’ energy policy can be implemented in Hungary as well. Incidentally, Westerners would make a killing on this, because behind it all, of course, is money – as the energy companies, retail chains and banks operating in Hungary want greater profits than what we, the Hungarian national government, allow them to make. If a new pro-Brussels government comes in, in an instant this money, this capital, will leave the country. That’s what this is about. And then they’ll fleece the Hungarians. This is why there’s talk and debate about the tax system, why the Tisza Party wants to raise income tax through the “Tisza tax”, and taxing real estate. And now I see that it wants to tax companies too. And in terms of taxation it wants to let multinationals off the hook, because that’s what Brussels will demand. Brussels is demanding this from me too, but I won’t give in. So here everything is connected, and in the end everything boils down to what we call national independence and sovereignty.
Since we’ve brought up the “Tisza tax”, their party leader is denying that it exists and is talking about tax cuts. But several experts affiliated with the party have argued in favour of multi-rate taxation…
Yes, but I don’t think this is a tax debate. A tax debate would be a good debate, but that’s not what Hungarian domestic politics is about. It’s about the fact that one party – and not an insignificant party – have, let’s say, flat-out slapped Hungarians in the face by saying that they won’t talk about certain things, because if they revealed what they’re planning, they’d lose the election: “If we revealed our plans, we’d lose the election. Now we’re acting as if we don’t want anything, but after the elections, anything is possible.” That’s what they’ve said. They’ve thrown in our faces. So this isn’t simply a tax issue. Of course they want to rob the people – I’ve seen this before: property tax, higher income tax rates, higher corporate tax. But in reality it’s a question of trust: whether we go into the election and the next four years knowing what awaits Hungary, or whether we go into it with them hiding it from us, and then surprising us. That’s just what happened with the MSZP [Hungarian Socialist Party] under Gyurcsány’s leadership, when they said all sorts of things; and then came the Öszöd speech, and it turned out that it had been the opposite of everything that was happening. And there we were, four years later, bankrupt, burdened with foreign currency loans, deep in debt, with 12 per cent unemployment. Everyone in this country was worse off – except for the banks and multinational corporations. Do we want to go back to that? We need to talk about this! This isn’t a tax issue, but a matter of trust.
You say it isn’t a tax issue, but the Government is launching a national consultation on the question of taxes. Why is this necessary when there will be an election in just over six months’ time, in which people will be able to express their opinions – including on tax issues? And obviously…
The point is that since significant players in Hungarian political life have said that they won’t reveal their plans in advance, it’s better to ask the people in advance. All we know about them is that they’d introduce a progressive tax system with multiple tax rates instead of the current 15 per cent. According to my calculations, this would mean paying an additional 242,000 forints per year in tax on an average income. Teachers would be paid 30,000 forints less per month, or 364,000 forints less per year. Nurses would be paid 280,000 forints less per year, police officers 154,000 forints less, soldiers 476,000 forints less, and doctors 3.172 million forints less. And the residents of Buda and the suburbs should get their piggy banks and wallets out; because if you walk through Pasarét, Rózsadomb, Svábhegy and the outer suburbs of Pest, you can see that if a property tax comes in, that’s where they’ll be shaken down. So it’s better to talk about this in advance. This is why we need to provoke opinions and debates on this issue through consultation, to bring them forward, so that after the election voters can’t say that they’ve been misled, with a party’s true intentions having been hidden from them. Let’s not allow ourselves to be misled – let’s conduct these debates in advance!
Looking at the bigger picture, how do you think such a change would affect the middle class and families – the strengthening of whom through tax policy is a goal which the Government has now set itself?
Well, of course, you can approach the issue of a tax system from a philosophical standpoint. That’s not a fruitless approach. But it’s better to approach it from the current state of a given community – the Hungarian national community, say. And I think that for a very long time to come, Hungary won’t be a strong enough country – and families and the middle class won’t be strong enough – for us to be able to abandon low taxes. High taxes impoverish the middle class. And after all, we had forty-five years of communism, and a turbulent twenty-year transition – so history has ravaged this country economically as well. What we need is for everyone’s property, income and life to be respected. I’m just saying that a wealth tax-type idea means that everyone – including you, for example – would have to file an annual declaration of wealth: not just us politicians, but everyone. And then there would be a register, and they’d check to see if the declaration is true. Wealth audits would come in. The tax authority would knock on your door and say, “Hey, your vacation and your income don’t seem to match.” And then the hassle will begin, as it did before. So let’s leave people alone, let them work, let’s help them work. Let them keep as much money in their pockets as possible, and let them – and not the state – decide how to spend it. I think this is the right approach for another decade or two. We’ll see what happens after that. So I’m not trying to argue philosophically, and I’m not championing eternal tax truths, but I’m saying that in Hungary today we need to leave people alone, and it’s good to have low taxes, because that way everyone is better off.
A new form of support is also helping to strengthen the middle class. It’s been almost two weeks since the mortgage programme with fixed 3 per cent interest was launched, and five thousand loan applications were received in the first week alone. Interest in real estate has nearly doubled. How does the Government assess these results so far? Obviously, these are the developments of the first week.
What’s happening is what we expected. There was accumulated frustration, tension and unease in Hungarian society, because people saw that real estate prices were going up. Salaries were also going up, but not as fast as real estate prices, and a growing number of people – especially young people – were looking at their pay slips and real estate prices and saying, “How am I ever going to have my own home in my lifetime?” A solution had to be found, because it’s fine if salaries are rising and if property owners want to ask for higher prices for their properties; there’s no point in arguing with that, but some kind of solution is needed so that entire generations don’t feel that they’ve been denied the opportunity to own their own home. This isn’t an issue of equal importance in every country. There are countries where people are used to living in rented accommodation. So, the fact that real estate is privately owned and people live in their own homes is a natural national instinct or desire; and if I understand it correctly, this is a Central European phenomenon. This is less true in Germany, for example. But Hungarians feel that they’re not safe if they don’t have a roof over their heads. This is a historical experience, with people feeling they could become homeless at any time. So this had to be resolved. This has been a serious problem in Hungary for years. We worked on a housing programme, finally we’ve got to where we are now, and I think we’ve struck the right note. We’ve managed to find a legal solution and create a financial structure that sounds good: a melody that’s attractive for people. This is the arrangement: a maximum loan of 50 million forints on the purchase of a house worth up to 150 million or an apartment worth up to 100 million ; 10 per cent down payment; 3 per cent fixed interest rate [on the loan provided by the programme]. No tricky fluctuating bank rates, that’s it: guaranteed, predictable. This is an arrangement that people can somehow imagine themselves being involved in. This is why so many of them have applied, and I expected that. That is also why we’ve made the range of people who can access this as wide as possible. So it’s not tied to children, marital status, age, being in a village, town, small town or city; we wanted to give everyone a chance, and I see that people have understood that. So I’m optimistic. As I see it, increases in rents seem to have levelled off. This is recent data, and we’ll see if it will be the same in a month’s time, but it seems it will be. And on the other side, the owners of capital, investors, entrepreneurs and the construction industry have also taken action, with growing demand for building permits to be granted through an accelerated process for larger-scale house and apartment construction projects. So there will be apartments here, tens of thousands of apartments will be built in the price category that this loan allows for: up to 100 million for apartments and 150 million for houses. These are upper limits, so this loan scheme cannot push up real estate prices, as it can only be used for property up to a certain value. Therefore these are the types of homes that will be built. I’m very optimistic. I believe that this will open up new prospects and opportunities for hundreds of thousands of families.
Migration and the violence in Sicily have already been mentioned in our discussion. It’s also appropriate to talk about this, because it’s been roughly ten years since Angela Merkel gave her speech in which she said “Wir schaffen das”, meaning that they’d succeed in integrating migrants. Tuesday will mark ten years since the riots at the Röszke [Serbian–Hungarian] border crossing. What do you think is the most important lesson of these ten years? Because in the meantime, an EU commissioner has said that the EU will now be able to deal with these migration challenges appropriately through the Migration Pact.
Which isn’t true, of course. The Migration Pact means exactly the opposite: they won’t close the borders. So the Migration Pact is a ruse: it does something, but it doesn’t solve the problem. There’s only one way to solve the problem: it must be stated that no one can enter the territory of the European Union without a personal permit, so that I don’t come in, enter, declare myself a migrant or some kind of refugee when I’m already here in the territory of the Union, and when I can’t be removed from here – even if it turns out that actually I have no right to stay here. So if they continue like this, they’ll ruin themselves. There’s only one solution: “Wait outside, Dear Friend, outside the Hungarian state borders, submit your application, wait outside for the answer, and if the answer is ‘yes’, you can come in – but if not, you can’t.” Of course this isn’t usually the case. The problems Western Europe has are different from ours: in Hungary we’re fighting to prevent migration; but they’ve already made the mistake, and they’re talking about how to live with the problem. Discussing how they got here – how Western leaders weren’t smart enough to foresee that this would happen – would be a long conversation, involving philosophical elements. What’s more, they didn’t have to figure this out, it didn’t require a doctorate in particle physics. They just had to listen to us Central Europeans. It wasn’t just me, but Mr. Babiš, me, the Poles, Mr. Kaczyński, Mr. Morawiecki, we all said, “Guys, this is what will happen, so don’t do it!” A mixed society has serious consequences. Now they have societies that are half Christian and half Islamic. Their unified legal systems will fall apart. Public safety will be lost. They’ll become targets for terrorist attacks. And meanwhile there won’t be enough money in the world to support them. So why are they doing it? Let’s stop them at the border! They said “no” to that, because “Wir schaffen das”: “We can manage this.” They let them in, and now they’re there and they can’t solve the problem. What’s more, their future is gone, because it’s like toothpaste: once you squeeze it out of the tube, it’s out, you have it, but how are you going to put it back? You can make fish soup from fish, but no one has ever managed to make fish from fish soup. So it’s irreversible. There are mistakes that once made can’t be corrected. Although of course there’s the war and the economy, this is why for Hungary, preventing our country from being taken over is always the most important thing. This takeover is happening through migrants – who are, of course, financed by Soros and people smugglers, and who are being transported commercially from the poorest parts of the world to Europe. I sympathise with these people. I understand that it’s difficult to bear the gap in the standard of living between, say, Hungary and an African country ravaged by war or struggling with economic problems. But that’s no reason for them to move here and take over Hungary. That simply cannot happen! We’re happy to help them, we’re happy to take our aid there, but we don’t want to bring their problems here. This is the lesson of the past ten years.
Our time is up, but since we were talking about exclusion, about excluding certain phenomena, there’s one more thing we need to mention. This is in connection with the murder of Charlie Kirk, because we’re seeing that in the Western world verbal aggression is very often turning into physical aggression. Verbal aggression has also appeared here at home. How can we keep physical aggression outside our borders?
Moderation, civic values, calmness, and patience. So before we say something really harsh, let’s count to ten. Before we launch into theatrical performances, before we want to hang one or another of the country’s leaders, before we want to shoot them dead, let’s sit down for a moment and think: “Is this really a good idea?” I think that, after all, we’re a reasonable people. We Hungarians sometimes say strong things, but when it comes to taking action, we tend to be moderate and level-headed. Let’s preserve our level-headedness – in our speech as well, if possible.
I’ve been asking Prime Minister Viktor Orbán questions about subjects including the war situation, economic policy debates and migration issues.
