3 February, Budapest

Mr Speaker, Fellow Members,

There are a few comments that I would like to reply to specifically, and there are some that I would rather just push aside, if you will allow me to.

MSZP Fellow Members,

Shameless, false and dishonest – these were the words most often used in the speech given by the Member who commented instead of Attila Mesterházy. And we also heard the words with which he described the difficult state of the Hungarian economy. For several reasons – partly because you are young, partly because it would perhaps not be fully fair on my part, and thirdly because we no not have enough time either – I will refrain from gong into detail with regard to the fact that the fundamental problems of the Hungarian economy are after all caused by those 40 or 45 years that we call communism, and which to all intents and purposes by 1999 had brought the country into a position whereby it had to begin competing in the economic race of the free world with a handicap of several laps. But I will not go into this now, but instead all I would like to remind you of, because perhaps you too can remember it, is that there was after all one Prime Minister in Hungary who did nothing less than openly admit that they had been lying – what was it? – morning, night and evening. And now you want to teach us a lesson in telling the truth? You admitted to lying morning, night and evening.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

My mistake, I'm sorry, you're right: they lied morning noon and night. And there are many more possible permutations. The only thing we don't know is what they did in the afternoons, but I am sure that it will transpire eventually.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

And so, with a past like this behind you, I suggest that we instead concentrate on the merits of things, because although we would be in difficulties with regard to moral issues, but I think we could have a rational discussion on political issues, if you are prepared to do so.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

And now I must say a few words on the issue of public debt. We have just heard several facts, which parliamentary group leader and fellow MP Rogán provided details on. With regard to public debt, we can categorically state that we are one of only four or five countries within the European Union who, according to European Union statistics based on EU records – meaning not just according to the standpoint of the Hungarian Government, but according to the professional opinion of the European Union – have been capable of continuously reducing their level of public debt over the past four years. I now that you view this as an achievement on the part of the Government. I do not view it as such. If you did not view this as an achievement on the part of the Government, the fact would not be attacked. They are attacking this issue because they think it is the Government's achievement. But this is not the case. The fact is, that this is an achievement on the part of the people of Hungary. It is our joint achievement. I do not understand why you are always trying to contest the achievements that have been realised through the efforts of the Hungarian people. Public debt has decreased! This is fact! And no nuclear power station will change that, because that project will result in the establishment of assets, and if you look at the status of Hungarian assets you will see that there has been no deterioration there.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

We must also always discuss the foreign currency debtors because for some inexplicable reason, despite the fact that the banks lured foreign currency debtors into their traps when you were in government, you regularly insist on blaming the current situation on us. The truth is, however, that we have succeeded in helping 150 thousand people out of the debt trap, because some 170 thousand people made use of the early repayment scheme and another 170-180 thousand people are now out of the danger zone thanks to the interest rate limit scheme. And as soon as the Hungarian courts decide on those two important issues, we will be taking further measures to ensure that we also help the remaining debtors out of the current, difficult situation under what will then be legally backed circumstances.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

As far as the debate on the energy system and nuclear energy is concerned, the reason I am not giving a specific answer to the Member from the socialist party is that you have always been in support of this issue. And I too now full well that on 7 April you will support it once again, and will somehow survive until then despite the fact hat you are protesting against yourselves. Please do, if that is what you would like. I would also refrain from dealing with those absurd claims, which by the way go against all European experience and accepted knowledge,  that increasing the ratio of nuclear energy will inevitably lead to an increase in prices within that country's energy system. This is a ridiculous and flippant standpoint that cannot be taken seriously. The fact is that if we succeed in realising our plans, when the two new blocks are put into commission we will be able to reduce the price of electricity in Hungary again by somewhere around 13%.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

With regard to the question of energy dependence, I would suggest that we debate things a little more seriously than we have done so this afternoon. There will be an opportunity to do just that, because – in contrast to previous practices – the inter-governmental agreement that we have concluded has been put before the House by the Hungarian Government, and Hungary's Members of Parliament have the right to put forwards their opinions, and at the end of the debate, as always within our constitutional procedure, he Hungarian Parliament will have the opportunity to codify this contract. Anyone who has relevant questions will of course have the opportunity to put them forward during the course of the debate, and we are ready to reply to all of your questions. There is only one thing that I would like to go into detail on now, which goes beyond the framework of this international agreement, and that is the issue of energy dependence. I recommend that if we have the time, we should also hold a debate on exactly what kind of dependence Hungary should do its utmost to combat. In my view, Hungary must do its utmost to combat gas dependence, and so I suggest that you think about, debate and study the phrase nuclear energy dependence in greater detail to see if there in fact exist any countries anywhere in the world in which nuclear energy increases dependency. I suggest that you study this issue. This is not Hungary's problem. Our problem is dependence on imported gas. I would like to point out that any type of energy with which we decrease our dependency on gas does not reduce our national sovereignty but in fact increases it. And since in addition the gas system that connects our gas network to the Western gas networks through Slovakia will soon be complete – or at least we hope that it will be completed within the next year – I can safely state that Hungary will soon reach the stage where it will enjoy full energy independence in the upcoming decades.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This has been one of Hungary's goals for a very long time, and it is a goal that we will succeed in achieving. And now, Ladies and Gentlemen, the tax system was also mentioned. We have argued this issue on several occasions already and I would like to remind you of only one thing. The question of which tax system is better or weaker may be the subject of interesting debate, but politics is has more to do with experiences, and I can tell you one thing. The tax system that was in effect in Hungary until 2010 was anti-work, anti-enterprise and anti-family. And it succeeded in ruining the Hungarian economy. Why are your proposals aimed at bringing back a tax system that ruined the economic system and which, as we all saw, although not necessarily for that reason, was rejected by the people of Hungary? And so I am afraid that we are unable to accept your proposals because you are continuously attempting to bring back a tax system that we have finally, and with great difficulty, managed to exchange for one that is perhaps not perfect – and I have yet to see a tax system that is perfect – but which nevertheless increases employment, supports economic growth and contributes to enabling an increase in people's income.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

There can be no reason for us to return to the past. I would also like to not in relation to this topic that the tax allowance for people with low incomes also came into force on 1 January, and within a few days, when families with children who have small incomes receive their salaries, they will clearly see the facts that represent a living refutation of everything that you have been saying.

I must once again, although this is by no means the first time that I have had to do so, also say a few words about the public work programme. I fully understand that one can engage in a philosophical argument about which forms of employment are more valuable and which are less so, or, as you put it, which are decidedly contraindicated. But I would like you to know that when you talk about this here you are in fact talking about hundreds of thousands of people. This is not a theoretical argument. You, and please do not mind my saying so, are insulting and in fact destroying the self-esteem of those people who have finally decided to take the opportunity to stop witting at home waiting for income-supplementing welfare payments, but to instead go out to work. Why are you not prepared to accept that it is important to several hundreds of thousands of people that they can take home twice as much pay than the benefits they used to receive? This represents an improvement in the lives of hundreds of thousands of families. We can debate on how things can be improved and what other solutions there may be, but do not continue insulting these people at practically every session of Parliament and making the impression that the public work system and everyone involved in it is somehow causing harm to the country. Why can't you understand the significance of the fact that for twenty years there ere hundreds of thousands of families in this country in which children grew up without ever seeing either of their parents wake up early in the morning and go to work? Why can't you understand that it is important not only from an economic perspective but also with regard to the future of Hungary, that today, hundreds of thousands of people are instead going to work in the morning?

I would also like to say a few words about young people, because I regularly hear here in the house that you attempt to portray young people as economic refugees. This is not the first time that I have heard this. I would once again like to ask for your prudence in this matter. Listening to your words, it sounds as if people who work abroad are doing something against their country. I am sure you have seen the figures according to which, during the first eleven months of last year, Hungarians working abroad transferred more than two billion euros to their families at home. Our only job here is to say thank you to them, Ladies and Gentlemen! And not just FIdesz, but the socialists, Jobbik and the LMP too. Let's thank them for not choosing to receive unemployment benefit here, but standing up and entering the job market abroad instead. For standing up under very difficult circumstances and not only working and maintaining themselves, but also sending significant amounts of money home to Hungary. And why would we want to attack those young people who – and this is not at all unusual within Europe – see it as a natural part of their lives that they go and work in other countries too?  I would like to point out to you that it isn't only young people from Central Europe who go and working other countries, but there are also a lot of French people in London, and Germany is also full of Spanish people. We must we forever stigmatise those young people, who undertake a great adventure that is otherwise right for the age and go off to work and try to get ahead abroad; why must we always stigmatise them here during the sessions of Parliament by declaring them refugees? You are being unfair, Ladies and Gentlemen! it would seem to me that you do not even understand the call of modern times. Nevertheless, we have one job here with relation to young people, and it is worth taking about it as a moral obligation, and this is that we must build a Hungary to which young people can come home whenever they want to; that when they do decide to come home then they find opportunities for a useful life here in Hungary. And I must state that both you and the country's voters can be sure that our Christian-Democrat/Fidesz coalition will continue to work hard to build a Hungary like this in the years to come.

Thank you for your kind attention.

(Prime Minister’s Office)