23 November 2012, Brussels

The members of the European Council gathered yesterday for a meeting; they continued their discussions at midday today. They would have liked to come to an agreement on the next seven-year budget. The agreement did not come about. Our next opportunity to discuss these issues will be next year. Would you like to know anything further?

[Question from the Press to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.]

I will not disclose such details of the discussions that I have not been authorised to reveal. It is the Hungarian standpoint that I can tell you and represent here now. The Hungarian standpoint has been clear and well known from the outset. The Hungarian standpoint is based on principle, and the Hungarian standpoint is one that may realistically be pushed through, and so we look forwards to the next round of talks with high hopes. I would have been more surprised if an agreement had been reached, in view of the fact that the last time the leaders of the European Union attempted to formulate a seven-year budget, they were also unable to come to an agreement in the first round of discussions. I'll repeat it again: the surprise is that there was no surprise. This is how I can summarise the situation for you. Everyone who keeps even just a little to the rules of snooker that say that at least one foot must always be on the ground, meaning that you don't have to keep both feet on the ground, it's enough to keep at least one on the ground all the time, will have known exactly that the chances for an agreement were extremely small.

[Question from the Press to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán: What data with regard to Hungary is included in the latest Rompuy proposal issued very early this morning?]

That agreement is a non-existent agreement in view of the fact that it is not an agreement but only a proposal, and the rule is that until we agree on everything then we have not agreed on anything at all. This is an intermediate document that could have lead to an agreement, but since it didn't lead to one it has ceased to exist. The starting-point for the next round of discussions will not be this document, but a new document, which the Prime Ministers have now authorised Mr. van Rompuy to prepare. He will prepare a new document, and the upcoming talks will begin from this document. This is how you should regard the situation.

[Question from the Press to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán: Mr. Prime Minister, at the meeting of the Friends of Cohesion in the European Parliament you stated that countries of the cohesion group would try to stick together for as long as they can. Have you managed to retain this unity in a strategic sense?]

I must tell you that in today's modern diplomacy, what has happened with the Friends of Cohesion group is a rare achievement. We have succeeded in sticking together until the very last moment. This is primarily thanks to Donald Tusk, the Prime Minister of Poland, who took on the task of organising the Friends of Cohesion during the past few weeks and succeeded, with a brilliant show of direction, to – despite the fact that there have been several attempts and several reports have claimed that it would be possible to turn the Friends of Cohesion against each other – keep the group together, and until the very last moment, just a few minutes ago when I stood up from the conference table, or rather everyone stood up from the conference table, the Friends of Cohesion have remained unified on those issues that we agreed we would remain unified in. This partially restores one's faith with regard to the given word – and it is important to note that this exists even in politics – and in addition it means we have a good chance with regard to the next round of talks, meaning that it is worth continuing the work of the Friends of Cohesion.

[Question from the Press to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán: During the talks, how close did you come to an agreement from a Hungarian perspective? How close to a situation that would be acceptable from a Hungarian perspective did the agreement that was not reached come?]

If we could imagine meetings of this kind to be a linear process, then I would be able to answer this question. But the situation is not that we began from here and arrived somewhere else, but another 25 countries also started and arrived somewhere, and their paths cross and intersect each other several times. We must move forward within an extremely tangled order of proceedings. For this reason it may easily happen that one feels that the aroma of smoked sausage has already reached his nose, but then at the final moment, when he gets there it transpires that they have run out, and he has to go back to the end of the queue. So the idea that until we have agreed on everything we have agreed on nothing is a very wise statement, because it protects us from having illusions. There is no point in feeling that you're nearly there, if you're not there and something can always happen to send you back to the beginning again. There are board games like this. I played one as a child, and fell into some pit just before I reached the finish and had to go all the way back to the starting line. One can collect life situations – taking into account life experiences – from many sources for such meetings, but the most important is that you shouldn't imagine a meeting to be like all twenty-seven countries moving in a straight line, or as if we were moving together continuously, but instead every country is trying to reach the finish line using different routes. And accordingly a tangled, I can't find a better word for it, an extremely complicated, tangled situation comes about in which we must follow the currently actual process keenly, must recognise the actual moment, and when the right moment arrives, or at lest when we feel that this is it, then we must continue moving forward according to our own interests with another small change in direction to the left or right. For this reason, this task required continuous intellectual presence, and not primarily from myself, although it doesn't hurt if I pay close attention too, but it required continuous readiness from the colleagues behind me who have by the way performed wonderfully during this round of talks, and on this occasion readiness also meant staying alert and awake, as they had to work all night. They need to calculate continuously, and depending on how positions change, need to recalculate everything to see what that might mean to Hungarian interests. I need to receive a report on this immediately and if needed, there and then at that precise moment during the discussion I must intervene, or change direction, or step back, depending on what the situation requires. This is a process that requires a joint effort on the part of the government and very efficient teamwork during negotiations. I felt throughout that the country was in safe hands. We were in control of the situation from an intellectual perspective; we knew what was happening and felt all the shifts. We knew what was under no account acceptable to Hungary, and we prevented it. We knew what could be good for Hungary at the close of discussions, and we took the required steps in that direction. I must tell you that although a tangled situation came about during the talks, the team we are working with here is capable, even in this tangled situation, of coming to a favourable result for Hungary during the next round of talks. If we succeed, then as is usual in politics, it will be to their credit; if we fail it will be my fault. This is how things go, one gets used to it, and the interpretation of the opposition is not totally uncalled for in this regard.

[Question from the Press to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán: I would like to then ask you about you final remark: can we prevent anything, and if so, what? – if I may ask you]

There are always proposals during the course of a meeting where someone recommends a solution to their own problems that worsens the situation of others. This must be recognised in time and one must indicate that the proposal, however, is not acceptable to us. Before it starts to rain, one must sense that there are clouds gathering in the sky.

[Question from the Press to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán: Could you give us an example?]

When the talks have been concluded and everything I'm talking to you about now will be the subject of memoirs, then I will, but if I mentioned anything concrete now it could effect Hungary's bargaining position in the talks to come. And at times like this the task isn't to collect enemies, but to collect friends.

[Question from the Press to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán: In light of this, is Hungarian diplomacy preparing for further bi-lateral lobbying, or will we simply wait for van Rompuy's latest document and begin positioning according to that?]

We are working continuously and have in fact lodged our proposals in writing, so we had written proposals as to the text of the document. The situation is such that not only do we know what we would want, but President van Rompuy, who is organising the talks, also knows what we would want. And since both we and President van Rompuy both know what we would like, there is no point in keeping all this secret from the Friends of Cohesion. And therefore we also inform them; they too know exactly what we would like to achieve. There is no Hungarian proposal with regard to which any of the members of the Friends of Cohesion would be at a disadvantage.

[Question from the Press to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán: Based on the trends you have seen during the negotiations, what can we expect; in the next draft will the total budget decrease or remain unchanged?]

I heard several comments of an avant-garde nature. It wasn't as it usually is. I'm sure you all know that in this European environment here in Brussels people tend to speak in a kind of EU slang, which nobody else can understand, and one can only comprehend when lucky. This kind of multiply transposed referencing; this complicated way of communicating was not present here. This was an honest-to-goodness budget debate, just like at home where there are columns, and in the columns there are numbers, so there isn't too much room for beating around the bush. We are lucky with respect to the fact that, if I remember correctly, President van Rompuy was Minister of Budget in the Belgian Government for four of five years. So, the person who is organising this task today used to be a finance minister, and moreover in a country with a complicated, federative structure and in which discussions on the budget run simultaneously on several courses. This is one of the reasons why the documents are of an excellent standard. One can see from the documentation that they were written by someone who doesn't simply employ the right experts, but who himself knows how things work, and has an insight into the details of things. This was also why each new proposal always took us a little closer to a solution, and if I remember correctly, when President van Rompuy completed his job as Minister of Budget, the Belgian budget was in a significant positive. And for this reason there is also a significant level of trust in his direction from the other Prime Ministers.

[Question from the Press to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán: A little earlier you said that one must always be aware and know what is good for Hungary. Is the current situation good or bad for Hungary?]

The current situation is better for Hungary than if we would have adopted the proposal put forward by Mr. van Rompuy. I can tell you that without a doubt. The document we saw was unacceptable. That document definitely needs to be improved. We have lodged the proposals for its improvement, and the improvement of Hungary's position. We feel that we may have succeeded in achieving some of these already today, if we had concluded the talks, but this is an academic assumption now. We feel that we are in a better position than we were before. And in addition we also have a proposal behind which lie not simply Hungarian interests, but a European Union principle which is much respected and which may be represented not just with a clear conscience but which may also be viewed as a moral obligation. Cohesion policy was devised to facilitate the catching up of the poor regions of poor countries. For this reason, changes in position which lead to poor countries that will remain poor and their poor regions that are still poor at the end of the next cycle losing money while those in better positions profit, goes against a European principle in our opinion. For this reason, when I took the floor I didn't concentrate on the Hungarian position but instead I said that if we do not fully respect certain principles then our Union will regress into being a transfer union, and I think this would be a great loss for the whole of Europe. This is the essence of the Hungarian standpoint. Thank you for your interest!

(Prime Minister's Office)