Anett Szabó: Europe has been attacked, and we are also in danger. Not only the French people are at war; the European Union has been attacked, and we are not safe either. This is what you said in your address in Parliament before the start of daily business. Welcome to our programme. And I also welcome Viktor Orbán, Prime Minister of Hungary, who has received our crew in his office, in the Nándorfehérvár Hall. Thank you.
 
Good evening.
 
Prime Minister, what did you mean when you said we are in danger, too? Have you received any further information since Saturday regarding any direct threat of terrorism in Hungary?
 
There is no need for further information, because real life has surpassed all our expectations, in a negative sense. The fact is that we have brought into Europe hundreds of thousands of people – because we did not just allow them in, but we transported them – whose identities are unknown to us, whose precise origins are unknown to us and whose intentions are unknown to us. And it is obvious that some of them are using this massive flow of migrants to gain access to Europe as terrorists. The threat is ongoing and direct.
 
Before we speak about those who are responsible in a European context, on a European scale, and about the possible solutions, let us stay with Hungary for a little while. You have implemented emergency security measures, but beyond the actual operational measures, we know that there is also legislative work going on in preparation for Wednesday’s Cabinet meeting. You wish to change certain counter-terrorism measures. What does this mean exactly? What is it that needs to change fundamentally? What will change, and what regulations – whether international or overseas regulations – will you consider for the purposes of such change?
 
First of all, I would like to point out that for months the Hungarian security agencies, secret services and the Counter-terrorism Centre have been continuously warning the Hungarian government that there will be serious implications for security, including Hungary’s security, from what is happening: masses of people flowing in, without any controls or information, from countries with which or where the European Union is at war. There were also major security considerations behind construction of the border fence. So I have continuously tried to incorporate into Hungarian policies the intelligence and expertise of the Hungarian secret services and counter-terrorism and police experts. This has not been the case everywhere in Europe; and this is why it is very important to state that the Hungarian government does not need to change its way of thinking, because we have been pursuing the line that the Hungarian people’s security is paramount. So after what has happened, I would rather say that we must continue and reinforce our policy, but the direction and cooperation between the Government, policy and professional organisations have been extremely good. It would be sensible to make legislative amendments, because there are some data management problems, but it is too early to talk about these at this point in time. Let us allow the Government to address these issues on Wednesday.
 
I would continue with what you have just started talking about: the secret services, the various agencies warned of the threats related to Hungary. As an aside I would add that, as part of a coordinated effort, the various secret services also warned Europe. Why did these voices fall on deaf ears in Europe? Why has Europe only woken up now, when the alarm bells are ringing – if it really has woken up? I am talking about the events in Paris on Friday.
 
You have asked me a very difficult question, because it is hard to find an answer grounded in common sense. I can only speak for myself: when the agencies responsible for security issues first brought these warnings to the attention of the Hungarian government, alarm bells immediately started ringing in our heads. This was not the case elsewhere. Maybe there are no alarm bells in those heads. This is something we cannot tell now; I can only tell you that Hungary has done everything conceivable in order to protect the country and its own citizens, as well as to protect Europe and European citizens. We have done even more, as we are sending police and border guard units to territories outside our borders. What I can tell you for certain is that this is not the first time in Europe that some ideology – which may otherwise be a seemingly beautiful and noble ideology – has overpowered political decision-makers; and the criteria of security, crime and the threats have somehow been removed from the equation. European politics has often gone down such ill-chosen paths, and as far as I can see, we are also now on the wrong path. In Brussels and in some large EU Member States the dominant opinion is still that immigration is on the whole a good thing, and that what Europe is doing right now is the correct and useful thing to do. Meanwhile, it is quite obvious – for instance, as far as the Hungarians are concerned – that what we are doing is neither useful nor correct.
 
And it is, of course, also obvious – to continue your line of thinking – that, as you just said,  this misguided policy has consequences, as what happened in Paris on Friday night can only be seen as a consequence.
 
There will be – and there already are, as far as I can see in statements made in Brussels – some desperate attempts to convince the European people that there is no correlation whatever between immigration and terrorism. It is extremely disheartening to see this.
 
Let us continue in this vein. In your address in Parliament today you drew attention to the threats of modern-day mass migration, and identified the threat of terrorism as its most important aspect. What other threats are there? I am thinking of economic, social and cultural threats which in practice jeopardise the very existence of the whole of Europe.
 
But we should not leave the subject of terrorism so quickly, because it is indeed reasonable for us to consider that hundreds of thousands of people coming here – men in good shape, as we saw in the media reports.  We do not know if they have served as soldiers, if they are members of organisations, if they have ever taken part in military operations or if they have ever killed. We have no idea what they think about the value of human life, whether they share the same views as we do, or have other beliefs. And we do not know how many of these people are already in Europe, and so I believe that we must wait a few days , and then the entire European political leadership should sharply change direction, because these are the questions which have been on the mind of every single European ever since Friday night or Saturday morning. Our second important problem is public security; discussion of this is not tolerated in Europe. So if I said what I am saying now in Germany, or in Sweden or, say, in Paris, I would be drummed out of mainstream politics.
 
But you think that even now – in the wake of Friday’s events in Paris – we are still not allowed to talk about these things in Europe, rather than having to talk about them?
 
Yes. What I am saying is that we have this problem regarding public security, and I will say this once again, though it is not PC. But the situation is that wherever there are large numbers of immigrants, crime rates increase, public security deteriorates, life becomes ever less liveable, the number of violent crimes increases, there are more cases of theft, robbery and murder, and there is a significant rise in the number of rapes. So we must be aware of this when we let these people in. Naturally, I am not accusing anyone personally, because I do not know them and therefore cannot accuse them, but on the whole one can see that wherever there are large numbers of immigrants, the security of the people who have been living in those neighbourhoods becomes compromised, their lives become harder, and they are exposed to serious, dangerous crime. So this is a circumstance which the European elite are not willing to talk about, because they believe that it is not right to discredit innocent people with accusations of potential criminal intent. Incidentally I agree with that aspect, because we must not put anyone in such a situation and everyone is entitled to dignity, freedom and the presumption of innocence. But on the whole, as social phenomenon, we must talk about the fact that wherever there are large numbers of immigrants, crime rates increase.
 
Yes, but the European strategy which has been pursued so far is clearly misguided, and this is something which we can now establish as a fact. The question is whether it is yet possible to adjust, whether there is yet time for adjustment? To put it mildly, the time for political correctness, the time for PC is over.
 
This is what we think, but let me repeat…
 
We alone think so?
 
Yes, I think this way of thinking is not yet shared in the centre of Brussels. In the past three days the leaders of the institutions of the European Union have done nothing, but they have been making desperate attempts to force us, European people, to accept that what has happened is no reason to change our policy, to change our immigration policy. In fact, however, it is reason to go even further. In fact all European policy should be reconsidered, and we must declare that the borders must be protected, because security begins with the protection of our borders. We must declare that our culture must be protected, because Europe’s essence lies in its own cultural identity, and we must protect our economic interests. So I think that what you see as something evident – and, I believe, a great many European people do so as well – is yet to happen: in response to these events, there is yet to be a clear change in political direction.
 
When we speak about protection of the borders, the protection of all the values which you just referred to, the question arises as to whether the fence – which is necessary, because there is no better solution, and this is now confirmed by practically all European leaders – will be enough. It would appear that it is unable to prevent terrorism, the threat of terrorism.
 
But the borders must be protected as a matter of course, because that can reduce the threat of terrorism. There will never be absolute security. But our responsibility lies in minimising this risk. And to this end, we need to physically protect our borders.
 
In your address before the start of daily business in Parliament today you said that Europe needs a new policy, the very existence of Europe is at stake, Brussels is instead sending out an invitation, the EU is drifting and is weak, uncertain and paralysed; in other words, Europe has given the wrong answer to the historical challenges. When you say this, what do you expect, primarily from the leaders of the European Union – Jean-Claude Juncker, for instance?
 
Poor Jean-Claude Juncker is not in any easy situation, because most decisions related to asylum affairs are within national competence. So the Hungarian government is able to protect the Hungarian border; and the Greek border should be protected by the Greek government, but they are failing to do so. The European Union comes into the equation when one has a country such as Greece, which signs an agreement – the Schengen Agreement – and agrees to protect its southern border, but fails to honour its obligation. Then it must be excluded. For historical reasons we in Hungary sympathise with and greatly respect Greece, but this is the situation as it is.  And this is where we come to the responsibility of Brussels. All the while it has been busy on all sorts of things. For instance, major efforts were made to attack Hungary, but we were unable to persuade the Greeks to protect their own external borders; and if they are unable or unwilling to do so, we need to designate a second line of defence, where we can check those who wish to enter. These decisions were all left untaken. These are just what I proposed at the meeting of the European Council. So Hungary’s conscience is clear. We have been saying all along that if the Greeks are unable to protect the borders of their country, we should jointly go down south and protect them. I have repeatedly pointed out that we should not be begging the Turks for security and leaving ourselves exposed, but we should be protecting the borders of Greece. The money should not be given to the Turks, but to the Greeks in order to strengthen their border controls. And if they are unwilling to do so, the money should be given to the Bulgarians and the Macedonians, in order to build a second line of defence. So all along Hungary has been making proposals on a completely different immigration and migration policy. One by one these proposals have been swept from the table.
 
Will this be the same in the future as well? And let us clarify one other thing. When you say that Europe needs a new policy, what exactly do you mean? That the very foundations of the current laws should be changed? I mean, for instance, a review of the Lisbon Treaty or the Dublin Regulation, or do you mean that the laws must be observed and enforced? It would appear, as you yourself said, that Europe has been unable to achieve this.
 
We must weed out and sieve out the problems. There are laws which have proved to be simply unworkable – the Dublin Regulation, for instance. The Dublin Regulation is dead. I would not throw out the Schengen Agreement: it must be preserved and protected. Without the Schengen Agreement there is no free movement and employment in Europe. It is in every Hungarian’s interest to maintain the possibility of free movement and free employment. In my view, the Schengen Agreement must be protected; at the same time, only those who observe its terms may be parties to this agreement, and those who fail to observe them – and openly do so because they are unable or unwilling to – must be excluded from the agreement. There is primarily a need for a change of mentality. I shall repeat this one more time: as it still stands now, on Monday night, leaders in Brussels fundamentally believe that immigration is a good thing and a win-win situation for everyone, even though immigration is a bad thing, in which everyone stands to lose – and now we can clearly see this. If there is no paradigm change in the heads of European leaders, we shall make no progress with these leaders.
 
At times like this, the question arises in ordinary people’s heads: “Fine, but how many more people will have to die before the European Union’s leadership hears the alarm bells, before the leaders of Europe take the alarm bells seriously and pay attention them?” What more should happen in order to change the way people think? I am talking primarily about our leaders’ way of thinking, as power and the right to make decisions are concentrated in their hands.
 
I believe that there has been an intolerable widening of the gap between the expectations, the way of thinking and value judgement of the European people and the policies of European leaders. After all, no one authorised European leaders to allow in hundreds of thousands of people in an uncontrolled manner, to transport them here, and to pursue this immigration policy at all. European politics – which is far from perfect but is fundamentally democratic, deep down within its very cells –  is in the long term unable to tolerate such a gap between the voters, their instincts, mentality and needs and their leaders’ way of thinking. This is why I believe that it is only a question of time before the people will reshape Europe’s elected leaders to better fit the mould. The only question is how long this will take.
 
Yes, and what else will happen before this comes about – how many more lives will be lost? What you have just said was already true earlier. In a situation when immigrants effectively flooded the countries of Europe and the cities of Europe, the discourse of the elite must be open to the voice of society, the voice of citizens. Citizens do have a voice. We have seen reactions in quite a few countries to the decisions of nation states’ governments on immigration, and yet even this does not seem to be enough.
 
It is not enough.
 
Yes, but what is it that could bring about a turning point?
 
The volume needs to be turned up.
 
But what does this mean in practice? Should even more people go out onto the streets?
 
Well, how does European politics work, and how does politics work in Hungary? It works by people having their opinions, expressing them through different channels, and their elected leaders either accepting them or not. If they do not, and the people’s demands are left unfulfilled, sooner or later their leaders will have to adjust – because if they do not, they will be sent packing. Or if they disagree with the people – because that is also a possibility – they should pack their bags and go, saying: “Gentlemen, I do not agree with you, someone else should take over.”
 
Is that what you expect? Do you expect the leaders of the European Union to admit this?
 
I do not expect anything. How shall I put it? I have no expectations. Politics has its laws, European culture has its laws, and over time they will enforce themselves. I think there will be changes here. The question is when these changes will take place. I am one of those who have always found this policy misguided, and have been arguing that the sooner these changes take place, the better. Therefore, we have been continually tabling proposals for change in the European Union. So far we have consistently been in the minority, or there were times when we were alone. I think that in the near future we shall have a better chance. We do not want to be a passive observer of European politics – Hungary is continuously making proposals at European level. We do not want to defend ourselves against Brussels, because we ourselves are also Brussels. The European Union is not something beyond our control, because we are also in it. So we are making proposals on European policy to determine how things should change in Europe. We are not sulking, we are not avoiding responsibility, we are not merely defending ourselves – though this may sometimes be necessary; we are taking the initiative, and want to change European policies. I know that this may perhaps appear to be an unusual and overly ambitious political campaign or plan from a country of ten million, but I think that we must make efforts to change the whole of European policy – in particular together with the other Central European countries, the Poles, the Czechs and the Slovaks.
 
Yes, this is exactly where I was going next: who could be our allies in these efforts? And the other thing, which you said yourself, Prime Minister, is that we must take small steps – which Hungary has already been taking – in the direction of changing the European Union’s mentality. But is it not about changing the mentality of the 28 Member States? After all, the 28 Member States constitute the European Union. If we approach the issue from this point of view, we can see that we do have followers. Let us mention the fence, for instance. There are some who admit it, others who deny it, but it is true that not a single nation state has managed to put forward a better solution.
 
Well, yes. And those who follow our actions but deny it strike a very pathetic figure. But that is another conversation. The Baltic states share our position, the Finns did not vote for quotas, neither did the Romanians, and the Austrians are in the process of building a fence. But we cannot avoid the issue of the largest European state. Because the key country is Germany, and I am convinced that a single sentence from the Germans would end this refugee flow. People today are setting out – assisted by human traffickers and political activists, particularly with the support of activists from the Soros network – because they know that Germany awaits them, and events confirm this. I know that this is a very difficult decision, so I am not being critical, but merely stating this as a fact, but as long as the Germans fail to send the clear message that this is it, it is over, they are not taking in any more people, this flood of migrants will continue. I repeat: I think there is a chance for a change.
 
What is Angela Merkel waiting for?
 
I do not know. We have had several discussions, some within the EU 28, and some on a bilateral basis. At those meetings and talks I said what I have told you just now. So we have done everything we can to change the German policy. We have put forward for German policy-makers’ consideration the viewpoints specific to Hungary at the gateway to the Balkans, the viewpoints which are based on our life here; we have presented these to the Germans, but the decision lies with them.
 
One of the cardinal issues – and perhaps one of the topics most loudly debated – was the question of quotas; Hungary has consistently rejected these, right from the beginning. You rejected the quotas again today, Prime Minister, in your address before the start of daily business in Parliament.
 
Especially now. Just think...
 
That is right. Why are they dangerous?
 
Just think, that after what happened, when we realised that we do not know who has come here, we do not know what they want, and quite clearly not all of them have come with good intentions; in the wake of all this, to distribute these people among the countries of Europe is  nothing short of distributing the threat of terrorism or terrorists. This is the situation that could come about if Europe enforced quotas; but for the time being we are resisting, and I sincerely hope that we shall not fail.
 
More and more are resisting. How much more time will the EU need in order to listen to these voices on this issue? Why does the EU insist on the quotas at such a level at all, despite what has happened and despite the warning?
 
I think that errors beget errors. This is the same in daily life. This is also a strong law in politics. If you make a mistake – say for instance, you let in too many immigrants – there are two things you can do. Either you send them back, or you ask others to take some in themselves. But then those others do not want to take them in, saying that they are not responsible for the wars which these people are fleeing from – and this is so in the case of Hungary and Central Europe; or they say that they did not invite these people in and cannot explain such a policy to their own voters – and this is indeed the case. We question why we should take in even a single person from anyone else. And in the meantime, we have been struggling continuously to stop these people entering Europe, and have also made major financial sacrifices. We have built a fence and reinforced our border policing units; in other words, we have done our job. After all this, why should we share the burdens arising from the mistakes of others? This does not appear to be a logical explanation. Additionally, from now on we are not just talking about sharing simple financial burdens, but sharing the threat of terrorism. I do not know a single person – and I am most certainly not one – who would agree to the Hungarian people sharing the threat of terrorism with other countries by allowing into Hungary people whose  identities have not been determined by anyone.
 
Prime Minister, let us briefly talk about two more things. One of them is that you were going to have an official meeting in Montenegro today, but instead you decided to cancel this programme and speak in Parliament. From a security point of view, is there any connection between the cancellation of your trip and the events in Paris? Have you received any information?
 
No. I had to speak in Parliament because in Hungary there is a parliamentary system. We live in a world where the people elect parliamentary representatives, and these Members of Parliament make the most important decisions. Therefore, if an incident occurs in Europe such as the one in Paris on Friday, the country’s elected leaders must meet and discuss it at the first available opportunity, and this cannot be done without the Prime Minister. So I think that it forms part of the essence of our political system that, at times like this, the head of the government must attend the parliamentary debate. I wanted to go to Montenegro because we have made considerable progress: as Montenegro is fully prepared for NATO membership and has made the mandatory preparations, Hungarians – and I personally – have for years fought for Montenegro’s admission. This may happen soon, and that is why I wanted to go there; but while this is an important cause, it is not as urgent as the duties which confront us after the attacks in Paris.
 
So the meeting has not be cancelled, but has only been postponed.
 
Montenegro is our friend. Montenegro is not a big country, but – perhaps, Hungarians are less aware of this – we are among the three largest investors there. So a lot of capital and major investments have flowed from Hungary to Montenegro. They are our friends, and let me repeat: we have been successfully working together for years.
 
Another event which was cancelled due to the day of mourning was the Fidesz congress scheduled for Sunday. Is there a new date?
 
Not yet, but tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow there will be one. It was a difficult decision, because it has disrupted the order of life and our work, but a congress is a celebration in the life of a political community, and one cannot celebrate and mourn at the same time. That is simply impossible. We therefore yielded to the natural order of things, and on Sunday we held a day of mourning. We shall hold the congress, together with the celebration, later.
 
You said just now that, in a situation like this, it is the Prime Minister’s duty to be here, and to outline before Parliament his thoughts on what happened. Where will you next share these thoughts, and with whom?
 
We are now waiting to see what happens, and whether Brussels will convene another meeting. There are intensive consultations between the Visegrád countries, there is cooperation between secret service agencies, cooperation on internal affairs, and cooperation between Prime Ministers. This is the most important. I think that today Central Europe is a healthy region in Europe, which functions on the basis of sound instincts. We are not only contributing the bulk of the European Union’s economic growth, and Central Europe is not only a genuine economic engine, but a common stance is also beginning to unfold in policy debates, on issues such as asylum, quotas and border protection; a Central European political culture is in the making, along with regular joint actions in Europe which embody it. I am hopeful about this. I am hopeful not only about Central Europe, but about the whole of Europe.
 
Thank you for talking to us, Prime Minister.
 
Thank you.

Cabinet Office of the Prime Minister