4 July 2013

Distinguished Speaker, Respected House, Fellow Members,

As I am sure you are all aware, the last session of the European Parliament involved a debate and subsequent vote with regard to Hungary. I would like to summarise the lessons learned for you in brief today. The Government has prepared a detailed reply to the Report, which is seriously prejudicial to Hungary. In this, we have fully disproven the false allegations and unfounded accusations of the Report. The document has been presented to the President of the European Parliament and to all Members of the European Parliament. I personally participated in Tuesday's debate, although of course fully aware of the composition of the European Parliament and knowing full well what the result of the vote would be. 331 MEPs voted against the Report, while 370 voted in favour. As expected, the Socialists, Liberals and Greens, who represent a majority in the European Parliament voted against Hungary, while a huge majority of the European People's Party voted in favour of Hungary.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I did not go to Strasbourg to try and talk the European Left out of doing what they had already decided to do. I went there to defend the standpoint of the Hungarian people and to let the voice of the people of Hungary be heard. And I told them that the Report is unfair and prejudicial towards Hungary and the people of Hungary. The adopted proposal, Ladies and Gentlemen, disregards the scope of authority of the European Parliament and disregards the legal balances between member states and the European Union. In contravention to the Basic Treaties, it arbitrarily determines mandatory criteria, introduces new procedures and creates a new institution, with which it undermines the sovereignty of a member state. This poses a danger to the whole of Europe and to the future of the European Union.

Respected House,

We, Hungarians, have experienced for some time that the European Union applies an unfair, double standard and abuses its power during our debates. Now, however, in the European Parliament they have overstepped a line, which has never been crossed before. The European Parliament has completely disregarded the Basic Treaty of the European Union. With this, the bureaucrats and Members of Parliament of the European Union have stepped onto a dangerous path. The other important lesson, Ladies and Gentlemen, is not a new one: we have known for some time that what really lie behind the abuses against our homeland are business lobby interests. Hungary is reducing the costs of public utilities for families, and this hurts the interests of those large European companies who for many long years have collected as much money from Hungarian families as they could get away with. But I feel the right thing to do is to now reduce their extra profits, and we are strong enough to do so. As can be seen and read by anyone who wishes to from the recommendations published for Hungary by the European Commission during the excessive deficit procedure, the EU would like us not to regulate the price of energy services, or rather to enable prices to rise again instead of introducing cuts in public utility rates. We, however, reject this and would rather listen to the two million people who have signed the petition in favour of public utility rate cuts, and so we will continue to reduce the cost of living during the autumn.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

There was, however, an even sadder lesson to be learned from the past two days. I thought that we had put the days when Hungarian politicians turned against Hungary anywhere in the world, on no matter what forum and with regard to whatever issue, behind us.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

All of our families live here; this is our home, our homeland. The reduction in public utility rates is important to every Hungarian family; it is not a question of party politics. It is inconceivable to me that Hungarian Members of Parliament should support those who wish to endanger Hungary, those who wish to limit the country's independence and who want to take money out of the pockets of Hungarian families. In a case such as this when Hungary is being unfairly attacked, why is it not possible to put aside party interests and party affiliations as we did on the dykes when we battled against the flood? Believe me, I am not the only who cannot understand this; millions of Hungarian people will also be unable to understand it. When the security of Hungary, the independence of Hungary and the livelihoods of Hungarian families are at stake, solidarity is the only appropriate behaviour. And for this reason I call on all decent Hungarian politicians and every Member of Parliament to not allow Hungary to be endangered and to do everything in accordance with his or her abilities and possibilities to stand up for Hungary and the Hungarian people.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's Replies to Comments

Respected Speaker, Fellow Members,

There are a few issues that are unrelated to the essence of the debate, to which I would like to react in brief. These do not include the blatant lies; I would only like to deal with questions that have political significance. First of all, this is not the first time that we have seen an opposition group attempting to make Parliament the scene of business interests. Business interests have always included conflicts and differences of opinion, they still do, and these are also present within the Hungarian economy. I would ask that you consider whether in fact you truly wish to make the Hungarian Parliament the scene of business conflicts, and if you do, don't worry, we will be prepared and the debate that follows will be one that holds little joy for yourselves.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Secondly, I would like to make it clear that economic policy has a direction with regard to what you have mentioned regularly here, that is with regard to whose interests it serves.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to quote just a brief list. We have taken the waterworks back from the French; our gas reservoirs from the Germans; MOL from the Russians, and FTC from the British. In summary what I can tell you therefore is that while you weakened and sacked Hungary, and preyed on the country's assets, we have renewed and reinforced Hungary, have protected and increased Hungarian public assets, and will continue to do so in the upcoming period. I would like to tell my fellow Member, Mr. Vona, that it would be wise to examine the Land Act in greater detail. If someone reads the Land Act, or perhaps collects enough strength to read the French Land Act, to read the Austrian Land Act, or perhaps to read the different regulations in force in each Province of Austria, then they will see that the Hungarian Land Act includes and cleverly combines all of the institutions contained within the usual and successful examples of European national land protection legislation. A little outlook on Europe helps one understand how to interpret the various decisions of Hungarian legislation. And so I can safely say to everyone who follows our debates, that we have protected Hungarian land; this law does not enable foreigners to acquire land in Hungary. What it does make possible, however – in view of the fact that 50 percent of Hungarian farmland is currently worked by large estates and the remaining 50 percent by small and medium-sized estates – is the shifting of this balance, thus deciding a historical argument in favour of small and medium-sized estates, and as a result of this act and as a result of the work of our administration, the ratio of small and medium-sizes estates will reach at least 80 percent, with the ratio of large estates falling to at least below 20 percent.

Ladies and Gentlemen, So much for issues that are not relevant to the essence of the debate. And now please allow me to also say a few words about the subject of the debate. There is a question about, or rather the leader of the MSZP parliamentary group put forward an idea with regard to the question: so then why are they bullying Hungary, why are they attacking Hungary? Is it really true that the cuts in public utility rates are behind it? Here too I would suggest gathering information and some reading to my fellow Member. Because if he reads the European documents and follow our debates, then he will see that the European Union has three important institutions: the Council of Prime Ministers, the Commission and the Parliament. All of these areas are continuously attacking Hungary specifically with regard to the cuts in public utility rates. Specifically with regard to the cuts in public utility rates! At the last prime ministerial summit in Brussels too – sorry, at the one before last – I had to set down in a separate document, in a separate footnote, in a separate appendix as a separate, national standpoint the fact that despite the recommendation of the Council of Prime Ministers, Hungary will not increase public utility rates, will not allow these prices to become unregulated and by entrusting them to the market, so to speak, allow the free increase in prices to once again push Hungarian families into poverty. We set this down in writing there, at the prime ministerial summit within the framework of the agenda item dealing with energy. And so as such, we can safely say that the Council of Prime Ministers of the European Union regularly formulates the requirement that Hungary give up its policy of reducing public utility charges, and we regularly reject it. If you take a step further, then, Ladies and Gentlemen, you will see that the European Commission does exactly the same thing. If you take a look at the document that the European Commission sent Hungary after the lifting of the excessive deficit procedure, you will see that it includes recommendations for Hungary. These recommendations are very enlightening. In view of the fact that these are public, I would ask that my fellow Members of Parliament read them if you have the time and the opportunity, especially if you plan to speak in Parliament on the subject. This kind of thing has its benefits. So, in that document entitled Recommendations, the Commission, which is a body of the European Union, clearly wrote down that indeed, they expect Hungary to abolish the cuts in public utility rates, which we again rejected in writing. And if you listened to the latest debate in the European Parliament, or yesterday, and listened to the leader of the Socialist Group, then I had a difference of opinion with him on precisely this issue. In relation to this issue I openly told the Austrian Group Leader that Hungary is not prepared to withdraw the public utility rate cuts, despite demands for it to do so, and in fact I declared there and at the Council of Prime Ministers that there would be a further 10 percent cut in utility rates in the autumn. So much for the question of whether the EU actually wants Hungary to give up its policy of reducing public utility rates…

And finally, Ladies and Gentlemen, now that I have hopefully supplied opposition MPs with some useful information, please allow me to add an addendum to what I said earlier. In view of the last decision of the European Parliament, the question today is no longer whether Hungary has done something wrong. We are far beyond that issue. We have protected Hungary's interests, we have presented our standpoints, and the justness of our cause is obvious. The question is whether the European Parliament is doing something wrong, and yes, Ladies and Gentlemen, it is. It is doing something wrong not just form the perspective of Hungarian national interests, but also from the point of view of the future of the European Union, because by not conforming to the regulations that apply to it, by not respecting the Basic treaties, by overwriting on a party political basis the European regulations that uniformly regulate the behaviour of all of us, the European Parliament is certainly doing something wrong to the European Union; it is weakening it and not moving it in the direction of solidarity and strengthening, but towards weakening and disintegration. We have a difference of opinion with the Jobbik Party. According to Jobbik, this is good news, but in my view it is bad news, because the task of the European Parliament should be to as much as possible increase the European Union's ability to act in solidarity so that we can successfully manage the economic crisis. Disintegration, my respected fellow member, Mr. Vona, the disintegration of the European Union would be nothing less than a cataclysm. That must be avoided at all costs, because the price for that would be paid for by European citizens in the form on many millions of starving people. And accordingly I do not think one should argue in favour of the disintegration of the European Union, especially not in a time of crisis, and if needed we should stand up against the European Parliament itself, if it is otherwise moving the European Union in that direction.

In closing, please allow me to draw attention to another important matter. The European Parliament formulates its rulings on the basis of the rule of law. Since the dawn of time, or rather since the existence of European civilization, one of the irrefutable tenets of the rule of law has been that it is not possible to establish special courts. Perhaps the committee that the European Parliament is now planning to establish against Hungary is called by a different name, but if we examine it from a legal perspective it has all the characteristics of what we would under the rule of law describe as a special court, and no state or legislature that respects the rule of law can set up a special court against anybody or against any social group, unless you're a communist, because that is different, communists do that kind of thing. And this is the case here. And in addition all this is happening on a party political basis, which bears with it another problem with regard to the rule of law, because parliamentary procedures of this kind have an inevitable consequence: left-wing MEPs accuse us, they are the accusers, and then they vote, meaning they are also the judges. Respected Ladies and Gentlemen, under the rule of law the accuser and judge can never be one and the same, and one cannot set up special courts. And finally, ladies and Gentlemen, I must react to my fellow Member, Mr. Vona's thought, which although from another direction, touches on the thought of fellow Member, Mr. Mesterházy, with regard to how we view European funds. Naturally, people can view them in any way they wish, we are living in a free country, but the question of how it is worth viewing them may perhaps indeed be the subject of debate. Naturally, the European Union provides Hungary with financial support, and through various funds with assigned funding for various objectives. I would, however, like to draw attention to the fact that in return Hungary does not apply customs duties and accepts the internal regulations concerning the unified market of the European Union. It does so in the spirit of its belief in the fact that as the result of all these complicated economic factors we are after all better off inside, than we would be outside. This is our train of thought. I think it is the right way of thinking, but to view funding received from the European Union as if it were just thrown on the table with disdain, as if it were a gift, as if it depended on the whim of some feudal lord whether those funds arrive in Hungary or not, is a complete misunderstanding of the European Union. Our joining the unified market – and such that there had been communism here for 40 years beforehand, there was no private sector, no accumulation of capital, no establishment of private enterprises with vast amounts of capital, and we joined the EU in this state – a unified market in which there had never been communism, communists had never been allowed to gain power under the guise of socialists, or if they had, they were sent packing very swiftly, something we had no chance to do; the accumulation of capital had been allowed in those countries and competitive private enterprises appeared within the global economy, Western private enterprises. Hungary had no such private corporations. And so we joined the market, the unified market, at a time when it was clear that the other party had a competitive advantage. And so what is received from the European Union by Hungary in the form of funding is not a gift, but it is what we deserve, and an important cornerstone of our accession agreement and of our joining the European Union. For this reason I would ask the people of Hungary, that when they see a sign saying this development project was realised with European Union funding, or similar, then they think of the fact that this may be formally true, but we are in fact receiving our own money in return. This is why we cannot view this issue in this way, Ladies and Gentlemen. In closing, I would like to repeat the request I made a little earlier. I would ask every Member of Parliament regardless of party affiliation to, if it is the case that Hungary and Hungary's independence, if Hungary's critical elements are under attack, I would ask you to put aside ideological and party criteria, to show solidarity and to work together with us to protect the interests of Hungary.

Thank you for your kind attention.

(Prime Minister’s Office)