Budapest, 30th May 2013

Ladies and Gentlemen, Mr. Prime Minister, Dear Guests,

Please accept my respectful and warm regards. Before I say what I have planned for today, please allow me to thank Prime Minister Aznar for being here with us today. He is perhaps not aware of the fact, but his presence here carries much more weight and is more important to us than a simple visit, of which I am sure he performs many each month and during the year. We are welcoming a great Spanish patriot and the Prime Minister of a great European nation here today. You have yourselves seen and heard, although Spain is in a difficult situation, his example and everything he has said shows that even though one may find oneself in a difficult situation, one must nevertheless, as a nation, preserve one's dignity. This is what we too should somehow learn from the Spanish. No matter how difficult the situation, we always know exactly who we are, what our history is, and what we owe our history. No matter how difficult the situation we find ourselves in, we should represent Hungary before the world with this same dignity. This is an important lesson to us all.

Secondly, perhaps not all of you here know that we are also welcoming a great warrior, when we greet the Prime Minister. He first awoke my interest in '95 or perhaps '94, when the Népszabadság devoted a big, full page to reporting on the terrible danger threatening Spain. Because this guy called Aznar, and I'm trying to pass on the style of the article here, took it into his head to stand up against the mighty, Spanish left, who had until then been the sole holders of the truth, by uniting right-wing forces who had previously been disintegrated; all sorts of suspicious factions: Christians, nationalist sympathisers, those who had not always distanced themselves forcefully enough from the whole Franco issue, and so he is uniting all these suspicious, right-wing, fragmented forces and making them into a party, and as things now stand – wrote the Népszabadság – it looks like they have a chance of beating the left. And he succeeded. And few of you here know that at the time we, including myself, examined in detail exactly how this could be achieved, because it was '95, '96 perhaps. If you remember: civil cooperation; several unsuccessful attempts; the second attempt a success; victory at the '98 elections, the prerequisite for all of which was our succeeding in somehow uniting the splintered, let's call them civil and Christian forces. And so we welcome a great warrior, who served as a great example to us.

Let me recall another personal experience. I'm afraid it is rather more exciting than the things I will be telling you later in my speech. I remember sitting together, Prime Ministers, I think it was the European People's Party Prime Ministers Summit in the early 2000s, perhaps 2000 itself or '99, discussing what should and shouldn't be included in what was later not called the European Constitution, but instead the Basic Treaty of Europe or similar. It was already clear to me at the time that there would be subsequent problems, because when the question arose of whether we should include the fact that Europe has Christian roots, horribile dictu that there are values that are derived from Christianity and that perhaps these should be included in the basic charter of Europe, irrespective of whether we happen to like them or not, then, if you excuse my using an ugly term, practically everyone dodged the issue. Only one man did not dodge the issue, the Prime Minister, who said that he didn't understand what the argument was about. After all, the fact that Europe has Christian roots is a question of fact, so what are we arguing about? And if it is a fact, and these 2000 years of history are a long time, after all, then perhaps we should include it, simple as that. Accordingly, I must tell you that we have a courageous political leader here with us today, and it is important that he speak to us about what it means to be a leader in Europe today. And I would especially like to draw your attention to the final part of his speech, and if you have the opportunity, I suggest that you read a few of the Prime Ministers lectures that are available in writing here and there. There is, you see, a great Spanish tradition, which we simply call geopolitical thinking, and which we tend to neglect, most probably because we experience language difficulties and not many people speak Spanish in Hungary. Spain is in a unique position. We have heard his comments: free trade with the United States; a non-European United States; and in the meantime here are the Russians and Central Europe. And so the problem is that we need to somehow place a country like Spain onto the map of world politics, and it is not obvious where this place is, so one must continuously think on it and interpret what is happening in the world geopolitically. This is a great Spanish tradition. And in European politics, where pettiness is generally the norm these days, it is rare to see this in practice. Unless of course we invite him to make a speech, and so thank you Prime Minister for having interpreted all that is happening from this perspective also.

It is of course not easy for him either, because it is difficult to understand the Hungarians. This is a problem that I also face continuously. Understanding ourselves is difficult even for us, let alone for a Spaniard. And in addition, once we have succeeded in understanding ourselves it is very difficult to explain to the world what we have concluded; yet another difficulty. Although I spent the evening trying to explain complicated things about Hungary at length when we spoke to each other, all I would like to repeat to you now, Prime Minister, if you will allow me, is what I usually say about the Hungarians at international conferences, omitting complicated explanations, and that is that one should imagine the Hungarians as having a unique way of thinking, and how unique it is can be seen from how many things we have invented. There are three things that are perhaps worth mentioning. These are perhaps the most special. One is that the Hungarians invented the ball point pen. A stick that exudes ink, invented by a man called Bíró. A Hungarian invented espresso coffee. This says a lot about our way of life. And a Hungarian, János Neumann, invented the computer, which our modern world is centred around. There is something here, that compared to our ten million people and 93 thousand square kilometres, which do not carry too much weight within Europe, but nevertheless there is something here that irrespective of size or population may awaken excitement and interest in those who have an interest in anthropology, and who continue to believe that Europe must be made up of different nations.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

And now to my topic. Here's the latest issue of National Interest. And like a good salesman, I'd like to tell you all about it. Its important to note that I have it here in my hand, because this is what I am going to talk about; national interest. And it is a good feeling to hold in my hand a publication which bears a title that many question the very existence of. If somebody is stopped by surprise and asked, is there such a thing as national interest, then grab this publication and tell them yes, there is. It's easily solved.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Naturally everyone, and especially those hiding behind their cameras, is expecting me to take this opportunity to evaluate the Government's past three years in office, and to give you some kind of wise summary. I will of course do my best, but I have come across a totally unique experiment, a one-of-a-kind in its genre, and perhaps I should say thank you for it. There is this Nézőpont Intézet, which I'm sure you have all heard of. And it has come out with a, perhaps I might call it an experiment in normative political science, in which it attempts to express politics numerically. It has published a report on what percentage of its programme the Government has succeeded in accomplishing. I don't know how they arrived at these figures, but since they are favourable, I will read them to you. First of all, the general conclusion is that over the course of three year we have realised 69% of our programme. Whatever this means, it is a high number. I have with me the government's programme, which bears the name Programme of National Cooperation; it has five chapters, and I will be talking about these later. Their report states that with regard to order, meaning the strengthening of public order, we have achieved 86%; this sounds possible, I agree with it myself. We have realised 75% of what we undertook in the chapter on democratic norms; this is also true, the only problem being that not everyone views what we are trying to restore as being the democratic norm. With regard to saving the healthcare system and creating social security, we have realised 67-68% of the decisions we undertook, and according to this summary, we have achieved 66% of the objectives included in the chapter on the economy. This doesn't sound like too bad an achievement in only three years. I am positive, that if we indeed designate numbers to the undertakings included in the government's programme, then we will probably come to similar findings. However, the truth is that figures, and this is the great problem of a positivist philosophy in approaching science, say very little about reality. What is of real interest isn't how many we have achieved out of ten points, but whether all that we have achieved, our decisions and the figures behind the decisions, congeal into something. The positive presumption of this conference is that it has. And it has been given the title, at least in the letter I received, the Hungarian model.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

My opinion is that the choice of title is not unjustified. However, to fully understand this something, that in the spirit of simplicity and making concessions to the bureaucratic language of politics we call the Hungarian model, we must step back a little to understand what exactly we are doing, apart from realising undertakings in a way that can be expressed mathematically; what are we doing, what is the whole political point of it all, not philosophically, and especially not theologically, but in a political sense the final sense of it all. This latest issue of National Interest begins with an introduction, the first sentence of which I think provides an answer to the question. And the first sentence goes like this: "To destroy a community is a political act; to construct one similarly so". This is where the truth of the matter lies, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Because you see the greatest political act of communism, and I say this also to the Prime Minister, because he wasn’t part of this great experience, this is something we have a closer knowledge of, so the greatest political act of communism was the radical destruction of the existing community. In place of the integrally developed communities that had been severed from their roots, it, we must add with tireless labour and working night and day, constructed another world, constructed what I would call the culture of envy and a society with a "we cannot succeed no matter how hard we try " mentality. This is what I call, and if you will allow me, I'll say it again here, the politics of national pettiness. This is what they constructed for us: we can never succeed, this is the basic feeling; and how we can view our neighbours is above all with a sense of envy. This new kind of mentality, and I could call it a new kind of community, this communist way of community and thinking survived the change in regime. The truth is that it even survived the nineties and it would have continued to exist, Ladies and Gentlemen, had it not lost all credit at the end of the first decade of the twenty-first century. Because this is an ugly, petty and non-viable construction. There is no need to present theological arguments, but since it came to light that we got our hands on that damn apple, humans have not only good, but also bad qualities, and it is possible to build political constructions on the bad characteristics hidden within people. And this is precisely the essence of socialist and communist politics: to build a political construct based on the bad in people. And for this reason it would no doubt have survived well into this decade, had it not lost all credit. And I don't mean its credit in a moral sense, its credibility, because it has none of that, but its financial credit. It lost its financial credit for the second time in twenty years. The financial conditions evaporated because it transpired that a society constructed in this way is incapable of maintaining itself financially and economically. This is also what, in addition to some other geopolitical factors, signalled the end of the Kádár regime, which did the same thing, in view of the fact that a society of this kind is only capable of a very low level of performance. The question arises, how can we finance all this, our existence, and then comes the credit, the loans, and the money runs out, and then comes the foreign credit, the foreign loans, the insolvency, and it's finished. This is how the Kádár regime fell to its knees and this is how the socialists failed miserably in 2010, Ladies and Gentlemen. They pushed the country into bankruptcy; they maintained a system that was otherwise unsustainable from internal resources, and when external resources ran out there came the loans, debt and financial collapse.
This is when we arrived on the scene, I might say, meaning our political generation, who felt that we had had to dance to their tune while in chains for twenty years, because there had never been a possibility to fundamentally change everything that had come into being after the fall of communism and since the early nineties, as what we might call a change in regime, or as Gyula Tellér put it, the regime of regime change. We were in power for four years; there was no two-thirds majority, it was a coalition government, and we continuously had to assess what we could achieve under the given conditions. And the given conditions may be viewed as conditions that were not given; we first acquired this opportunity in 2010. Our political generation came to the fore and said, this is the moment to begin building the community. If the communists achieved the disintegration of the community in Hungary, if this is their political programme, then it is time for us to instead begin community construction. We undertook a political act, as this publication correctly states. And if we look back, then we can see the signs that this has not been in our minds since only 2010, but can be traced right back to the change in regime: to the radical-moderate regime change, and so on. Perhaps you are aware of the argument and remember that the issue goes right back to the nineties: when will our time finally come, when we don't have to think positively on what others are responsible for and which is the reason we have no choice but to dance to their tune in chains.

Well, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Community demolishing and community construction: these are the two political programmes, these are the two political cultures and these are the two political moralities, if you like, that are continuously battling against each other in Hungary. If, bowing to the people's demand to be populist, I try and translate this into easily understandable, simple language, then what I can say is that what our opponents tell the people of Hungary is that they should not attempt anything, because they will never succeed; your one job is to adapt, shut up, adapt; and the other culture, which tells you: say what you think, be yourself, stand up, do business, and that your future depends on you and you have a chance of success. Well, this is how we began in government, this is how that something that we call the Hungarian model and which we will be discussing today came into existence.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

There are three eventful, exciting and important years behind us. We had to face many challenges. I must say, with modesty, that we have often achieved success. We must also admit that we sometimes failed. We did many things well, and there are some that we did less well or even badly, there are a few of those too. We had excellent, unexpected ideas that surprised even ourselves, and there were a few which turned out not to be such wonderful ideas after all, as we had initially thought. Whatever the case, we can argue over how successful or unsuccessful [these three years] have been, and I think this is an exciting debate from which we can learn much for the coming years, but I think there is one thing that is beyond dispute, and that is that we have pulled Hungary out of the pit into which the socialists pushed it. And this is what's important. We cannot dismiss the details either, but the important thing remains that we have moved, pushed and pulled the country out of the pit; we have brought the country out into the sunlight from that shady, dark and dreary hole into which we had been pushed. And I feel that if our opponents follow the rules of common sense, then they do not dispute this fact either. Perhaps only that we succeeded too slowly, we've heard this before; the success is only temporary, I heard the other day. I would like to tell you something else, if you will allow me, before Í continue my train of though. I have been in this profession, or life, or job, or vocation, or whatever you would like to call it, for some time now, and I have never before heard, and this goes back to the early eighties, from my point of view and from where I gained my experiences, of our main opponent, of one of our opponents, I don't know exactly how many of them there are, but of one of our rivals saying yes, there are certainly achievements, and in fact the situation is improving too, but this is all just temporary. They think this is the end of it, but it isn't, it's temporary. When will it transpire that it's temporary? And it will transpire after the autumn of 2014, after the next elections.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This is the most evident admission that, although one may find fault in what we are doing, because, well, anything done by man will include some mistakes, we have put the country in motion and have brought it out of trouble, and it would seem that there are perspectives ahead of it, and this is something that not even our opponents can deny.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I should mention red sludge now, because one likes to talk about years and government in pictures and allegories rather than in numbers and data, but there is no time for that now. I could talk about the red sludge. Because let us not forge that it is only thanks to luck or God, each to his own, that this didn't happen at night and we didn't have to count a thousand dead, but during the day, and even so I can't say that we escaped unscathed, but at least did not lose a thousand lives, but significantly less. I could recall the moment when the first Mercedes rolled off the production line in Kecskemét, something which to me, who grew up in the age of the Trabant and in which that strangely-coloured Trabant meant the great opportunity; cramped into the back seat the family could make it to Bratislava, and that was something at the time; so this was after all a great experience for us, because if someone would have told us then, that we would be manufacturing Mercedes' in Hungary, we would have told them they were out of their minds. And then here I have before me the moment, and I remember it well, when I was sworn in as Prime Minister and had to present the Government's programme and with which we, I, tried something totally new even from a European perspective. Because we took the election campaign programme we had told everyone about and put it straight into the Government Programme unchanged, just to shake off any misunderstandings as to whether we were serious about it or not. We don't remember it now, but at the time the biggest surprise everywhere was that there is a party in Hungary that wins the elections with a two-thirds' majority, and it doesn't start making excuses saying that well, this isn't what it expected and it might have said so back then, but it's impossible and the usual excuses, and instead of "why we can't do what we promised" it takes its election manifesto and puts it straight into the Government Programme.  Which the Nézőpont Intézet then translated into numbers to see if we had implemented it or not. This is a true political innovation, and we have good reason to be proud of it. This is when we stated that invisible things are no more. There is no invisible constitution, no invisible hand of the market, life will sort things out in its own, liberal way, there are no invisible laws, which we don't know precisely who we were given them by, but we must abide by them; all of this is no more, the age of the transparent world has arrived. I will now remind you of a few sentences from the Government Programme, so you can see that even what happened in the case of the issues that caused the greatest disputes, was what we had undertaken to do. It is also important in general that we have omitted to use the word promise in our political culture during the past three years. Because if someone is capable of including its election manifesto into its Government Programme, then he shouldn’t talk about promises, but about undertakings. We, our party and our government do not have promises; it has undertakings, that we do out best to perform.

And so for these few sentences. First of all, that the winner isn't right, he has a duty, and what is expected from the winner is not to go around proving he's right, but to get on with his job, and perform his duty. Or, a surprising sentence that seems to have disappeared in the mists of time over the past three years that the opposition forms a natural part of the democratically established national unity. And the continuation is important: acting in opposition, meaning as the representatives and rapporteurs of opinions and points of view that differ from that of the governing majority - that is if they bother coming into Parliament at all. We too are fully aware of the fact that I and my government must represent three-thirds of the country, the whole Hungarian nation. Or: the Hungarians want radical and fundamental change in all walks of life; they have entrusted us not just with performing a few amendments and modifications, but with creating a new political, economic and social system using the power of national cooperation, or I could call it a model, with which it builds on new rules in all walks of life. To quote an even more powerful sentence: with the mandate of a two-thirds majority, the electorate have entrusted the new House and the new Government with using democratic instruments to achieve revolutionary changes in the most important national issues. This is what the Government Programme says. Who can deny that this is exactly what we have done during the past three years?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

These are important words, and words that we continue to profess today, and on the basis of the past three years it can be determined that we have remained true to these words. The Government Programme sets forward five, important national issues, and I would like to say a few words about each of these. The first undertaking determined in the programme is that we undertake to put the Hungarian economy back on its feet. Everyone knows the state we were in, in the summer of 2010: government debt, a huge budget deficit, growing prices; the IMF kept the country alive and we weren't standing on our own two feet, but on those of others.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The most important philosophical difference with regard to economic policy between what has been the case so far and our politics, is that in our view it is shameful to live off other people's money. It is shameful, but according to previous governments it is a merit. Living on other people's money means that you lose your self-respect. Maybe you aren't reminded every day of the fact that you're living off German money, but you're not reminded because it's common knowledge anyway, and this is incorporated into your mind. A country that does not live off its own money, does not stand on its own two feet, cannot have any self-respect, or if it does, these are empty words and claptrap, there is no economic or economic moral basis for national self-respect. This is why it is important that a country do everything possible to ensure that it doesn't have to live off other people's money, but can instead maintain itself from its own performance. And for precisely this reason our first task, in the autumn of 2010, was as they put it politely to orderly close our cooperation with the IMF, meaning that they went home, and we stayed and thanked them for their support in the past, telling them that from now on we would be able to solve the problem that we call the financing of the Hungarian economy on our own. And we subsequently did put the budget in order, squeezing the budget deficit down to a record low, and are now financing Hungary from the markets. I am not trying to tell you that the Hungarian economy is already strong, although I would be glad to, but there would be no point, because it isn't true, so I can't say that the Hungarian economy is already strong, but it is a fact that we have climbed back onto our own two feet again, and it is also a fact that today, we are one of the most promising economies within the European economy and in the European region. You probably do not remember this, but let me remind you: there are 10 million of us living in Hungary; in June 2010 there were 1.8 million taxpayers in Hungary - these are the number of people who paid tax! A country of ten million which we try to maintain out of the taxes of 1.8 million. It's impossible! This clearly shows the order of magnitude of the changes that we had to undertake. Today, some 4 million people pay taxes, because if you work, you pay some form of tax, and so now some 4 million taxpayers are maintaining our ten million people.

Our second undertaking was the establishment of social security. I would like to believe that the Hungarians perhaps learned in 2010 - if they hadn't already learned it when the Kádár regime collapsed, then they will have learned it by the second collapse - that debt leads to the evaporation and termination of social security. Those who want to finance social security from loans must eventually face the fact that the money runs out, and the whole system that guarantees social security collapses. This is what happened in 2008. The removal of the 13th month's pension, the decrease in wages; they raised the price of natural gas thirteen times within eight years, and the price of gas increased three-fold during those eight years; the price of electricity doubled and the minimum wage was practically unchanged. One year of maternity benefit was taken away from mothers with small children. And so the result of economic collapse was the evaporation of social security.

In contrast, after 2010 we first froze utility charges, then as our biceps' grew and we felt a little stronger, we subsequently reduced them by 10% from January of this year, and it would now seem that our arms are getting even stronger, and we can easily undertake another, similar measure. We have succeeded in preserving the real value of pensions throughout, and in fact have increased them, while the minimum wage has increased more since 2010 than in the previous eight years. We have given families back their third year of child support and have introduced tax allowances dependent on the number of children in the family. I don't claim that Hungary is a welfare state, but I can certainly claim that there is a fundamental level of social security in Hungary. Life is not easy. It is especially difficult for those who are disadvantaged, but there is a certain level of security, which if one does not refuse work, is available to all. There is heated debate, although of course now that we have switched to the new tax system this is less significant, but perhaps you remember there was heated debate regarding the proportional tax system. This is a legal solution that is derived from philosophical convictions. In our view, social security and work are linked. And so only those who make some sort of effort to work can feel socially secure. And accordingly, people should not be taxed when they earn money, but when they spend it. For this reason, income tax must be kept low, while consumption and sales related taxes must be kept at relatively high levels. And this is what we are doing. Hungary has one of the highest rates of sales tax and the second lowest level of income tax, at 16%. If we have the opportunity, I would like to be around when income tax in Hungary goes down to single digits, because although from a philosophical point of view I agree with those who say that people shouldn’t pay income tax at all – and I repeat, people should pay tax when they spend their income, not when they earn it – I don't believe that this can be achieved in the foreseeable future, although single digit income tax is not inconceivable.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Saving the healthcare system, this was our third undertaking. By the time we came to government, the hospital system had to all intents and purposes collapsed financially, and our view was that the healthcare hospital service system could not be saved if it is managed by local governments. Accordingly, we took this system of institutions out of local government control, put it under central, state management and reorganised it. I don't for a minute claim that it operates perfectly, but to say that it operates securely, that it operates predictably, and that it operates in an economically rational manner, brings us much closer to this statement. Everyone knows that we have increased salaries in the sector, for resident doctors and so on. There remains a very important and significant undertaking that we need to put in order, and that is to stabilise and improve the situation of general practitioners.

Public order and public safety was the fourth [undertaking]. According to the analyst institute we have achieved a result of 90% within this field. Let us think back for a moment what the situation was in Hungary, it was so long ago, or rather the difference is so large between the situation then and the situation now, that we can hardly remember it: uniformed paramilitary organisations marched freely around the streets of Budapest and rural Hungary with no police action whatsoever; they shot Roma citizens in the back, Roma children; they committed serial murders based on race not once, but again and again. […] Increasingly fewer police and higher levels of violent crime. Think back, under 20 thousand forints, thieves were practically free to commit robbery. I don't know if you remember, under 20 thousand forints, thieves were practically free to commit robbery and it was ideologically protected: it's difficult for them… I can tell you that there was anything but order and public safety. This was the world we lived in. Three years have passed and there's no sign of it. It is illegal to march around in uniforms, paramilitary organisations are no more, and it is impossible to organise serial murders on racial or any other grounds, but especially not on racial grounds, while the police make no progress for months on end. We have introduced the three strikes law. I am not proud of it, and I would be happier if it were not the case, but the number of people in our prisons has increased from 12 thousand to 18 thousand. And I must tell you that the policy of zero tolerance that the government announced in the interests of law-abiding citizens has been introduced and is being consistently enforced. We make no exceptions, nobody is above the law.

The reinstatement of democratic norms. If we hadn't lost our sense of humour totally we could laugh all day when the left jokes about the fact that democracy is in jeopardy in Hungary. Because, well, in jeopardy compared to what? What did Hungary look like with respect to democracy before 2010, let's say? All I need say is: the Öszöd Speech. That’s how! Those people talk about democratic norms and related issues who by their own admission – the admission was voluntary, it being made public perhaps less so – practically speaking tricked the whole country and for years lead the whole country by its nose?! How can one speak of democracy when otherwise the first rule of their government philosophy is trick your homeland, trick the people of Hungary, take them for a ride, and manipulate them to make sure you stay in power? Isn't reality funny sometimes? It is my opinion that from where we stand it cannot be denied that there has also been an improvement when it comes to democratic norms. One might way that it was easy, but a fact is a fact. Compared to the state we were in prior to 2010, today there is a clear, debated but transparent constitutional order in operation, the basis of which stems from European democratic norms.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

And now, let me say a few words in closing about whether, then, this Hungarian model exists or not. The truth is, that politicians of the present age are taking a huge risk when they want to decide themselves if there is indeed a Hungarian model. I think that it is perhaps wiser to leave it to the analysts, and even more so to the historians, or shall we say to posterity, to decide if there was a Hungarian model. There is another school of thought too, because Churchill had a different opinion. He once said that when he brought a decision, history would document it, and then he continued, I know because I will write it myself. My view, however, is that we shouldn't follow in the footsteps of this Churchill school of thought, but should instead follow a more modest one which says that we are hard at work, and we have in our minds a philosophical way of thinking, a concept, a mind-set, and something will be built from it. Whether this will deserve the name Hungarian model will by decided by posterity. There are however a few things that we can state clearly and call them the model elements of today's government policies. The first thing, which the Prime Minister also touched on, is the welfare society-workfare society, [whether to live] in a traditionally-minded welfare society or in a work-based society. This isn't a very friendly term, this work-based society, and you can see that the Nazis pretty much ruined it all when it comes to what work does to people, but it remains a fact that without work and without an economy that relies on work, we can hardly be successful. This is what is happening now in Hungary, this is all the workfare society, it's all about establishing a work-based society.

The other thing is that there is a fair and equitable distribution of burdens. This is the direction we are trying to move in. When it is always the people who are being fleeced for extra income in times of trouble, while those with money, the banks, large corporations and those who realise huge profits are not burdened while citing the efficiency of the economy, it is morally unacceptable. There must be an economically sound, but morally fair and equitable distribution of burdens.

The third important thing that may be regarded as being of a model nature is advancement based on merits. I do not claim that Hungarian society is now firmly based on this, but this is the direction in which we are trying to shepherd our lives. In socialism, and those of my age-group will remember, even if someone performed better, they weren't better off, they didn't get ahead. Things won't work this way. We can only trust in a society in which those who go into business, who work and who have merits can advance, while those who do not undertake to make an effort drift to the rear, and only a society such as this can be competitive in this world. A society of advancement according to merits, which does not neglect or dismiss a level of social fairness and mercy towards those in need, is something that has never before existed in Hungary, and it is now developing.

The fourth such systematic, model-like element is our policy towards Europe and how we think on Europe. I would like to stress what the Prime Minister also said, that we want a Europe of nations. We believe that Hungary has no place in a federation in which nations are dissolved. But we don't want to leave the Union, but instead wish to take part in the debates on the future of the Union, and we want to see a Europe of nations. This is the reason we work. We feel that if nations disappear, then appreciation will disappear and respect will disappear. Where there are nations, there is also respect. If nations disappear, then we will be living in an imperial Europe. And in an imperial Europe, the provinces will often have to face injustice, double standards, and the fact that the strong centre of the empire abuses its power. We don't want such a Europe. We want a Europe of nations built on respect for nations.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I should now tell you about the part, but I do not wish to try your patience any further, about what a huge success it is that we have managed to exit the excessive deficit procedure. If you will allow me, I will not tell you about this now. I hope that someone in the future will write the story of all this. Péter Boross has not given me authorisation to do so, but I will tell you anyway. We were standing next to each other at some meeting, perhaps following the swearing in of the President, and there was a well-known economist and banker standing beside us. Péter Boross motioned to him, and said the following: My dear Gyuri, I have always known that history is a lyrical genre, but economics too?!" Well, this is why I think it may be worth writing the story of this action series called "how we exited the excessive deficit procedure", even with perhaps only a few years of hindsight. I would like to finish my speech, Ladies and Gentlemen!

My apologies to the Prime Minister for having tried his patience. My apologies to the listeners and those present for having spoken somewhat at length. And in closing, with three years behind us, which really means our seventh year in government – we are talking about three now, but it is the seventh, except there was a forced break, that match was called off, an we had to go into the dressing room, but it is after all seven years in total – there is something that I would like to share with you as my personal experience of these seven years. Not about figures of philosophy. We are approaching an age, our generation, in which even if perhaps we don't yet have the ability to write fundamental philosophical theories, but we have enough life experience to perhaps feel free to say a few things, one or perhaps two things. I have learned two things over these seven years, and including the previous twenty, so since the mid eighties, since I have been in politics: we won an election, we lost one, I won an election, I lost an election; I have seen great human misery and fantastic successes too.

I believe that the centre right, which also includes national Christian elements, should not be afraid of the theologically based starting point and truth, which can be summarised by the fact that God created a good world, and everything is given to enable us to be happy, and it depends only on us, humans, whether we are capable of taking advantage of the opportunity. I think that this is an important experience of our government, of our twenty-one or so years of political history. The second important thing, that I can still find the courage to express, is that there are laws and there are commandments. Depending on taste, upbringing and philosophical beliefs, there are some who derive it from one source, and some who derive it from the other, but it is not worth saying that there are laws which we needn't necessarily respect. Because if we don't respect those laws which, regardless of philosophical belief, we can all freely share, and this is possible because we were created with free will, but if we don't respect them, then it will cost us dearly: it will cost us our lives, it will cost us our families, and it will cost us our homeland. This is how I would summarise the results of our three years in government.

Thank you for your kind attention.

(orbanviktor.hu)