Government - The Prime Minister - The Prime Minister's speeches

Viktor Orbán’s presentation “Hungary 25 years after the opening of the borders – 25 years of democracy and freedom in Europe” delivered at the event organised by the Hanns Seidel Foundation and the Bavarian-Hungarian Forum

6 November 2014, Munich

Good Evening Your Excellency, State Premier, Dear Hosts,

I would first like to say a few words about how we got here. State Premier Stoiber has expressed some admirable thoughts. We came to the Bavarian state government for a prosaic reason, however: it sold a bank and we bought a bank. But just a few nights before 9 November we could not speak about German-Hungarian business relations without mentioning the historic significance of the approaching anniversary. We are delighted to have the opportunity, after the official negotiations and with your permission, to meet Hungarians living here, as well as German – and specifically Bavarian – friends of Hungary. While therefore I could say that governmental duties brought us to Munich, it was profound respect that guided us here to this event tonight. I would like to express this sense of respect to Germany, which has always supported us over the past 25 years; this is our respect for the CSU and State Premier Stoiber, who have always given their full support to Hungary, but also to the Hungarian national, Christian, conservative political community. And naturally, this is also our respect for the Hanns Seidel Foundation, which regrettably receives little publicity in Hungary, despite being a very important actor in Hungarian public life. There was indeed a moment in history when it was a key player – but few remember that now. When the first freely elected Hungarian government lost the 1994 general election and a post-communist government was formed, the entire national, Christian, conservative community was in great danger, and on the verge of disintegration. Its reorganisation could not have taken place successfully without German friends and organisations such as the Hanns Seidel Foundation, and without their support there would not have been a conservative alliance to win the 1998 election, a two-thirds majority in 2010, and another two-thirds majority in 2014. I would therefore like to express our most sincere gratitude to the Hanns Seidel Foundation.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let my first message be one of congratulation to Germany, as we must agree with the words of the State Premier: the ninth of November was a form of historic, or poetic, justice. It reminds us that the European order – and, at the same time, the global order – has changed. I can clearly remember what I first read about the birth of NATO, and the purpose NATO actually serves. At the end of the nineteen-forties there were three goals, which went like this: “Keep the Russians out”; “Keep the Americans in”; and “Keep the Germans down”. From this starting point we arrived at 1989, when the wall finally fell, and at 1990, when Germany was reunified. Thank you for the words of gratitude our German friends often voice, always with emotion. I would now like to look at this story from another direction, trusting that you will see the political nuance; in my opinion, without German reunification, the reunification of Europe could not have taken place either. Without German reunification – horrible dictu – the former communist countries, including Hungary, could not have regained their freedom. We no longer remember this: time embellishes events in our memories. However, it was not at all certain in 1989 and 1990 that the reforms and the shift experienced in the direction of democracy would last. There was a fragile feeling of transience in the air. Only one thing could guarantee that the times before 1990 remained a thing of the past: German reunification. If Germany was reunited, there would be no return to the old world. In this sense, German reunification – which, we may proudly say, we ourselves had something to do with – simultaneously served the liberation of Germans and the other captive nations – including the Hungarian nation – and the long-term sustainability of that freedom. Therefore we shall always be grateful to the Germans for this, and the respect and appreciation we feel is mutual.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Please allow me to use this twenty-five year horizon to both look back and look ahead. Reaching this twenty-fifth anniversary has been like climbing a mountain: we arrive at the summit, and when we look down we more clearly see the route that brought us there, but we can also survey the route ahead of us – towards the next peak we seek to reach.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

When considering the past, we often speak of “the short 20th century”, because in political terms the period’s distinctive characteristics prevailed only from the outbreak of World War I in 1914 until 1990. Unexpected developments led to the reunification of the divided Germany. To the further surprise of many, after this opportunity had led to the democratic and peaceful creation of the European Union’s largest power, the Union not only remained free of conflict, but was strengthened; indeed, looking back after twenty-five years, it was this very step that now enables us to talk about the European Union with confidence in its future. If one looks at the economies of the Member States forming the European Union one sees all the struggle and pain, all the troubles and crises afflicting those European countries which were victorious in World War II; and then when one looks at Germany – devastated by that war – one sees that today everyone looks to Germany to pull the European economy out of trouble. We must therefore say that the short 20th century eventually came to a close with Europe re-embracing Germany: Europe realised that it has no future without Germany, elevating this country above others because it realised that the continent cannot be successful without Germany. I believe that already in 1990 this was also the view of wise policymakers outside Germany; but today, in 2014, if we take a good look at the European economy we can clearly see that this view was justified. Without the economic engine of a reunited Germany, nothing would be able to pull the European economy out of the troubles it is facing today. Looking back from here, today, the European powers’ acceptance of Germany’s reunification was a wise decision serving the widest pan-European interests.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Let me now briefly describe how, for Hungary, this new world naturally created a great many new opportunities, along with a great many new dilemmas. The first circumstance that we must face to this very day is that we started out at a disadvantage. Germany only needed to liberate one half or one third of its territory from communism. We had no equivalent of West Germany: our entire country was under communism. Unlike Austria, which the Russians left in 1955, in Hungary they only withdrew in 1990. The grave consequence of this is that to this very day we feel the loss of almost forty years of our history and forty years of opportunity for economic development; and to this very day our state of development still trails countries which were not subjected to this ordeal. Therefore, when today in 2014 we speak of Hungary – or of any Central European country – it is always worth bearing in mind that we are speaking of countries which are still working hard day after day to make up for historical disadvantages in an environment within the European Union where we must live together and compete with countries which have an enormous competitive advantage over us. This has been and will be a challenge and a formidable intellectual problem for Hungarian policymakers of all political persuasions.

The second thing that I would like to draw your attention to in the context of Hungary is that we were left out of the post-communist wave of European constitutional reform. There are perhaps some who may still remember that in the mid-1990s, all former communist countries created new constitutions of their own: the Romanians, the Poles – everyone. Everyone, with one exception, and that exception was Hungary. In Hungary, either the necessary political consensus was never arrived at, or neither political grouping had the two-thirds parliamentary majority needed to pass a new constitution. Hungary therefore missed this wave of constitutional change; the whole of Europe saw it as the most natural thing that the countries concerned should create new constitutions when communism came to an end, that they should adjust to democracy and freedom, that they should make a move towards the European Union, and that they should articulate the most important values of their history and the most important principles of their respective political systems. We were left out of this. And no one at the time seemed to notice. I must admit that I myself was unaware of the serious consequences that this would lead to. In fact, the ultimate consequence was that in 2010 we succeeded in forging a two-thirds parliamentary majority which for the first time was able to make up for the earlier lack of constitutional reform.

When this majority eventually came about in 2010, we were overjoyed to realize that we could finally do something which none of our predecessors could: discard our patchwork constitution, which dated from 1949, and which had been altered piecemeal according to the needs of the day; to consign it to the past, and finally lay down clearly and transparently the values and constitutional provisions which define our collective life. We believed that everyone could share this sense of joy; but as Europe was no longer used to seeing a country creating a new constitution – when it last happened, in the mid-nineties, it was seen as something perfectly natural – no one in Europe understood what the hell the Hungarians were doing. In fact we were only making up for a historic deficit. We did just that, and we had to withstand a great deal of criticism at the time. Today, however, we enjoy the benefits of this. We were treated with suspicion because of our new constitution, which also mentioned ideals which a number of European political schools of thought see as no longer relevant: patriotism, Christianity, family, unity. Some such European attitudes regard these as antiquated, but the Hungarian Constitution declares that it takes its roots from the past, which will stay with us and will continue to remain important for us in the future. After the Hungarian Constitution was subjected to widespread attack, the European Union audited us comprehensively. We can now say that there is only one nation in Europe – a single country – which has been fully audited with regard to democratic values by a body authorised to do so (namely, the European Commission, which officially bears the title of Guardian of the Treaties). That country is Hungary.

With this in mind, it is particularly hard to understand why a country with a constitution that has been fully scrutinised with respect to its cherished values continues to be the target of criticism, especially as no other country has been exposed to such thorough investigation. Yet that investigation took place and has been completed. Some of you may still remember that there were five issues of debate between the European Commission and Hungary: we agreed on four, went to court over one issue and lost, drew the necessary conclusions and made the required changes to our laws. As a result, we have made our entire constitutional system fully compatible with the laws and principles of the EU. This is a fact that we – in Hungary and in communities around the world which are on friendly terms with the Hungarian people – need to remember during the debates currently in progress and during those which lie ahead of us. This is why I felt it was important to tell you this here.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The next thing we must take account of – and we may not yet have spoken about it from this point of view – is that Hungary joined the European Union; entering the European Union and NATO after referenda on these issues was, in a modern context, reaffirmation of the decision taken by Saint Stephen one thousand years ago to align with the West. Once again, Hungary chose the West. This is where we belong; we belong in the West, in the community of Europe. Something we rarely mention is that with this decision we not only seized an opportunity, and not only gained security and a wider outlook, but we also took upon ourselves a share of the troubles of the European Union. We were not the only ones taking problems into the European Union; yet in addition, the problems of the European Union that did not previously concern us suddenly became our problems as well – and this continues to be the case up to this day. It is perhaps right for me to use this opportunity to name just a few major problems that the entire European community is facing and tell you what solutions Hungary has found to them, because we are convinced that Hungary is not part of the problem but part of the solution. We have achieved remarkable results in some areas and have tested new means and methods which are not yet known elsewhere in Europe.

The first thing I should mention here is that life in Hungary is very much determined by the fact – which I believe is also a day-to-day problem in your lives – that the European project has come to a halt. (“European Project” – whatever that actually means – is how it is referred to in Brussels: they use a peculiar language there and we are not always quite sure what they mean, but those who want to be part of the circle must use that language.) I am not talking about countries in the Balkans, such as Serbia, that we have not yet admitted, though there is no doubt that it has come to a halt in that respect also. I am talking about the Eurozone. This is a problem which you experience daily from within, while as outsiders we also live with it day in, day out. In order for a common currency to be successful and for a monetary union to meet expectations, a few pre-conditions are yet to be met: participants must set out in the direction of fiscal or budgetary union, and also in the direction of political union; this project has come to a standstill, however. Hence the fact that while, say, Germany complies with the rules which the European Union prescribed for the financial system, not all countries in the Eurozone observe these rules. At this point in time, these rules are not even enforceable – or it is at least doubtful whether they are enforceable. The whole monetary system now operates below its optimal level. This is a problem which we Hungarians are also forced to live with, despite being outside the Eurozone; but because this unresolved situation hampers the Eurozone’s economic performance and 85% of Hungarian exports target the countries of the Eurozone, this underperformance also has an indirect effect on Hungary. While Hungary is not a member of the Eurozone, it has a vested interest in the successful implementation and completion of the so-called European project, the common currency and everything that is connected to it; in the absence of this, Hungary loses the dynamism of one of its markets. And the market of the European Union, which is a dynamic market, is one of the major pre-conditions of advancement for Hungary.

The second issue we should talk about is also linked to Europe. This is something we ought to discuss at length, but here I shall necessarily speak about it briefly and in outline. If we look at the facts we can deduce from the figures, we can see that Europe accounts for an ever declining percentage of the world economy, global industrial production and world trade. This has shaken our self-image – the self-image of the European people. We believed that we were joining a community which is one of the world’s fastest growing, most dynamic and most prosperous economic zones: one able to offer the highest level of economic prosperity. And here we are now; we can see that we are not growing, while others are growing at an enormous rate, and therefore our share of the world economy is continuously shrinking. Today, 25 years after reunification, the European community finds it a problem to face this fact. At present, the European political elite refuses to recognise it, or if they do, it is only behind closed doors, and never in public. Naturally, there is no doubt that today Europe continues to be the world’s most liveable region, and a European would find it hard to imagine life on a long-term basis elsewhere, outside Europe: this is where freedom is perhaps the greatest, tolerance perhaps the highest, privacy perhaps most widely respected; in general, here we have a rich culture – one without which Europeans would see their lives as worthless, or at least limited. About this there is no doubt. We must, however, look at the trends: the economic foundations of this world are shrinking continuously, and until we face up to this fact – until we stand up and say that we must stop this process of economic decline and must reverse this negative world economic trend – we shall not find solutions. If we cannot ask the right questions, we cannot arrive at the right answers.

The third important issue that Hungary, too, must face as a member of the European Union is unemployment. I know that you cannot quite see this problem from here, in Munich. I had talks with your State Premier today, who told me that unemployment in Bavaria is at 3%, which practically means full employment. A 3% unemployment rate means that effectively everyone has work. By contrast, however, all across Europe the figures in this area are far worse. Unemployment in Hungary currently stands at 7.5%, which is a very high figure, only mildly mitigated by the fact that four years ago it was 12%. I am convinced that Europe must set itself the target of full employment; this, however, requires a change of paradigm in our economic policy. It requires changes such as those that Hungary has implemented, and which may, in this sense, be offered to other countries as possible solutions. These measures have not yet been implemented in a number of countries which have consequently failed to reduce their unemployment. In Hungary, we defined a triple goal. You may not know that personal income tax in Hungary is at a flat-rate of 16% for everyone, in return for which we have one of Europe’s highest rates of consumption tax. But alongside income tax of only 16%, there is no inheritance tax. In general, no taxes that would be a disincentive to work are imposed on families, because we want to tell people that working more is worthwhile, as those who work more will earn more and advancement can be found on the labour market and not through state benefits. This system of low tax rates works hand in hand with flexible labour market regulations. Hungary has perhaps Europe’s most flexible labour code, only rivalled to some extent by that of the Slovaks. And there is a state policy which has made it clear that the state seeks to provide employment, rather than benefits. Wherever the market is unable to offer work to people (there are large numbers of under-qualified people), and if we do not wish to hand out benefits – which we don’t – we must create employment opportunities. Only the state can do this, and this is why I say that here is one of the important elements of the Hungarian model, which is the solution to the Hungarian crisis. This must be done in such a way that these people should not be trapped within the public works scheme on a long-term basis, but should then be able to move onto the labour market. I do not know whether you have the problem here which we, in Hungary, have struggled with in the hundreds of thousands, and whether there are children here who grow up without ever having seen their fathers and mothers rise early in the morning to go to work. There were and still are hundreds of thousands of such families to this day. When we entered office, there were 550,000 families in which the father or another member of the family lived off income supplements and benefits instead of active employment: 550,000! Today, there are 170,000 such families in Hungary, and if our plans are achieved, this figure will be zero by 2018. By 2018, we shall be able to provide work of some kind – even if only in public works – for every Hungarian, and to pay a wage instead of social benefits. Instead of the policy of “something for nothing”, we shall pursue the policy of “something for something”. I am convinced that if European countries struggling with high unemployment rates do not undertake solutions of a similar nature, they will find it hard to escape the rut they are in. I believe that merely relying on the creation of jobs on the open labour market is no longer a valid approach in today’s world.

I would now also like to tell you of how our German friends – in particular those in German industry – have helped us a great deal in finding the solution to a problem. These friends have helped us to introduce a system of high-quality workforce training and to adopt the dual system of vocational training which we believe is an important pillar of the success of the German economy. We have not yet fully switched over to this system but, year by year, young people in increasingly large numbers are enrolling in vocational schools which pursue the logic of the German vocational training system; representatives from German industry are at the forefront of this effort. Only yesterday we saw the release of a new Audi model in Győr; this is, of course, a marvellous occasion – particularly if it involves a car that you will never drive yourself (partly because you are scared of its speed, and partly because you cannot afford it). However, after presentation of the vehicles, it was good to see that Audi in Győr is training dozens of young workers who will then work in the factory, that more than a thousand engineers work at the Audi manufacturing plant in Hungary, and that more than half of them obtained their diplomas in a training programme jointly conducted by Audi in Győr and the University of Győr. These are fantastic achievements, and for this we are most grateful to German industry.

We have been forced to face a problem that was previously only a problem of Europe: immigration, or asylum policy. This is something that we must face up to. By way of background, and for those who are less familiar with Hungary, I would just mention that to the present day our country does not have an immigrant community that leads its cultural life according to patterns which are different from those of Hungarians. To put it another way, we have almost no Muslim immigrants whatsoever. Even though we can say that there are some, they form a small fraction of one per cent, and that is how we would like to keep it. Many find this a most uncivilised position, but I disagree. I dislike hypocrisy, and this is a time for straight talk: right now, Hungary would not be able to resolve the widespread problems that accompany immigration. At the same time, Hungary also holds the European view that in immigration policy we must naturally help every individual who is in distress. Therefore those whose lives are in danger and who are being persecuted on political grounds must be given help – as follows naturally from European and Christian morality – and must even be given leave to stay if circumstances warrant. However, no one can seriously think that all the refugees flooding Europe are political refugees. No one could seriously entertain such an idea. We therefore need a highly sophisticated, intelligent and responsive refugee policy, or else Europe will become a magnet attracting everyone but not equipped to provide for them, and this will have negative implications for us all. We therefore support, and at a European level promote, the approach of sealing our borders against immigration, economic immigration; we must also launch a policy which does not provide funds to refugees inside Europe, but channels them to those people’s home countries: problems must be solved at root, where they emerge. At the same time, we must also pursue a foreign policy which supports regimes that may not be fully democratic but are able to provide some degree of stability and are able to implement policies which restrict or control immigration – such countries formerly included Libya and Syria. Foreign policy campaigns driven by European ideological considerations have often led to upheavals in one corner of the world or another, resulting in refugees flooding into Europe. We must talk about this frankly. These are mistakes – foreign policy mistakes – which we must study and analyse, and which we must not continually repeat. I therefore believe that the refugee issue must be stripped of all taboos, and we must talk about it clearly and in a straightforward manner. We must propose a solution which takes into consideration both our interests and those of the people in trouble, and which offers a genuine way forward.

We in Hungary reject the notion that we need immigrants in order to have a labour force that is prepared to do certain jobs. In our view, a national community must organise its life so as to ensure that there are those who carry out even the least appreciated jobs. Importing people from abroad to do jobs that we are for some reason not prepared to do is not a solution. This is not a healthy mentality. A country must be able to perform all the jobs which are, as we understand it, necessary for its existence and maintenance. If a situation arises in which there is insufficient labour, there are two things we may do. One is to look around within our own borders, to see where our hidden reserves may lie. I would like to draw everyone’s attention to Roma affairs – not only in Hungary, but across the whole of Europe. We are speaking about a European community of ten million – hundreds of thousands of people in Hungary alone – which represents major employment reserves, provided we have good policy for their training and integration into the labour market. From September 2015, in Hungary it will be mandatory for children to attend kindergarten from the age of three. A competent local body, local government or local official may grant an exemption from this obligation at a family’s request; as a rule, however, from the age of three we are starting with the integration of children into a cultural system which we hope will see students able to finish secondary school as young people with marketable qualifications. If we do not start this process at the age of three but at the age of six, children will start school education with disadvantages leading to unbridgeable differences. Here I only mean to say that there are solutions which do not lead us to the path of least resistance – towards immigration – but to a path which is more difficult but also more morally justifiable: towards the mobilisation of our own reserves.

At this point we must also speak of the question of families. This also, I believe, qualifies as some sort of a taboo issue in the European Union. Families must be supported. Families must be supported so that they can have children, can raise more children, can feel that their children are safe and secure, and can see that their children have a positive future. We must seek to use our own resources – with a new family policy and without immigration – to slow down, halt and reverse our demographic decline. I know that today this seems to fall into the realm of science fiction, as if we look at the numbers and the trends and are familiar with the age that we live in, this seems to be a rather hopeless enterprise. Ferenc Deák articulated a guiding motto of Hungarian politics: “I can also go on fighting without hope.” This is just such a situation. He fought without hope, and this led to the Compromise, and the advancement of Hungary. This story, too, amply demonstrates that there are battles that may seem hopeless but, if we commit to them, in the end hope may emerge. I am therefore certain that we should not head towards the easier option, we should not give up on family policy. We should not seek to compensate for lack of workers with immigration, but should instead take steps towards supporting families. This, I must repeat, requires great effort on our part.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Honourable Foundation, Your Excellency, State Premier,

We must also speak about the issue of energy as a European problem. This is yet another taboo. I did not come here to provoke you, but I shall do so all the same. The secondary theatres of war are almost as important as the main one. We must clearly point out that the kind of subsidies with which rich countries are able to support alternative energy sources are simply not available in the poorer countries. Think what you like about the value of different energy sources; the reality is that Hungary is unable to pursue an alternative energy policy such as that of Germany because it does not have the billions of euros that the German state invests in subsidies. This is simply not an option in Hungary. The second thing we must take into consideration as a European problem that we shared when joining the community is that the price of energy in the United States – which is one of our strongest economic rivals, as well as our military ally – is one half or one third of that in Europe. Against the backdrop of such energy price differences, we will not be able to compete with them. There is no industrial policy – nor is there the prospect of any such policy – which could improve productivity sufficiently to compensate for so large an energy price disadvantage. Therefore under present conditions we are bound to lose. The Hungarian government takes the view, which it asserts in Europe, that price is the most important factor related to energy: how to produce energy cheaply enough for Hungarian and European industry to be able to compete with overseas industry. Consequently, we shall not close down our nuclear power stations in Hungary but shall modernise and develop them, because we are convinced that this is the only way for a country which has no other energy sources of its own to generate cheap electricity.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We also believe that we must pursue an entirely different approach across the whole energy sector. I know that this is not possible in Germany, but it is in Hungary. Back home, we do not think of the energy sector as an industry but as a service provision sector – and as a result we are involved in a great many conflicts. What is more, we see it as a non-profit service provision sector which does not exist for the purpose of generating profits, but in order to supply other sectors with cheap energy, enabling them to make a profit. This mentality is completely different from the regulatory system within which we operate in the European Union today. Whether other countries will also be able to adopt this approach is highly doubtful, but the fact remains that the Hungarian model is at the very least worthy of consideration.

Finally, we must also speak here about the sovereign debt crisis; this strikes us as a highly unfamiliar term, but it merely points to the simple truth that we must not spend money that we have not earned. Ever since our accession to the European Union, we have embraced a dogma centred on the claim that it is possible to build an economy by spending the money first and earning it afterwards. This is an attractive idea, and we would all like it to be possible; however, year after year we have to recognise that such an economy has still yet to be invented. We must therefore work hard first, as we can only distribute that which we have produced; no matter how noble the cause to be financed, we must first generate the funds that we then wish to distribute in our budget. It does not work the other way round. If we do it the other way round, we shall find ourselves in the same position which a number of countries in Europe – together with the Eurozone as a whole – are heading towards: continuously living off credit, consuming our future, and financing our own comfort and convenience with debt to be paid off by our children and grandchildren. This may well be comfortable, but is hardly a morally justifiable attitude, and to make matters worse we can see how the story ends: think about Greece (though I could mention quite a few other countries as well). This is a course that we must not pursue. Hungary has made tremendous efforts to abandon this path because this is the path it followed up until 2010. Few of you may remember, but Greece was not the first Member State in the European Union to buckle financially in response to the crisis; the first was Hungary. In 2008 Hungary was facing collapse, and if the IMF and the European Union had not come to our aid at the time, we could have buried the entire country. It is nothing short of a miracle that we did not in fact go under and that the European Union and the IMF saved us from the worst. We were thereby given time to come up for air, and by 2010 we had got to the point where we were able to keep our mouth and nose above the surface of the water – through enormous effort and sacrifice. Therefore, we must not give up on financial discipline, we must not give up on the just distribution of burdens, and we must not give up on a tax system that serves to boost performance. A tax system that boosts performance means that it primarily motivates those who work.

We have at this point reached a highly sensitive problem, which is deeply embedded in the European psyche: the approach to the issue of differences in wealth. On a daily basis I can see that the European Union ascribes negative attributes to wealth differences and their increase. However, when you think about it, it is natural that the rewards of those who work – work more, are more talented or are ready to take more risks – should grow faster than those who do not. I am therefore convinced that we must change from a culture of jealousy, a culture of aversion to people who are financially successful, to a culture that acknowledges performance. This will not be easy, particularly for those of us who come from backgrounds in the egalitarian system which was communism; but I am sure that we should see the existing differences in wealth more as a motivating force, rather than some sort of injustice that we seek to eliminate through artificial regulation. I could also express this by saying that for us democracy does not mean a continuation of the class struggle by peaceful means. We do not wish to accept this mentality under any circumstances, as it will result in a declining society with declining performance.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

These are the six or seven big issues that Europe, and Hungary as part of Europe, are struggling with all at once. What I wish to say – as a kind of summary explanation of the events that are taking place in Hungary – is that it is not enough to answer these questions one by one. It is hardly an easy task to answer these six or seven questions individually; almost no one seems to succeed – Hungary included. But what we have here is an even more difficult task to resolve: once we have the questions and our answers to these questions, we must organise them into a fully operational system. Full employment, the promotion of businesses, the supply of cheap energy, family policy, the reversal of the current demographic trends and a new immigration policy – these must also be arranged and integrated into an operational and logical system. Naturally, this is within the boundaries of a market economy and a democracy, but each country itself must find the answers, and these answers must then be integrated into an operational, viable system. We call this the Hungarian model, which seems to work at this point in time. We ourselves are sometimes surprised, but the situation is that this system works.

It is widely known in politics that model experiments of this kind are likened to bumblebees. Biologists and physicists have demonstrated that if we measure the various biological features of the bumblebee – such as the size of its abdomen, the span of its wings and the weight of its body – the laws of physics tell us that it should not be able to fly: it should be out of the question. However, bumblebees do fly. The Hungarian model, too, is something like this: on a weekly basis it has been demonstrated that this system, with its combination of individual features, cannot work: it is impossible. But here we are somehow, and even the EU projections released to the public yesterday show that the Hungarian economy will grow by more than 3% this year (three times the average European growth rate), unemployment is continuously decreasing, the country’s sovereign debt is falling, and in general in Hungary the indicators which best serve to describe the state of a country are continuously improving. This fills us with great hope, naturally, combined with a degree of modesty; but we may stand before the court of European opinion with sufficient self-confidence and may claim that over several years Hungary has, with careful and laborious effort, developed a set of different answers to the difficult dilemmas arising from EU membership which seem to work for Hungary: the country has done its homework, so to speak. As a source of possible solutions, we respectfully recommend Hungary to the attention of the other Member States of the European Union.

Thank you for your attention.