Menu
First, perhaps, let’s take the question of opening to the East. The relationship we’re dealing with is very simple. There’s a Western market of 800 million people – the US and the European Union – and there’s a world market of eight billion. Why would we choose the 800 million over the eight billion? It’s as simple as that. So we should be happy that in recent years the biggest foreign investors in Hungary have been South Korea, China and Japan, followed by the Germans. So we’re already in this world market. We’ve just recently learned how to arrange this. But thirty years ago, thirty-three years ago, when we toppled the entire communist economic system, we were living through very difficult times. For thirty-three years we’ve been lifting weights and doing push ups in the evenings, so that the Hungarian economy could stand its ground in the world on a market basis. Now we’re finally able to do so. We’re making huge capital investments outside Hungary, we’re bringing the biggest, most modern factories to Hungary, and our workers have learned to operate the most modern technology. Don’t forget that in Hungary these very modern car factories, vehicle factories and information and communications technology factories are run by Hungarian workers, and they’ve had to learn this, they’ve had to get used to it. Now we’re finally competitive with anyone, anywhere in the whole world. But what we need is a world market and world trade, not a reclusive European Union, on the edge of which we’d again become some suspicious, shadowy semi-periphery. We want light, greatness, space, investment, profit, strengthening, a Hungary with a high standard of living. So opening up to the East is important. We recognise that there are two suns in the sky, and we’ll adjust Hungarian foreign and economic policy accordingly.
When is President Trump coming? I can’t tell you, but not long ago I was at his place, at that lavish, extravagant golf course. And I’ve come here from the Fortuna Hotel. I think we’ve got a lot of work to do before we’re able to host the President. We might be able to make the grade in a year, but we’ll see.
When will we get our EU money – if at all? Well, a lot of beliefs are circulating. It would take a separate presentation to sort out the jumble of ideas. When today we talk about EU money, we have to think of two different piles of cash. There’s a pile of money called the RRF, which was invented by the EU to provide extra financial resources to help distressed European economies clamber out of the COVID crisis. We still haven’t received any of that, and it’s doubtful whether we ever will. I’ll say this quietly: in the meantime COVID has come to an end. Coming back to my point, this is a highly illustrative example of European competitiveness, speed and leadership talent. And then there’s the other pile of money, which is the money that Hungary receives as a surplus from the EU’s seven-year budget – because there’s no annual budget, but a seven-year budget. On the whole you have to think of it as being a sum of around 3 billion euros coming into Hungary’s budget from Brussels, and 1 billion euros coming from us, because we have payment obligations; and the difference between the two is a net surplus of 2 billion euros. So Hungary receives about 2 billion euros a year from the European Union. This is around 800 billion forints. This isn’t a bad sum if you’re talking one-on-one with the Reverend Bishop, but related to the national economy it’s almost insignificant. So compared to Hungary’s GDP, Hungarian production capacity and the Hungarian budget, this isn’t a large amount. Of course, if we had 800 billion forints, we could give it to Transylvania right away, so we shouldn’t belittle the amount; but to depict this money as being vital to the very existence of the Hungarian economy is quite simply an underinformed, ill-informed, stupid notion. It’s undoubtedly true, however, that if Hungary doesn’t have access to these funds, we’ll of course be viewed differently on the financial markets, where credit can be obtained on a commercial basis. In this respect, the indirect impact of this factor is perhaps even bigger than the direct one. Now the question is, when will we get it? Well, when we go there with a big sack and bring it home. How do we do that, do we have a plan for that? We have to do this while the European Union’s budget is on the brink of bankruptcy. The EU has admitted this itself, because it’s asking the Member States to pay in around 100 billion euros and to amend the seven-year budget – of which perhaps two and a half years have already passed. But that requires unanimity. And then you have to hold up the sack, and that’s that. That’s it. That’s how. That’s the plan. So I have to say that I’m looking forward to an exciting autumn as far as the prime ministers’ summits in Brussels are concerned. It will be a bit more complicated than that, but that’s probably how [the fictional Szekler peasant] Bence Uz would explain it.
The question of checks and balances. This would require a third presentation. Here again I have to point to the blunting effect – the intellectually blunting effect – of Americanisation. As a concept in constitutional law or political theory, the term “checks and balances” only makes sense in systems where the people elect the president and the people elect the parliament. And so this question arises: if they – the executive and the legislature – both have the same level of mandated power, what kind of system should be built between them? How must this be kept in equilibrium, and how can they restrain each other? But the Hungarian system isn’t a presidential system: the Hungarian system is a constitutional system. A constitutional system is like the British system: you elect a parliament, this embodies the sovereignty of the people, and from there downwards all sorts of powers and competences are distributed. So, although we Europeans are forced to speak this Eurobabble language of checks and balances, it’s good to know that intelligent, self-respecting people don’t actually talk about the Hungarian political system in this way; because it’s not a presidential system, but a parliamentary system, in which there aren’t checks and balances, but powers and responsibilities. These are distributed by the parliament elected by the people, through its own decisions, and it operates a system accordingly. That’s that.
Veto. Perhaps you won’t misunderstand me when I say that Hungary must be as careful as a caterpillar is before it emerges as a butterfly. So we have to tread carefully in Brussels, and we have to tread carefully with the veto. So one shouldn’t use it willy-nilly; but there are issues on which one has no option but to be completely straightforward. Now there is such an issue, even going beyond the budget, because the good German brothers and sisters, demonstrating a fine sense of history – the Reich itself, after all – are proposing that in future the European Union’s common position on foreign policy issues should be determined by a simple majority rather than with unanimity. Since going against the Germans would mean we’d always be voted down, in essence this means that if, say, we were to accept German proposals on the issues of the war or economic relations with China, Hungarian foreign policy would in practice be decided not in Budapest, but in Berlin – or in Brussels, on behalf of Berlin. How can that be good? How could we be sovereign? What would have become of the eleven centuries of proud Hungary if we were told from there what our foreign policy should be? In matters like this we must speak directly to our German comrades and tell them that it’s impossible, and that in such circumstances we must therefore veto it – and we shall veto it.
Battery factories versus the food industry. In the last seven-year budget, Hungary was able to add the maximum possible 20 per cent additional funding from its budget to the agricultural support it received from the EU. In this seven-year period we’ve increased this to 80 per cent: we’ve quadrupled it. So Hungarian agriculture and the Hungarian food industry are on the threshold of a huge boom. And the Opposition are mistaken when they seek to play the food industry off against battery manufacture. Despite the fact that they make such serious mistakes, we do need an opposition. We look at them like foam on beer: it’s good to have some, but not so that it spoils the taste. And it’s also surprising to see that even in the Opposition – which is essentially leftist – the communists have somehow survived, in the form of DK [the Democratic Coalition]. It’s true that the dinosaurs survived too, just like DK has: the dinosaurs survived by turning into chickens. This is the situation with the Hungarian communists. This is pretty much what we have to deal with in the storms of Hungarian domestic politics.
I wish every success to the Hungarians in Felvidék! It’s not my job to rebuke anyone, and I have to speak respectfully. But, Dear Felvidék Hungarians, the situation there is absurd, isn’t it? And we can’t say that it’s someone else’s fault. Well, there are half a million Hungarians there, aren’t there? And Slovakia’s a country of 5 to 5.5 million. So that’s a considerable weight. And we can’t say that the reason we can’t organise ourselves is due to the Slovaks. Of course, they’re certainly scheming, but that’s part of life, and they’re not the ones who are stopping us. With all due restraint, I have to say that the fact that Hungarians in Felvidék are unable to achieve parliamentary representation in Pozsony/Bratislava is a poor showing. So you need more than that if you want to work for your country in the severed regions. And we have the right to participate in the Slovak parliament. No one has deprived us of that right. There are enough of us to meet the constitutional requirements. Well then, let the gentlemen and ladies have the decency to solve this problem! I apologise for expressing myself a little harsher than usual.
When – if at all – can Hungarian family support be extended to Transylvania/Erdély? I think it can, and we’ve already extended some elements of it. And I think that we’ll be able to reverse the painful demographic trends that the Reverend Bishop mentioned in relation to emigration. On the subject of the reproduction rate that I spoke about, I think that we’ll be able to reverse the trend and reach the rate of 2.1 that’s needed for population retention if we have a unified family support system throughout the entire Carpathian Basin. This isn’t impossible. First, we need money for it. Then we’ll be able to extend the domestic family support system beyond the borders if we can deal with the domestic opposition, who will try to attack it in Hungary, playing the envy card. So this can only be done when things are going well. This isn’t possible in a meteorite shower, Dear Summer Camp. So we need a few more good years, when Hungarians at home feel that there’s actually a real truth in the idea that if we link Hungarian families beyond the borders with Hungarian families in Hungary, and if we also link their economic strength, then something will come out of this that in a few years’ time will result in prosperity for us all. This is a complicated intellectual task. There are opponents on the field who will always rebel against this, based on human envy. But it is possible. I also encourage and invite Hungarian organisations beyond the borders to think about how, in the light of their own legal systems, they can somehow adopt the Hungarian tax allowance for families, adopt the baby loan and, mutatis mutandis, create a local variant of the home creation scheme. So let’s have the plans ready in the drawer, so that we can implement them when the right moment comes.
What future do I predict for [the Hungarian footballer] Dominik Szoboszlai? The fact is that the situation has changed: now Dominik Szoboszlai is the boss, he’s the King. The question is what future he predicts for me.
And there was one last, personal question: How am I coping? I’m well, thank you. There would be a fourth presentation, not about me personally, but about the art of politics in general: how it can and how it should be practised. So I’ll avoid personal aspects for now, and just answer this question briefly. Because, indeed, perhaps I can assume that the person who asked it is really wondering how I am; but they may also be wondering how much longer I can keep going. That’s not the same thing. This is why I’ll try to answer this. First of all, power grinds people down. It’s very important to define power properly. If you spend a few days in a library of politics, you’ll see that there’s an enormous amount of literature on this. And if you involve yourself in politics, that’s to say, with questions of power, it’s very important that you select the definition of what power is; or if you see none suitable, you should define for yourself what power is, how you should relate to it, how and how far you should allow it to enter your being. I have my own definition of power, which might not stand up in the crossfire of academic debate, but it’s good enough for my purposes. As I understand it, power is the capacity for collective action; and in my understanding, it has a biblical basis. There’s a passage of Scripture that I won’t quote verbatim – I apologise, and accept the Reverend Bishop’s rebuke in advance. But there’s a passage of Scripture which says that He spoke as one who has authority, and not as the scribes. If I translate this into the language of my own profession, it means that He was able to bring about collective action without using some legal rule to force people to act, as the scribes did. This is generating the capacity for collective action without external coercion, generating the capacity for collective action through internal, spiritual influences. This is what I see as power. And this is my profession, what I have to involve myself in. Now, this is the philosophical approach. If we now look at this in a societal context, we need to see that in every community – including the Hungarian community – there are countless types of people, with different abilities, talents and instincts. And out of this diversity comes a great, national, societal division of labour. And there is the question of what place there is within this for people who are concerned with power. And the way I look at my own work is that in our community, in the national community, we have people who have the task and the ability to understand what’s happening, to explain to people what’s happening to them and what the future holds, and to help people prepare for that future. This is the task and the destiny of those to whom God has given the talent to do this. And I am glad that I am not without destiny.
Thank you for your attention.
