Éva Kocsis: – We have Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in the studio with us. Good morning.
 
Viktor Orbán: – Good morning.
 
– Judging by what you said at your joint press conference with Martin Schulz in Brussels, we could conclude that there were fireworks in your meeting. Did he try to convince you on the question of quotas?
 
– Beyond doubt, there is a major difference of opinion between Hungary and European leaders. A great many European leaders believe that everyone should be allowed in, and this is the practice they adhere to. What’s more, general statements are being made by European politicians which an illegal migrant can only interpret as meaning that they have a good chance of coming to Europe, being allowed to enter, and staying here – at least in Germany. This is a fact which we must face up to; there is no point in burying our heads in the sand. And as far as I can see, the European Union still fails to understand that our only chance of satisfying our citizens’ legitimate demands and desire for security is by protecting our borders. Today we must concentrate all our strength on this. Indeed any statement or proposal which diverts attention away from this makes us weaker. Europe needs to be strong now, as the worst possible combination of qualities is to be both rich and weak. This is the case with Europe. So we must show strength in the protection of our borders.
 
– Apart from a quota system, did the idea of any other strategy emerge at these meetings?
 
– We agreed that the external borders of Europe – part of which is formed by the border between Hungary and Serbia – must be protected under all circumstances, and all countries – including Hungary – must observe the obligations placed on them by EU regulations. I then asked all my partners whether they could offer me a better proposal than building a physical border fence.
 
– Could they?
 
– No. They said they do not like the fence, but have no better ideas themselves. I thanked them.
 
– Does this mean that Martin Schulz, for example, did not criticise the measures which the Hungarian government has adopted recently?
 
– Everyone criticises them, because they say they do not like them, but they have no better ideas. This is where we stand now, this is the situation in Europe and among its political leadership.
 
– When they were trying to convince you behind closed doors to accept the quota system – and of course, you are not the only leader in Europe who disagrees with it – did you succeed in satisfying yourself how this mechanism would work: who would make the decisions and on what grounds, and whether it could be guaranteed that the quotas would not have to be changed in six months’ time?
 
– You see, here we are, and you also have half a dozen questions. We are talking about quotas, instead of the protection of our borders. I think it is only worth talking about quotas, the distribution of migrants and providing care for those who are already inside if we are able to protect our borders. The problem – the number one problem – with this whole quota idea is that we do not know how many people we are talking about. We do not know how many of them will come; if we do not protect our borders, tens of millions of migrants will keep coming. Europe today is almost encouraging those who want to set out in the hope of a better life. We should send the message to those who want to come to Europe in the hope of a better life (but of course, genuine refugees are a different story) that they should not take the risk: they should not set out, and they should not risk their own lives and those of their children or families. We do not want to create illusions: they will not be able to enter Europe – or if they do, they will be sent back home. We should tell them this frankly. This is morally responsible – it is a moral approach. Instead of sending a clear message, now we are bogged down in debates on quotas and such things. I think this is the biggest problem. And as regards a quota system, we can consider anything once we have protected our borders. Naturally, I do not support solutions which are not seen as genuine even by those who have conceived them. How could a quota system be a solution? Would it stop people at the border? Would they not come in larger numbers? Would there be fewer migrants as a result? The truth is that Europe is being threatened by mass migration on an unprecedented scale. Tens of millions of people could come to Europe. Today we are talking about hundreds of thousands, but next year we will be talking about millions, and this will never end. There is unlimited supply for this mass migration, because only some of those who are coming are actually from war zones. Migrants are now arriving from countries which are not war zones: from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria or Mali. I repeat: there is unlimited supply. And one morning we could wake up and realise that we are in the minority on our own continent.
 
– Those in favour of introducing quotas argue that Hungary could be relieved of a large burden if registration points were created in Greece and Italy; this would mean that we would not be forced to cope with this multitude, but they would be taken care of in Greece and Italy.
 
– The written proposal which we are aware of actually says that a few thousand people now in Greece and Italy would be relocated to Hungary. So it is not people who are wandering around somewhere in Europe who would be relocated to Hungary, but people from camps in Greece and Italy. This is despite the fact that more migrants are coming to Hungary: twice as many as to Italy, and something like six times more than to Greece. In other words, they want to bring people here from countries where fewer migrants arrive. In a quota system, migrants should be taken away from Hungary; but no such written proposal of any kind has been conceived.
 
– Broadly speaking, why do you disagree with the idea of people from different cultural and social backgrounds coming to Europe in large numbers?
 
– We all have different ideas about life; I do not know what the majority of Hungarians think about this. No doubt we shall have the chance to talk about this, too, as part of a consultation. I personally believe in a Europe, would like to live in a Europe, and would like my children to live in a Europe and in a Hungary which is a continuation of the one thousand-year tradition maintained by our parents, our grandparents and our great-grandparents. This could change: they could occupy Hungary – something not unprecedented in our history – or they could introduce communism. But the profile of our population could also change slowly, by degrees, without our even noticing. I believe that we must respect the decisions of countries which have already decided that they wish to live with large Muslim communities: the decisions of countries such as France or Germany. We cannot criticise them – this was their decision. But we, too, have the right to decide whether we want to follow their example or not. I, for one – and this is my personal opinion – would advise the Hungarian people not to follow suit. Now we are still able to decide not to follow their example. If we do not keep our wits about us now, later on this will not be a matter for deliberation: it will be a fait accompli which we are forced to live with.
 
– Yesterday you said that this is a German problem.
 
– I see migrants who are not willing to observe the laws of Hungary, who refuse to be registered, who refuse to cooperate with the police and the authorities, who chant the name of the German Chancellor and Germany at Keleti Railway Station. They want to go there. If you ask migrants, the chances are that more than ninety per cent will say that they would like to go to Germany. And Germany itself announced that it would offer special, preferential procedures to asylum seekers from Syria; this is what has created the trouble in Hungary. This trouble in Hungary was caused by bad German communication; it was not the Hungarian police and not the Hungarian authorities. It was not even the migrants themselves, but the false promise that they had been invited to Germany. It later emerged that the invitation had been withdrawn, and then there remained thousands of people who were not willing to cooperate but who still wanted to travel on. This is perfectly understandable. However, we cannot allow them to travel on, because we must observe European regulations – even if they do not accept them. If we allow them to travel on, the Austrians will close the border. They do not even have to close it formally – it was enough for them to start checking passports, and traffic between Austria and Hungary came to a halt. Therefore, if we Hungarians wish to maintain freedom of movement within Europe, we must protect our external borders and we must enforce compliance with European regulations – including at Keleti Railway Station.
 
– But if the German Federal Office for Migration says that they will stop returning Syrian asylum seekers to the Member States of the European Union, and they will conduct the procedure themselves, why doesn’t Hungary register these people in fast-track procedures at a single registration point or at 150 registration points and allow them to move on to the rest of Europe?
 
– Simply because they do not want to be registered. The problem arises from the fact that these migrants do not want to be registered, do not want us to register their names or take their fingerprints, and so on; in other words, they are refusing to cooperate. They say that the Hungarian authorities are irrelevant to them, because they want to go to Germany. This is why the Hungarian government suggested that the German Embassy set up a base at the station and grant these people visas. Once Germany has granted them visas, we shall then have the authority to allow them to leave the country, because this is not contrary to European regulations.
 
– Criticisms were voiced by you or (Minister) János Lázár yesterday. He said that the confusion seen in the reactions of the Hungarian authorities on Sunday and Monday – on whether the migrants could leave or not – was due to the fact that Hungary spoke to the German Deputy Foreign Minister, who said that you should select two or three hundred people in secret, and put them on a train “for show”. This kind of tension, this form of communication certainly does not help the situation.
 
– It does not help the situation, so I think we should talk in absolutely clear terms: in its procedures, Hungary cannot dispense with the Schengen regulations. Migrants must cooperate with the Hungarian authorities. And if Germany intends to give asylum to Syrians, they should give them permission to enter Germany: clear and public permission. They should grant them visas, and then they can go. I would like to underline one more time: it is irresponsible to adopt an approach which claims to be compassionate, and which continually comes up with proposals, such as a quota system in which migrants will be provided for, distributed among Member States, and allowed to enter Europe. Such as approach can only be interpreted by migrants as the greatest opportunity of their lives. This lack of clarity and the raising of false hopes are the biggest problem in European policy now. Apart from Hungary (and perhaps Spain), no one is prepared to state clearly and honestly that the Schengen Agreement – which we all signed, which we resolved upon together, which was signed by every EU Member State – must be observed; and its number one rule is that no one may cross the external borders of Europe illegally. This is the only thing we should be talking about, the only thing we should be stressing. Therefore, on 15 September the Hungarian government will create a new situation; I hope that we succeed in adopting these changes in Parliament today. There will be a week for migrants to prepare for a new situation in which they cannot enter Hungary illegally – an information campaign will be launched tomorrow, using flyers, videos and various media. Up to now they might have succeeded in entering illegally, as we had 175 kilometres of unguarded border, a “green border” without any physical barriers; but that situation no longer exists, and we shall enforce the new rules after the 15th. Everyone should prepare for this – Serbia, Macedonia, migrants, human traffickers and ourselves included – and a new era will begin on 15 September.
 
– I sense a Catch-22 situation here. Some years ago you were called to account in Brussels for not observing European regulations, but now you are staunchly arguing in favour of European regulations. At the same time, Angela Merkel says that there are situations when the regulations should be eased temporarily, and this is one of those situations. Meanwhile, Schengen is falling apart.
 
– The regulations should not be eased, but must be made more stringent in Hungary. It is simply impossible to let everyone in. Additionally, an important element of European politics is that democratic politics is based on the opinion and will of the people; we must speak to the people about everything. I am not saying that all opinions should be accepted, but we must listen to those opinions, and we cannot disregard the fact that in most European countries today (although I do not wish to talk about this now, but certainly in Hungary), people want more stringent regulations. Our National Consultation made this perfectly clear. We cannot have a situation in which the European elite and European governments speak, think and act in opposition to the wishes of the people who have elected them. In a democracy this tension cannot be sustained for long. We must serve the people, and the people are worried – they are filled with fears. They see the situation around Keleti Railway Station. You can imagine what the people who live in that area must be thinking when they send their children off to school in the morning. There are risks of infectious disease, and a mass of migrants who are unwilling to cooperate and are increasingly aggressive. People are worried and concerned – not only in Hungary, but in the whole of Europe. They feel that the leaders they have elected are not in control of the situation; but it is the duty of a leader – once they have accepted a mandate from the people to govern – to represent the interests of the people, to make decisions (at times difficult ones), and to ensure above all that their electors continue to live in safety.
 
– But you have not started arguing that Europe will face a grave problem in the last few weeks, but many months ago. Given this fact, do you not think that it is legitimate to criticise the Hungarian government for taking too long: there are not enough reception stations, there are not enough registration points, there is chaos at Keleti, and everyone expected more of the border fence as well. You set the end of August as the deadline for completion, and the fence can be easily cut with tools found in any household.
 
– First of all, we are providing care for every asylum seeker in Hungary, but we must understand that most of those arriving are not refugees, but economic migrants. We are still providing for them, but we can only do so at our reception stations. The problem is not that we cannot provide for their needs; the problem is that they do not want to go there. The people in the area around Keleti Railway Station do not want to go to Debrecen, Bicske or Vámosszabadi. They have said that they will not cooperate with us. This is not the Hungarian authorities’ fault; in fact, quite the opposite: I believe that the Hungarian authorities, the police, Red Cross personnel, healthcare workers, law enforcement officers and soldiers all deserve praise. I would particularly like to mention the police, because the fact that they have been able to maintain order without resorting to physical force has been an outstanding example of policing. It is truly in the European spirit, and all of us in Hungary who want to live in safety should be grateful to our police for it. As regards the delay, you should not forget that when we announced the policy of having to rise to this challenge, the opposition in Hungary, for instance, said that there is no such problem. We launched the National Consultation in good time in order to reach a consensus which would give us – and me as a leader – authorisation to act. If I had not already had the National Consultation, there could have been further debate about what the people think; that would have led nowhere. But there is no need for such a debate now because, with the National Consultation, we reached points of agreement, on the basis of which we can now take action. Additionally, the European Union itself told us that we should not act independently, because there would be a common European solution, for which we waited for about two or three months. When I saw that this squabble would result in anything but a common European solution, we immediately launched our own national policy. I believe that, under the circumstances, we took firm action, and in good time, based on a democratic premise. And the reception stations await migrants who need shelter, food and water. They will be given all that. But we cannot force them to go there.
 
– There will be a Visegrád 4 summit. What will you request?
 
– I believe we may find understanding among the V4, as these are all countries which are close to the tension zones. From this point of view, it will perhaps be possible to talk about reality, rather than about ideology. I think that these are all countries – I am talking about Slovakia, the Czech Republic and Poland – which look upon their own current identity and European history as something valuable, and intend to continue their European history, rather than start a completely new one. Therefore, I believe that we may find more understanding here than we did in Brussels – although I should add that I had a constructive meeting with President Juncker, as well as with President Tusk. As regards Mr. Schulz, the socialist President of the European Parliament, our meeting was as expected.
 
– Do you agree with the claim that the Greek crisis has called the very foundations of Europe into question, but the current situation has done so in particular?
 
– I would not like to say anything disparaging about the Greeks, because they have enough problems as it is. They have been lured into a trap, and I do not know how they will find a way out of it. For that reason, I feel great sympathy for the Greek people. But it is also true that as Greece is one of Europe’s external borders, if Greece were to meet its obligations – the obligations which it signed up to in the Schengen Agreement – there would be no problems in Hungary. Greece is Schengen’s frontline country; we are not a frontline country, but Greece is. We became a frontline country because Greece is simply not observing the Schengen Agreement, and ever since 2009 – for more than six years – procedures have been ongoing against Greece, because it is not observing the Agreement. Well, if everyone behaves like this the Schengen system and the whole of the European Union will fall apart. The European Union is based on a mechanism whereby we adopt decisions, assume responsibilities and undertake obligations after long and difficult debates, and then we observe them. If we stop doing so, there is no point in talking about the European Union.
 
– The situation, however, is that what we are talking about are symptoms, because, on the whole, the cause of the whole situation is that there is an unstable region. It would take too long to talk about the roots of the instability, but people are setting out for Europe, and now we are talking about refugees, not economic migrants.
 
– But the latter are in the majority. The number and percentage of economic migrants is growing continuously; now we can talk about a refugee problem as well, but this will very soon be a thing of the past.
 
– Do you then believe that the fight against Islamic State is not part of the solution to the problem?
 
– It is one element of it, but not the most important one. There are hundreds of millions of people in the world – in the interior of Africa and in certain parts of Asia – who do not live in war zones, but if they watch the news they realise that they can have a better life sooner by coming to Europe than by trying to find advancement at home. And as the statements of European leaders sound to them like an invitation, they will set out. If European leaders continue like this we must therefore reckon on the arrival of tens of millions of people on Europe’s borders. We must make it clear that we cannot let everyone in, because if we let everyone in, that is the end of Europe. I repeat: if you are rich and attractive to others, you must also be strong, because that which you have worked so hard for will be taken away from you – and then you, too, will become poor. So I repeat: in politics the riskiest combination of qualities is being rich and weak.
 
– And as if the situation were not tense enough as it is, last night Budapest and the Budapest Police had to deal with hooligans running amok in the city.
 
– You can say that again. I thought they would show more sympathy and understanding, seeing the situation in Hungary due to the illegal migrants; I thought they would take this into consideration on the eve of the Hungary-Romania match. It would appear that not only the leaders of Europe but I myself, too, sometimes chase wild dreams.
 
– But you will watch the match tonight. Will you be there?
 
– I am going to blow the ball towards the Romanian goal, together with another twenty thousand Hungarian spectators.
 
– Should I even ask what result you are expecting?
 
– You can ask, but I will never answer. Members of the Government have organised their own sweepstake on the match (as is customary in predominantly male circles), and everyone has placed their bets – but these are not for public consumption.
 
– Then I will ask you about the result of the bet next time. You have been listening to Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

 

Prime Minister's Office