19 May 2015, Strasbourg (Straßburg)
Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,
I have come to join you here today in Strasbourg because you are going to talk about my country, Hungary. I always see it is as an honour when Members of the European Parliament hold a debate on the situation in Hungary. And I see it as my bounden duty to speak on behalf of my country, Hungary, and the Hungarian people. I would remind you that the Hungarian people decided in a referendum to join the European Union, and we have been proud of this decision ever since.
Mr. President,
It would be logical to assume that we are here today because Europe is curious about the achievements of the Hungarians: curious about what Hungary has achieved over the past five years, and how. There would indeed be plenty to talk about. In terms of growth in gross domestic product among the twenty-eight Member States, in 2010 Hungary ranked twenty-first, and last year it ranked second. While elsewhere levels of sovereign debt are rising, in Hungary we have succeeded in reducing the rate from 85% to below 77%; and while unemployment was well over 11% in 2010, it is now below 7% – and I sincerely hope that we shall reach full employment within three years.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
You have, however, convened this debate (if my information is correct) to talk about political issues – in particular, the question of immigration. This debate has been labelled “the situation in Hungary”. As far as political issues are concerned, I might inform you that Hungary can be regarded as the European Union Member State which has been screened more than any other by the X-ray machine of constitutionality. At the same time, I sincerely welcome the fact that you are placing on the agenda important issues which the European people are genuinely concerned about: law and order, security and immigration. These topics are some of the key issues of our common future. The answers we give to these questions may decide what kind of European Union we will leave to our children; these problems, however, are not Hungarian problems, but European ones. And the only reason these issues should come up in the context of my country is that the Hungarian people like to talk about difficult issues in a straightforward manner. This is our nature; we do not like empty talk, and we do not like waffle. We like to talk straight, or not at all. So we talk straight about the death penalty and immigration, and we also see that the discourse we have been engaged in so far – which is seen by many as PC, or politically correct – has not taken us Europeans any closer to a solution.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
We are a frank and open people, and we are speaking our mind when we say loud and clear that we Hungarians would like to keep Europe for the Europeans, and we also wish to keep Hungary as a Hungarian country. Both of these goals of ours are legitimate, and I am convinced that both of them are fully in harmony with the core values of Europe and the intentions of the founders of the European Union.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I suggest that we should clearly distinguish between the free movement of workers within Europe and migration coming from outside Europe. And within the latter, we should clearly distinguish between genuine refugees and immigrants who come here simply because they are seeking a better life than that which their native lands can offer. It pains us, Commissioner Timmermans, but the situation in Hungary at present is that we are unable to offer jobs to immigrants. It is best if we talk about this honestly, and in a straightforward manner.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
First and foremost, we wish to address the issue of economic migration in our own way. Hungary and the European Union have good reason to address the issue of economic migration.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am convinced that the proposal which we are now familiar with, the proposal of the European Commission, is – to be absolutely frank – nothing short of absurd, bordering on the insane. I am convinced that it is a dangerous approach to say “there is no problem here: let us open the doors wide and allow everyone in”. The facts are clear: the migration pressure on Europe today is enormous. Compared with 2010, illegal immigration in Europe has tripled, and within a short time in Hungary the number of those illegally crossing the border has increased twenty- to thirtyfold. We openly raise the issue that the current treaties should be revised, and the right of Member States to defend their own borders should be restored to national jurisdictions. We take the view that this would be a reasonable, humane and realistic position. I say this with due respect, but I am convinced that the proposal that we should let asylum-seekers into Europe and should apportion them out among the Member States on the basis of some artificially defined quota is a crazy idea.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am convinced that quotas will only encourage human traffickers, will attract even more people to Europe, and will encourage them to attempt perilous sea crossings in order to enter EU territory. I am therefore convinced that it would be more appropriate if the regulation of immigration were delegated to national competencies. My view is – and I am glad that finally a debate has started on this issue – that, instead of quotas, we must allow individual Member States themselves to decide on this issue. We Hungarians want to decide ourselves on whether we want immigrants in Hungary or not. We are a Christian and national government, we have mercy in our hearts, and we have always sheltered refugees – genuine refugees – and shall continue to do so in the future. Immigrants, however, are not the same as refugees: they want a better life, and this is why they come here. We understand this, but cannot accept it. Illegal border-crossing is a crime against which we must take action. Hungary must defend its rule of law, and also its borders; we do not want Hungary to be a target country for illegal immigrants. There are countries which have decided that they wish to live with this problem; they have decided that they want to have a policy of immigration. And we respect this decision on their part. This is why we have launched a consultation on immigration. We believe that it is fair and correct to ask our citizens how they see this question. (I would like to tell one of the previous speakers here that they must have been labouring under some terrible misunderstanding: in Hungary at present there is no public consultation of any kind on the issue of the death penalty.)
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I would like to remind you that Hungary has not signed any agreement or treaty with anyone on what we are allowed to talk about in Hungary, or what we are not allowed to talk about. Neither have we signed any agreement on what we may conduct a consultation about, and what we may not; about what issues we may raise, and what issues we may not. Likewise, our treaty of accession to the EU makes no stipulation of any kind to the effect that in the Member States of the European Union we must not talk about certain things, or must not raise certain issues. Therefore, we see it as a violation of the core treaty of the European Union for anyone to try to tell us what we Hungarians may or may not voice our views about.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
If we look at the number of asylum-seekers relative to per capita gross national product, Hungary is the second most affected Member State, after Germany. If we look at the number of asylum-seekers per thousand inhabitants, Hungary is once again second – this time, after Sweden. Here I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the Western Balkans region is not adequately addressed in the European Commission’s migration agenda. Of the 43,000 asylum applications received in Hungary in the first quarter of 2015, 24,000 were submitted by Kosovars. Consequently, cooperation with the countries on the Balkans migration route is essential, while it is also crucial to develop the migration, asylum and border administration capacities of these countries. And please do not ignore the crisis in Ukraine, as that is a trial which we have yet to face.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
As regards the death penalty, I take the view that Europe must not bury its head in the sand. I do not want to return to the Middle Ages, with taboo subjects which we must not talk about. In fact this debate is not about the death penalty, but about the issue of freedom of thought, opinion and speech. I maintain that we must talk about the death penalty. We operate on a constitutional basis and, in Hungary also, the relevant rules can only be amended in harmony with the European Union.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The principles, treaties and rules of the European Union are not carved in stone, they were not conceived by gods, or even inspired by them; they were created by human beings, and people may therefore change them at any time. This is freedom, and this is democracy.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Each person’s opinion on these issues is just that of one individual and nothing more, whoever that individual may be: whether a philosopher, an EU Commissioner, a prime minister, or a party chair – his or her view is the view of a European citizen. It is not something sacred, it is not dogma, it is not some higher truth. Therefore Hungary continues to stand up for the ideal of freedom, and the free expression of opinion as a European value.
Thank you for your attention.