Zsolt Törőcsik: Earlier this week, European Council President Charles Michel met with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in preparation for the summit of heads of state and government that will take place in a fortnight. The meeting followed a letter from Viktor Orbán to Mr Michel in which the Hungarian Prime Minister asked for a strategic meeting on Ukraine in view of the situation on the battlefield. My guest is Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Good morning!
Good morning!
In your letter you indicated the prospect of three vetoes, one of which concerns the opening of accession negotiations with Ukraine. During Monday's meeting, were you able to get an answer to your concerns about Ukraine's membership of the EU?
It is too early for a philosophical reflection, but your question makes me want to start. So Hungary will not use the veto. There is no such thing as a veto. Hungary will block decisions, but it will not veto them. The basic treaty of the European Union does not even have that word. So it seems to be a philosophical matter, but it is important in terms of national independence. The Statute or the basic Treaty of the Union says that there are certain topics, certain areas where decisions can only be taken with the agreement of all Member States. So it is not a question of somebody taking a decision and us vetoing it, it is a question of there being no decision without us. So we are not against anything, but because there is no agreement between the Member States, there is no common position, and therefore nobody can prevent anything because there is no such position. At 7.30 in the morning, it seems like a small thing, but it does not matter if we see the EU as a place far away from us where decisions are taken that we either agree with or we do not; that is a misunderstanding, but the fact is that we are the EU. The EU is not in Brussels. That is where only bureaucrats sit. The EU is in Budapest, Warsaw, Paris and Berlin. So if we, the Member States, agree on certain issues, then we have an EU position. If we do not agree, we do not have one. We must not allow ourselves to be in a position where we feel guilty, as if we are blocking the implementation of decisions that have already been taken by others. There are no such decisions! And we have every right to participate in such decisions only if it is in Hungary's national interest. Ukraine's membership of the EU as a place that is distant from us and where decisions are taken that we either agree with or not; this is a misunderstanding, but the fact is that we are the EU. The EU is not in Brussels. That is where only bureaucrats sit. The EU is in Budapest, Warsaw, Paris and Berlin. So if we, the Member States, agree on certain issues, then we have an EU position. If we do not agree, we do not have one. We must not allow ourselves to be in a position where we feel guilty, as if we are blocking the implementation of decisions that have already been taken by others. There are no such decisions! And we have every right to participate in such decisions only if it is in Hungary's national interest. Ukraine's membership of the EU today and the opening of accession negotiations do not coincide with Hungary's national interests, and therefore we do not have to do so. Therefore, we are not proposing that we discuss this and then declare that we do not agree, but that we do not put this issue on the agenda, because it can be assumed that there will be no agreement, and then we would be undermining European unity. Unity can be maintained by not putting issues on the agenda on which we disagree. We do not even start discussing them, for example, at a summit of prime ministers, because we know in advance that there will be no agreement. That is why I suggested, and I am doing so now, that negotiations on Ukraine's membership of the European Union should not be started. Because they cannot be launched, because we would not reach an agreement, we should not put them on the agenda. We should put them on the agenda when we have discussed them and reached an agreement. It is therefore a mistake for the Commission to urge us, the Prime Ministers, to put them on the agenda. That is not preparation! Preparation does not mean that I write a paper and everybody reads it. Preparation means that I talk to everyone, find out who has what interests and coordinate them. And if I can reconcile them, i.e. if there is a chance of agreement, then I will make a proposal. That is not the case today, because the Commission has proposed that we start negotiations on Ukraine's membership. However, this does not correspond to the interests of many Member States, certainly not Hungary, and we are in a pretty good position to dare to say that, no matter what pressure is put on us. This matter must therefore not be put on the agenda, and the Commission must realise that it bears responsibility for the fact that the meeting was poorly prepared. It should withdraw it, prepare it properly and come back to it when it has succeeded in establishing harmony.
What do you think is the biggest obstacle to Ukraine's accession to the EU or to the start of negotiations?
First of all, there are many questions to which we do not know the answer. Firstly, Ukraine is at war. When a country is at war, its legal and political system functions differently from that of a country that is at peace. So we cannot say today whether Ukraine is within those constitutional conditions of the rule of law, just as every country in the EU operates within a certain framework, whether it is within it or not. It is impossible to say. Secondly, we cannot say how large the territory of Ukraine is because, although part of it undoubtedly legally belongs to Ukraine, it is militarily occupied by Russia. Thirdly, we do not know how large a population we are talking about, because people are constantly fleeing Ukraine. We do not know whether or not the inclusion of Ukrainian agriculture in the free market will be good for farmers in countries that are already there. Hungarian farmers say, and I have spoken to them - I mean their representatives - that the integration of Ukrainian agriculture into the European agricultural system will ruin Hungarian farmers by the hundreds of thousands. So why should we support this? We do not even know how much money would be needed to kick-start Ukraine's development if it joined. And where would we get the money? Are the current EU countries willing to pay more, or should we use the money we already have to fund EU development? If the existing money were to be managed, the Central European countries from the Baltics to Croatia, including Hungary, would lose some of the funds. This means that we will lose development funds. Until these questions are answered, there is no point in starting accession negotiations, because we cannot answer the question of what the consequences of Ukraine's membership of the EU would be.
If we do not know, we should not enter into negotiations. We have already made that mistake. We have negotiated with the Turks, we have promised them membership, we have negotiated for membership, and this has been going on for twenty or thirty years, and we have failed to accept them. Everybody is frustrated, the whole thing is a failure. That is why, if someone asks us for our opinion, I will be in favour of the European Union concluding a strategic partnership agreement with Ukraine for the first time. That could take five to ten years. Let us bring them closer, the distance is now too great. We need to bring them closer, we need to give them time to start working together. And when we see that we can work together, then we should address the issue of membership. But that will only be possible after many, many years. That would be the Hungarian proposal, but we have never been asked for our opinion. The Commission is pushing a paper in front of us saying that we should support the proposal. That is not how it works.
On Ukraine, there is another contentious issue, namely further funding. For this, Brussels would require EUR 50 billion, which would be part of the additional payment of around EUR 100 billion that Member States would have to pay. Is the Hungarian position the same here, that is, that this proposal should not be put on the agenda for the next EU summit?
Several issues are layered on top of each other here. The basic question is whether what we are doing makes sense. If it makes sense, we should continue; if it doesn't, we shouldn't continue. What are we doing now? What we are doing is that we have given the Ukrainians a lot of money, over EUR 100 billion - partly in weapons and partly in cash. If we had not given them this money, but had used it to develop Europe, the European economies would be in a better state today. Today, the European economies are in a bad state. In many countries, there has been an increase in ancillary costs. There are countries, fortunately not Hungary, but unemployment is rising, investment has stopped or is falling, so Europe is in economic difficulties and at the same time it is throwing money around: sending weapons and money in railway carriages to Ukraine. We are sending this money to Ukraine so that the Ukrainian army, which is fighting Russia, can win on the front, but it will not win! And it is very doubtful that she would win if we sent more money. I am not convinced of that at all. I think we need a ceasefire instead of a war. So it shouldn't be a war that is funded, but a ceasefire and then peace. If we want to spend money on Ukraine, then not on war, but on peace and ceasefire. That is our position. That is the first, let us say, deepest philosophical or strategic level of this debate. The second level of the debate is this: if we want to give money - even for the continuation of the war, as the Commission is proposing, by the way - where should we get it from? Should the Member States pay it into the European Union budget and from there? Or do we leave the European Union budget alone - it has enough problems as it is - and if we want to give money to Ukraine, then we conclude a separate intergovernmental agreement to create a financial fund into which everyone can pay whatever they want, and from there we send the money to Ukraine. I am in favour of the second option.
So the situation is still the same: the reason why this issue is such a hot potato is the fact that money from the EU budget has been going to Ukraine so far. And that has put a strain on the budget. Because the support and financial assistance for the war and the functioning of the budget is running at different speeds. The budget is about stability and predictability. And war aid has to increase or it can decrease depending on the needs on the front. If I put those two things together, the result is that war support inflates the budget, as we are now experiencing. Therefore, the budget must or should be changed - by the way, this can only be done unanimously, we are in a position to do this - because the money has run out. Well, we have a seven-year budget and we are in the third year and we have run out of money. That is not the way it is going to work. So the Hungarian proposal is that if we want to give money to Ukraine, it should definitely be outside the budget and it should be transparent. In many countries today, people are not in favour of giving money to Ukraine, but the heads of state and government hide it from the people by saying that it is not us giving it, but the EU, but in fact we are giving it because we are the EU. In this way, however, they can shift personal responsibility. They should be transparent about this and say: 'Gentlemen, dear Hungarians, Ukraine is in this situation, let us discuss whether we want to support it financially and how much we can give it'. That should be in line with what they are saying. And then they should all put this money on the table. The Dutch in the same way, the Belgians in the same way, the French in the same way and the Germans as well. That is a fair procedure in a democracy. The fact that we are hiding behind the back of the EU, that people do not understand what is going on, that they do not understand exactly what is going on, that they are simply saying, of course, let us support the poor Ukrainians, but that it is at their expense, that is not clear, and the consequences of that are not clear: I think that is unacceptable in a democracy. That is why consultations are a good thing, and people will make it clear whether they agree with them or not.
When you mentioned the consultation, several government politicians said that the national consultation also concerns the defence of Hungarian sovereignty and that the opinion of the population is being sought on 11 issues. Can national consultations be an effective instrument for the defence of sovereignty?
Everyone cooks with what they have. This is also true in an intellectual sense. In thinking, everyone uses the crutches he has collected in his life. For me, a lot of my crutches come from sports. When you have a team on the field, it's eleven men, and quite often eleven men are not enough to win, you need a twelfth man. And that's the kind of audience we play for. So if they support us, we can win, then we're the twelfth man, if they don't support us, it's a question of whether we can win. That's the situation today. I will fight, the Hungarian government will fight. We are in a tough fight and we need everyone, I need everyone who cares about the independence and sovereignty of Hungary, who cares about the country, who cares about their children, who cares about their grandchildren. I need everyone's support, because it will give Hungary, and therefore the Hungarian Government, and ultimately me, strength in difficult negotiations. I would therefore ask everyone to fill in the consultation form and to give a few minutes to their country.
Of course, a country has room for manoeuvre in foreign and domestic policy only if it has the maximum degree of sovereignty. At the same time, however, it is increasingly clear from the facts and the published intelligence reports that attempts at interference are constantly taking place. Is Hungary capable of maintaining and defending its sovereignty to the maximum extent possible? What is needed for this, apart from consultation?
We have a history. We can learn two lessons from it. Or rather, there are many lessons, but for the purposes of our discussion, perhaps we should limit ourselves to two. The first is that we have always been surrounded by empires greater than ourselves. And empires bigger than us have bigger appetites than us. And it wasn't us who wanted to bite them, it was them who always wanted to bite us. That's just the way it is. That's history, that's human nature, and that's the law of empires. We have chosen the tactic that they are trying to bite us, of course, but we are moving so that we can attend the funerals of all empires. And we've been to every one of them. And that's our plan for the future. The first lesson is not to be afraid of empires. History shows us that the greater empires have fallen and we are still here. The second very important lesson of Hungarian history is that we have been living on the same territory for a thousand and a hundred years. Of course it is sometimes smaller, sometimes bigger, like the heart: here it shrinks, here it expands, and now we have shrunk, but it is still the same territory. And for a thousand and a hundred years we have proved to ourselves and to the world that we can shape this territory. In other words, we know how to build it according to the Hungarian way of thinking, how to create its culture, how to create its economy, how to develop its foreign policy - in other words, it is our world that we know best how to shape according to the culture, instinct, will and wishes of the people who live here. That is why we do not need anyone to tell us how to live. We decide that for ourselves. This is the deepest sense of sovereignty, that Hungarians have the historical opportunity to create a state and to live within the state according to their own wishes, with the help of their governments. However, the starting point is not the government, but the people and the culture in this respect. And because we have this ability, we do not want to allow others to interfere with it. If we were less religious, if we were less gifted, if we didn't have thousands and hundreds of years of history behind us, and if we were weaker, then of course we could use the help of others, but thankfully, we don't need it. We can do it.
This is Hungary, we have done it before and we will do it after this. Of course, here in Hungary there are always those who think we should rather set up an empire, who accept offers from empires, some of which are always personal, because money would naturally flow into their pockets, there are always those who are willing to sell all or part of their country for money. So there is an internal struggle going on here as well. In happy times these people cannot get into power and government. But in unfortunate times they can rule. After all, there was the Gyurcsány era! They brought the IMF into the country, they introduced foreign currency loans which turned out to be bad for the people but good for the banks, they took away people's pensions and salaries. So you do not have to go very far back in history to see a time when it was clear that the government's decisions were not in the interests of the Hungarian people. That is an offence against sovereignty. Now foreigners in every country always exert their influence in two ways, so we should not feel privileged. All countries of a similar size are in a similar situation. On the one hand, there is a government, the country is functioning, and they are trying to influence its decisions, economic decisions, foreign policy decisions, case by case. Here, for example, we have the Americans trying to push us into a war in Ukraine. But there are also economic lobbying interests, everyone remembers the dark days of privatisation and so on. The other thing is that when the possibility of a change of government arises because elections are coming up, they try to influence people to vote for a non-national government instead of a national government. This is what happened in the last parliamentary elections, demonstrated in black and white, when Western, Brussels and Washington money - George Soros and so on - went to the left - that is the dollar left, that is the dollar-rolling affair - to prevent a national government in Hungary. Now the law penalises it. The Hungarian is a talented man, he is looking for loopholes, he is climbing under the fence, so loopholes have been found, and now we can discuss whether the law has been broken or not. I think it was, but I cannot judge that, that is for the law enforcement authorities to judge, but it is certainly in the country's interest to have clear and unambiguous rules that cannot be circumvented. So that it does not happen again that the Hungarian people suddenly stand here and, after the elections, find that millions of dollars should have influenced their decision on left-wing parties. So this is not right and, in order to protect sovereignty, Parliament must now make some decisions and we must also take a much more serious approach in the years to come to blocking the paths and avenues of such attempts at interference.
Economic sovereignty is, of course, part of sovereignty. As far as the economy is concerned, you have set as the government's main objective for this year to reduce inflation below 10 %. You achieved that in October. In the meantime, there has been an important change in the area of wages: from today, those on the guaranteed minimum wage or the minimum wage will earn between 10 and 15 % more. Overall, could this be a good basis for everyone to take the next step forward in 2024?
The economy is a complex network. I prefer to simplify it. Precisely because the economy is complex, simple statements can still be true. So when we look at 2023, it was the most dangerous year in many, many years. Inflation, sanctions, the energy crisis. What were we working on in 2023? What was it that not only the government - even the government - but also the Hungarian people were working on in 2023? The Hungarian people worked in 2023 to ensure that the situation did not worsen, to protect what they had already achieved. As we look ahead to 2024, we must ask ourselves the question: What will we work for, what is the purpose of our work in 2024? 2024 is a year of hope. We will no longer work to keep things from getting worse, but we will work to make things better. And there are early signs that this year of hope is not just a pipe dream, but a real possibility. One of the examples you mentioned - because an increase in the minimum wage is always good news - is that there is a general consensus in Hungary on inflation, which is somewhere between 5 and 6%. In any case, we will increase pensions by 6% even if inflation is only 5% - as they say: accurate accounting, long friendship - and now we have promised 6%, so we will keep it even if inflation is only 5%. And if inflation is 5 per cent and wages at the lowest level - the minimum wage and the guaranteed minimum wage - go up by 10 to 15 per cent, that will pull up public sector wages and push up other wages. So there will be wage growth in Hungary that will be higher than the rate of price growth. This was not decided by the government, before I pat myself on the back, but by the economic players in Hungary. A very great value of Hungarian economic policy is that the level, the guaranteed wage level, is not decided by the government. I do have to sign and declare it, and in that sense we have a formal government decision, but I never force the economic players. Whatever the trade unions, that is to say the employees and the employers, agree between themselves, the government usually accepts.
We prefer to mediate, to decide, not to adjudicate. And the players in the Hungarian economy have agreed that Hungarian companies will be able to do this in 2024. So let's get on with it! Let's hope it happens and higher wages come into force today. But there are other encouraging signs. We were able to announce an expansion of the housing program, we've made the village vouchers even more available, and we've also launched a new program for urban housing, a program called Voucher Plus. We also increased the child loan. I'll just say it quietly: We rarely talk about results here, and perhaps that is not a bad thing, because the exciting part of politics is still more about problems and failures than successes, but there is one important piece of information: the proportion of Hungarians under 40 who own their own home has reached 75 %. This is very important because there is still a debate about whether the Hungarian housing system should be based more on renting or more on home ownership. I always argue in favour of home ownership, I always argue in favour of home ownership. Ownership provides more security than renting, and as far as I can see, people share this idea, because if 75 % people under 40 already own a home, I think that is a serious achievement. And another encouraging sign for 2024 is that in January we will get a 6 % increase in pensions and in February we can pay the now increased 13th monthly pension. So I say that 2024 will be, or it looks like it will be, a hopeful year and we will work to get better in 2024 and not to protect what we have as we had to do in 2023.
We don't have much time left, but let's talk about another topic, because last week you were at the economic forum in Baku, where you talked about Hungary being a bridge between East and West. And if we look at the meetings and trips in recent and subsequent weeks, we can see that this statement is also politically correct, because you have met and held talks with leading politicians from both the West and the East. The question is whether such political and economic bridges are now necessary, whereas many in the West are more interested in burning existing bridges or at least pushing for it.
If we look at ourselves, we see that Hungary has taken its place in the Western world in the last twenty or thirty years. Communism and the Soviet Union took us out of our natural environment, and that is why we look the way we look now. We would have looked much better if the forty years of communism had never existed and the Soviet Union had never come in, then... We will not go into that because it just makes the heart bitter, but the point is that we have come out of the Soviet bloc in the last twenty or thirty years and taken our place in the Western world. Much of the efforts of Hungarian diplomacy have served this purpose. But that is behind us now. Our place is clear. We are part of the West, a member of NATO, the European Union and so on. We must now take a fundamentally economic approach. It is in our interest to trade with all the countries of the world, to cooperate economically and to try to make profits. Therefore, any division - and, as you said, there is indeed such a tendency in the West - any creation of blocs is contrary to our interests. Hungary is a country of ten million people. If we had a market of a hundred million, we could perhaps afford to isolate ourselves, because we would have enough people, and our economy would therefore be big enough to produce and distribute enough wealth among the people, and the people could get it for themselves. But we only have ten million people. A country with ten million people, if it wants to live at the level we live at now, or even better, because we want to live even better, it must be able to sell its products to the whole world. Our economy is not the Hungarian economy, our economy is the whole world. And to achieve this, we must be interconnected, we must develop economic cooperation. And even the blind can see that the most developed, most prosperous part of the world is currently to the east of us. Therefore, economic cooperation with the East is in Hungary's vital interest, and the foreign policy activities of the government concerned, in this case our government, must serve this interest. That is why you see me - like a poisoned mouse, perhaps I am exaggerating a little - one day in Switzerland, the next day in Azerbaijan, the following week in Argentina and then in Brussels, because I am trying to open up space for Hungarian economic operators to do business abroad as successfully as possible and to bring the greatest possible benefit to Hungary.
In the past half hour, I have asked Prime Minister Viktor Orbán about Ukraine's accession to the EU, the protection of sovereignty and also about economic aspects.
miniszterelnok.hu/JaV
English 
Czech