8 May 2015

Éva Kocsis: Good morning, we have Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in the studio. Good morning, Prime Minister.

Good morning.

This week we celebrated the 25th anniversary of the formation of the independent National Assembly, and you said that after the removal of the rubble of the past, we may now embark on furnishing the structure we have built. What does this mean in practice over the next two to three years?

Indeed, we celebrated the 25th anniversary, and because this is about our own lives, we are both happy to have survived these 25 years and conscious that we are not quite as young as we once were. It is enough just to look in the mirror every morning, and we can see the difference between ourselves 25 years ago and today. At times like this, a reappraisal is inevitable. It is perhaps less relevant to talk about what happened between 1990 and 2010, and more exciting to talk about what has happened between 2010 and 2015. All the more so because there is a generational problem here; those who were born at the time of the fall of communism are now 25 years old. It is a complex task to tell them what it was like before they were born and how it is now, and how much better the world that we live in today is compared with the one we lived in before they were even born; as a parent, I have first-hand experience of the energy needed to successfully explain all this. By contrast, the five years between 2010 and 2015 is an experience that we have shared with those who are young today. Indeed, as you said: we may venture to say that we have managed to eliminate the consequences of the financial crisis that emerged in 2008 and that now, in 2015, we have dealt with management of the crisis and also the removal of rubble; what we are now faced with – and half of this year has been about this, as the years ahead may be – is how we are going to create a “civic settlement”. In other words, it is time for the debates which are about what Hungary can and should do to achieve a decent civic quality of life.

As part of this decent civic quality of life, is it necessary to regulate immigration, for instance?

If we do not regulate immigration but invite everyone to a big, college dorm party, if everyone who has the time and inclination to come is invited and allowed to stay until the following morning, there is no chance of establishing a civic settlement. We are facing a very serious dilemma: the number of people crossing the Hungarian border illegally has increased twentyfold in three years, and this is a particularly high figure in a European context. After Sweden, the highest number of asylum-seekers per capita arrive in Hungary. Today they quickly transit through Hungary; but we should not think of the Germans or the Austrians as simpletons or losers. It is wise to pay attention to the debates which are taking place in those countries and which warn us that the current situation will soon come to an end. If they prevent illegal crossings at their own borders, all asylum-seekers arriving in Hungary illegally will be stuck in Hungary, as if in a giant sack, and this will jeopardise our very livelihoods, our jobs, and everything which we have built over the last few years. Hungary must therefore have its wits about it, and must listen both to its heart and to the voice of reason.

Critics say that we shall not see asylum-seekers being deported back to where they came from; at the same time, if we recall 2011, we already tested this scenario in practice, when Tunisian refugees arrived in Europe in large numbers and the Italians said that they would also like other countries to accept asylum-seekers. At the time, the French Interior Minister protested personally, and effectively threatened to close the country’s borders. The situation was the same in Austria, and also in Germany. In other words, when the system was put to the test in practice, the principle of solidarity did not work.

Because it is not solidarity that we need here, but the enforcement of our laws. I think it is a crazy idea – and I wish to apologise to my counterparts, other prime ministers in Europe for branding their idea as crazy, but I think it is – that people allow refugees to enter their country, effectively fail to defend their country’s borders, and then say that they will now distribute them among other countries which did not want to allow anyone in at all. This is not fair, this is not solidarity; this is an unfair and a dishonest proposal which we are unable to accept. I believe that everyone should defend their own borders, and if we want to do something together, something that is worthwhile, it should be aimed at relocating the problem outside the territory of Europe. One must take action before these people set out, and therefore one should destroy or seize the boats of human traffickers and, with regard to those asylum-seekers whom we know can only enter Europe illegally, one should prevent them from setting out for Europe. We must defend our borders, and we must uphold our laws.

This is all very well, but what about boats illegally approaching the Italian or Spanish coastlines, in which there are people who must be rescued, because they are already there?

There is nothing else we can do; we are, after all, a Christian continent, and we cannot allow people to die in front of our eyes. Consequently, the problem must be tackled at its roots, at the point of departure. It must be tackled in two ways. Firstly, we should invest much more energy – and money – in strengthening the countries from which refugees set out; we must equip them both technically and financially to enable them to defend their own borders and to prevent the outflow of people. Secondly, we must prevent these people from setting off for Europe. There are ways of doing this, especially at sea; there are historical examples. The problem that Hungary is faced with is more complicated because, much as they might like to, migrants cannot access Hungary by sea, but only by land. This raises another problem, in which cooperation may be especially meaningful – primarily with the Kosovars and the Serbs. The Interior Minister has successfully managed these relations and, as far as I can see, we are able to solve our own problems. In other words, if the European Union stops imposing rules on us which have nothing to do with real life, if we can finally rid ourselves of these rules – and this is what we are about to do – we shall be able to defend Hungary against economic migrants.

What do you mean in practice by Hungary ridding itself of these rules?

Those people crossing borders illegally should be dealt with toughly but fairly, to dissuade them from even setting out for Hungary. This was the case earlier, when economic migrants gave Hungary a wide berth, before the European Union deprived us of the option of regulating these matters ourselves. This is the situation that we should now restore.

But when you urge more stringent rules on immigration – and we are still concentrating on the situation in Hungary – do you mean the more stringent assessment of asylum applications, or decisions made by officials at the border? Leaving aside Kosovar asylum-seekers for the moment, if decisions are to be made at the border, this could also mean, for instance, Christian families persecuted by Islamic State also being turned back.

This should be done by regarding everyone who crosses the border illegally as a lawbreaker. In other words, crossing a border illegally is not a forgivable sin, or some jolly afternoon picnic, but it is a violation of one of the most important rules of a given state, and as such, every offender who commits this crime must also be immediately taken into custody and made subject to the appropriate proceedings. Those who prove to be genuine political refugees must be granted asylum in Europe in accordance with the relevant rules; but the majority of these people do not fall into this category. Even those claiming to be refugees are in fact economic migrants, setting out in the hope of a better life in Europe. We must help them to believe that they can lead decent and dignified lives in their native lands; but once they have set out, we must distinguish those who are genuine political refugees – to whom a completely different set of rules applies – from those who have left their native land for economic reasons. But whichever category a person falls into, when they enter Hungary they must immediately be taken into custody, and they must remain in custody while the relevant proceedings are conducted. This is not an option today. According to current EU regulations, if someone gives the correct answers to five questions (and they are well-versed in how to respond), they cannot be taken into custody immediately, but must be allowed freedom to move anywhere in Europe, including Hungary. If they did not move on but stayed here, Hungary would be compelled to face unmanageable social tensions. I am sorry, but this is why I say that there are some people who are not seriously affected by this problem, and I do not think it is fair that they should be generous at our expense. They should leave this for us to decide.

Every Member State has its views on the issue, this was one of the main topics of the UK election campaign, and in a certain sense, some parties in Germany – including the CDU – would introduce more stringent rules. Leaving aside the Australian government or Canada because they are outside Europe, Switzerland enforces a quota system, and we also know the Italian Interior Minister’s view on the need for more stringent regulations. In spite of this, it is Hungary which is once again before the Justice Committee of the European Parliament (Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs), and Hungary which is the target of fierce criticism surrounding the issues of more stringent rules on immigration and the death penalty – but we shall talk about that later.

This should not be seen as criticism, but as a form of recognition. Hungary is the only country which talks about this problem in open, clear and straightforward terms. Those who speak so, because they want to solve their problems, provoke a debate; but this is the sort of recognition which we should not be afraid of. The fact that we are attacked or criticised, that a debate revolves around our opinion, is an unintended compliment, and is good news, rather than bad.

Is it good news that the debate is about us, or should the reactions that the debate provokes be regarded as good news? Because in essence the reactions claim that the national consultation conflates immigration and terrorism.

But the views on the national consultation themselves indicate that there is a national consultation in Hungary, while in other countries there is no consultation; in other words, it is important in Hungary to ask the people, while it is not seen to be important in other countries. I think this is good news, which should be read in the right way.

But do you agree that our mentioning immigration in the same context as terrorism is like pouring petrol onto a fire?

It is important to ask whether the threat of terrorism in Europe and its manifestations are in any way related to immigration; views on this diverge. People have an opinion on this question, and the questionnaire does not say that something is so or not, but merely asks whether in their view there is a correlation. I think it is important what people think, whether they associate their personal security with the rise in immigration or not; what people think and how they feel about this matters.

Let us take a little detour to the UK elections, the results of which are now unfolding. It would appear that the view that, for instance, immigration rules should be made stricter – something voiced during the campaign – has prevailed in Britain. What are your hopes for the period to come? The whole of Europe has been holding its breath to see what happens in the UK.

I am feeling very enthusiastic this morning. I am glad that Prime Minister Cameron has won an overwhelming victory. There have been one or two EU issues on which we took a joint stance, but it is even more important that courage has prevailed. There are two types of politics in Europe today: the politics of the courageous and the politics of the fudgers. Mr. Cameron is beyond doubt in the courageous camp: his politics are forthright and brave, and he is willing to engage in debate. He says what he thinks, involves the people in the debate, and then decides – in the right way, more often than not; at least, the British voters felt that way. If things turn out well, good decisions really predominate. The other route is a media-driven, fudging, conflict-averse, slightly whimpering style of politics, which tends to shirk the responsibility for taking decisions. Furthermore, when a decision needs be taken, a political leader or leadership in this category says that effectively they have no choice, and they almost apologise for daring to make decisions on certain issues. This is a different trend in leadership, which is also strong in Europe, and this type of political leadership also has its own results. I am glad that courageous people, courageous parties and courageous governments are also able to gain the trust of the people and, what is more, to preserve that trust. From the viewpoint of its culture, the culture of political debate, constitutionality and public sentiment, I believe that Hungary is close or similar in character to Britain’s political culture, and therefore this election result serves as guidance.

You spoke about courage; will European leaders be brave enough at the European summit in June, where immigration will also be on the agenda, to take specific, practical measures and to adopt decisions on this issue?

I do not yet see the courage that it takes, but there is plenty of time left; we may yet pull ourselves together.

Immigration was not the only item on the agenda in Brussels yesterday: the death penalty was too. You said that the issue of the death penalty must be kept on the agenda. Why?

Because my assumption is that when brutal crimes are committed – say a twenty-something-year-old woman is killed for twenty thousand forints – people feel that they are not safe, and they believe – and there are many who believe – that they will be safer if the death penalty exists or if certain crimes carry the threat of the death penalty. There is a fierce debate on whether or not this is the case; but it is important to hear what people think about this issue. And I am glad that this debate has started, I am glad that I may have had a part in initiating this debate, and I am glad that public opinion on this issue will become more balanced, because in the media we regularly only hear about the rights of murderers or the rights and lives of perpetrators and surviving victims, but we never hear about those who have died. And all I ask of those who participate in the debate is that they consider the question at least for a moment from this viewpoint: what if their child had been murdered, what if their wife, mother or father had been murdered, as sometimes happens in Hungary? I find that this is a very difficult question, and the debate on this question permits a nuanced approach, a balanced approach; this is the human part of it. As regards the political part, we have the very simple plan of creating a European climate of opinion which favours restoring the ability to introduce or not introduce the death penalty to national jurisdictions; this is something that has been taken away from the Member States. Instead, a central regulation was created, and furthermore, a ban on the death penalty was even incorporated into the Union’s highest legal document. I believe that each country should itself decide on this, because we have no reason to assume that one country has the same opinion on this as another, more distant country, which is in an entirely different situation in terms of crime or the threat of crime and lives in different circumstances. Therefore, the first step is for the Member States themselves to regain the right to decide whether they want the death penalty or not – as in the United States, where the death penalty exists in some states, but not in others. Once this has been achieved, we can then decide whether to introduce it or not.

Are you in favour of the death penalty?

I stand for the defence of life, and consequently consider this question from the viewpoint of what we need to do in order to protect innocent, law-abiding people. If we are able to protect them without the introduction of the death penalty, let us protect them without it. If, however, there is no other way, it must be introduced.

We have very little time left, and we should therefore close this topic. Hungary has a solution to the problems you have cited: it is called the justice system, law enforcement and the police.

Naturally. 

Why do you also need the death penalty then?

Because in spite of this, as you have seen, there are cases in which elderly couples are killed for their pensions, to cite an example from Csongrád County, or young girls are brutally murdered. All I want to say is that honest, law-abiding people who are unable to protect themselves are losing their lives.

Let us talk about banks, financial institutions and the forint conversion of foreign currency loans. The settlement of foreign currency loans, the process of general accountability within the banking sector, affects 1.3 million customers, and this now appears to have reached its final stages. Yet there are some who are disappointed with the paperwork they have received from their banks (although in this programme we performed the calculations on what would have happened if this measure had not been taken, and how much worse the situation would have been). There are instances, however, when one acknowledges with disappointment that, in fact, not a lot has changed. Do you have any further tasks in this area?

We can demonstrate anything with the aid of any sound mathematical formula; people will never be satisfied, because there is no situation that could not be improved, and because people always aspire to more. We who deal with human affairs and the affairs of people must always be aware of this. Therefore we should not be surprised at all when people always want more and more, be it a pay rise, a tax cut, or a reduction in their debt. This is a reaction which inevitably follows from the nature of Hungarians. Here we should talk about the facts calmly, because, after all, one thousand billion forints (an astonishing sum, there are so many zeros in it) has been returned from the banks to families. This is unprecedented. Regardless of some individual settlement problems, it is unprecedented in Hungarian history that entities abusing their superior positions at the expense of the people – banks in this case – are eventually called to account and forced to repay money that was wrongfully taken. We are talking about one thousand billion forints; it is no surprise that the international community is talking about the Hungarian example, the Hungarian model, and Hungarian crisis management. Naturally, there are families who expected more than they have now received. It is important to realise, however, that after the judiciary brought this question within its remit, the decisions of the courts set the limit in one direction or the other and limited how far we can go. We cannot go beyond this limit; we could and did go all the way to the limit.

The National Bank of Hungary (NBH) has proposed that existing foreign currency-based car loans totalling some HUF 300 billion, and outstanding all-purpose foreign currency-based loans totalling HUF 65 billion should also be converted into forints.

This is a reasonable proposal, and we are working on it. Whether we can implement it, I cannot tell you yet in all good faith; but we are working on it.

The NBH added one more thing: introducing the legal concept of personal bankruptcy would be a great help. The KDNP, too, has a similar family bankruptcy protection proposal.

A decision has been adopted on this issue. The Government discussed the fundamentals of this question, we acquainted ourselves with the Christian Democratic People’s Party’s proposal, and we believe it is suitable for a parliamentary debate. The Christian Democratic People’s Party will submit it to the Hungarian parliament. This is also related to the problem of foreign currency debtors, because there are tens of thousands of people in Hungary who cannot be helped with any amount of preferential settlement, as they stopped paying their instalments so long ago and are in such a difficult situation that the opportunities offered by fair settlement in the banking sector will not help them out of trouble. For them, the introduction of the institution of personal bankruptcy – there is a more complex term, but let us call it that for now – may be of assistance. We shall, however, guarantee that not a single person, not a single family in Hungary shall be left without a roof over their heads. We shall help out of trouble those whom we can, we shall offer them assistance, but this also needs their cooperation. The Christian Democrats’ proposal contains the relevant rules. And even those who cannot take this opportunity and lose their homes will not be left under a bridge with their children. Everyone in Hungary will have a roof over their heads.

We can see the main figures of next year’s budget. What we know for certain is that personal income tax will be reduced from 16 to 15 per cent, that VAT on pork will be reduced, and that the bank tax – which is also imposed on financial institutions – will be reduced. Under these circumstances, together with the additional burdens imposed on banks due to the brokerage scandals, how can you achieve a much sought-after increase in lending?

Through cooperation. We are seeking to enter into cooperation with the Banking Association. The law does not stipulate increased lending as a precondition, although there are proposals to that effect. For instance, there is a proposal from the National Bank which would stipulate increased lending as a statutory condition in return for a reduction in the bank tax. I do not consider this a good solution for a variety of reasons. I would give ourselves a year, and we should then see whether the level of lending increases without statutory pressure, based on pure economic logic. If so, there will be no need for pressure; if not, we can come back to this issue in a year’s time. As far as the budget is concerned, in addition to the items you mentioned, I would talk about one other important thing, and this is the increased tax benefit provided for families with two children. For such families, the tax benefit eligibility per child will effectively be doubled over the course of four years, starting from 1 January 2016. This means that by the end of this process an average family’s annual income will be boosted by HUF 115,000 to 116,000. This, I believe, is a major step forward: a step taken towards a civic quality of life in Hungary.

You have been listening to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

(Prime Minister's Office)