27 June 2014, Brussels
[Question from the press: There was a 26:2 vote; although it may not do so legally, but does this affect the value and weight of the decision politically?]
Firstly, it is always strange if in a democracy one must begin to think about how the results of a vote should be evaluated. If there is a dispute in a democracy, and there was a dispute in this case, then things have to be decided somehow, and instead of putting holes in heads like we used to do during past wars, we now count them. We counted them and found the result was 26:2. I think this is normal procedure if there is no agreement. The Hungarian standpoint was otherwise not influenced by the ratio of numbers, because we represented a question of principle, meaning if we had had to vote alone, we would have voted in a similar manner, because I believe that Hungary must project a clear and strong message with regard to the fact that we will not consent to allowing what has been the general practice over the past five years to continue. We shall not consent to the boundaries of the Basic Treaty being sometimes overstepped in the, otherwise commendable, interests of achieving a consensus. And I gave voice to this during my speech. If we feel that the framework is too constraining and the Basic Treaty does not provide enough room for movement and we need new regulations, then we should put forward this problem, Hungary is ready to become involved, and we should debate the issue and amend the Basic Treaty if required. But that should be done in a transparent, democratic, considered and well thought out manner, instead of using different interpretations to transgress the original intentions of the Basic Treaty as issues arise.
The second reason this is important to us is that compliance with the Basic Treaty is always in the interests of the smaller parties: the larges parties are capable of enforcing their interests simply through their power, while middle sized countries such as ourselves and smaller nations are forced to protect their interests using the power of the law, and that requires a secure legal background. Meaning that we need a stable and incontrovertible Basic Treaty; this is what is in Hungary’s national interests. Furthermore, the practice during the past five years was that the EU has tried to bring many issues under its sphere of authority that clearly belong within a national sphere of authority – the reduction of utility charges, the bank tax, the protection of farmland, and I think the pálinka issue also belongs here. So there are several cases in which issues that otherwise fall under a national sphere of authority have come to be questioned by Brussels precisely because of the practices that have become prevalent as a result of the ‘stealthy amendment’ of the Basic Treaty. And we needed to provide a forthright indication that we do not accept this practice, it cannot continue and we will stand up for Hungarian interests. And so this is why in fact I did not vote for an individual, but instead I had to give a strong indication in the interests of changing of the practices that have developed, and if I had had to say so on my own, I would have done so on my own.
[Question from the press: Did you also put forward your criticism with regard to the person of Mr. Juncker?]
No, because I began by saying that this is not a personal issue for Hungary.
[Question from the press: Do you not view it as a loss of prestige that practically speaking you were alone with Mr. Cameron as the opposition?]
There are people of many different natures, and when I find myself in such a situation I don’t regard it as a loss of prestige but instead feel that I stood up for something that in addition points beyond our own personal interests, meaning even beyond the interests of the European People’s Party. One must always stand up for our national interests, and sometimes one is alone in doing so. Sometimes there are two of us, sometimes we are in the majority, but the question of how many are still with us cannot put into question the value and need to stand up for what we believe in, because otherwise we will end up being unable to represent our own national interests.
[Question from the press: And how can Hungarian national interests be represented now that Juncker will be President and you find yourself in the minority?]
He will understand Hungary’s standpoint.
[Question from the press: How will Fidesz MEPs vote on Juncker in Strasbourg?]
By secret ballot. I have a clear standpoint on the correct behaviour in this situation, but every MEP will submit their vote in secret, because the procedure itself is secret in view of the fact that they are deciding on a personal issue.
[Question from the press: To what extent have you succeeded in enforcing the demand for change within the strategic plan for the upcoming five-years?]
If I had my dossier with me, I could tell you the precise number. It includes a good many things with regard to which we have succeeded. And this is perhaps more important than the personal decision regarding the new President of the Commission. To mention a few: they have clearly accepted the previously attacked element of our economic policy according to which the taxes on work must be reduced; this is now included in the text. This was previously objected to every year when they prepared their annual evaluation of the economy’s performance. And it also includes the issue of competitive energy prices, with regard to which we have a radical standpoint, which is nevertheless also shared by some other countries, although by no means all of them, according to which regulation by the market is not an objective in itself. We believe that the competition that goes hand in hand with regulation by the market results in higher quality and lower prices for the consumer, but this is not the case with regard to some products such an energy. And so in such cases we must consider which is more important: the principle of self-regulation or the interests of consumers and how much they have to spend on utilities that are indispensable for their subsistence. And so I feel that there is also a certain movement in the right direction with regard to this issue. And then with regard to migration, our clear viewpoint is that the EU must make it clear that we want to stop migration, meaning that we do not regard migration as a process that can or should be well-managed or supervised, but it must instead be stopped. This is not included in the text in such raw terms, but it does say that the EU must handle migration much better than it has in recent years.
[Question from the press: What about the issue of a looser budget?]
The plan does not include the loosening of the budget; the topic is too large for this short conversation I am having with you, but the majority of the time was spent debating this issue. I have been interpreting what happened from Hungary’s point of view now, but if I had to report to you from the perspective of European discussion, then the greatest debate concerned the issue of whether it is possible to loosen the tight financial regulations or not, and if they can be loosened, then is that possible according to the treaties and agreements currently in force or do we need new agreements or amendments to agreements on finances and stability. The great debate between north and south concerned this issue.
[Question from the press: And is it possible?]
We are outsiders in this debate because Hungary has chosen a crisis management model that is radically different to those used by everybody else. Or to put it another way, Hungary did not apply the crisis management model recommended by the Troika, meaning the European Commission and the IMF [and the ECB]. We have applied a different crisis management model in which we are simultaneously creating fiscal discipline and increasing employment, with simultaneous growth, a stable reduction in government debt and a stable budget level, so we are handling the Hungarian crisis according to a different economic policy philosophy and using a different system of instruments than those usually applied here, and accordingly this debate on crisis management here is not relevant to Hungary. What we are certain of, however, is that what is good for us is if no changes occur here that weaken the financial stability of the European Union, because that could also have an inadvertent effect on Hungary; regardless of the fact that we are practicing a different economic policy to theirs, the state of affairs here, and especially because of export relations, also has an effect on Hungary. It makes no difference to us what they do, as long as they do it well.
[Question from the press: Have the leaked Polish recordings been discussed by you and Donald Tusk in any form, including an informal talk over a coffee, during the past two days?]
No, but the Hungarian standpoint on this issue is absolutely clear, and I told this to my Ministers at the last Cabinet meeting, and that is that if one drinks alcohol, one shouldn’t speak and if one speaks, one shouldn’t drink alcohol. Because if we drink alcohol and speak and it is recorded by someone, than the result could be catastrophic, and that is something to be avoided.