European and Foreign Policy Challenges: The V4 Perspective

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

So, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Chatham House. I’m Robin Niblett, Director of the Institute. My great pleasure to welcome you here this afternoon. Thanks for tearing yourselves away from what looks like a gorgeous week in London, but I think this is a great opportunity to hear from Péter Szijjártó, the Foreign Minister and Minister for Economic Affairs, as well, for Trade of Hungary. And the timing, as we were discussing a minute ago, could not be better either, from – certainly from the point of view of Chatham House’s members and guests with the – an EU Summit upcoming and an EU Summit just completed, with the NATO Summit coming up next month, we really do have a packed agenda. And a packed agenda in which to consider the title we have here, which I’m sure, Minister, we’ll go through in whichever way you want to, of European and Foreign Policy Challenges: The V4 Perspective. And of course, as you all know, Hungary is just completing right now its one year Presidency of the Visegrád Group.

One of the, therefore, sort of, mixes in here, with a supposedly renewed Franco-German combination, with an emerging Hanseatic group, we can feel a much more competitive EU emerging in all sorts of dimensions. And I would simply note here that Péter Szijjártó is somebody who has been well-steeped in Hungarian politics; first joined Parliament in 2002 as a member of Fidesz. He’s had a number of positions in the foreign policy space, if we can call it that, as the Prime Minister’s spokesperson on these issues from 2010 to 12, you said, when the last time you came to Chatham House, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs and Economic Relations in the PM’s office, through 2014, Deputy Foreign Minister through – up to 2014 and then, now having served as Foreign Minister. So, Foreign Minister, delighted to welcome you here to Chatham House. We look forward to your remarks and after those we’ll have an opportunity to engage in some conversation and questions. A welcome, obviously, to our members who are joining us livestream as well. This meeting is evidently on the record, but we therefore, look forward to a great conversation. Thank you very much for coming by Chatham House [applause].

Péter Szijjártó

Thanks, Robin, and thank you.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Thank you.

Péter Szijjártó

Good afternoon, or even good evening to all of you, I really do appreciate the invitation. You were right, first and last time I was here was when I accompanied my Prime Minister, who had the opportunity to deliver a speech here. To be honest, I didn’t think at that time that once I would have the chance to stand here as well, but life can produce some surprises for sure, and I’m especially honoured by the fact that many Ambassadors came, among them friends and former colleagues, I’m very happy to see you as well, so thank you very much for joining me or joining us today.

I have homework here to present you with the position of ours and position of the Central Europeans about the challenges ahead of the European Union, and I think it would fair to give you a couple of remarks about what, kind of, answers we think should be given to the challenges ahead of us.

In order to be able to give you the answers, I think we – I have to list the challenges we think must be addressed, and I would list five of those to you, putting into consideration that these are historic challenges, out of which one would be enough to deal with in the meantime, but we have five.

Definitely number one, I mean, listed as number one must be the security challenges ahead of the European Union. We have to understand that we have never had to experience such a threat of terror than currently, in the European Union. The massive influx of illegal migrants ended up in a security situation, which we really do have to address and speak honestly about. We have the issue of parallel societies about which, for a long time, it was forbidden to speak because it’s definitely out of political correctness and hypocrisy. We have the the war in Ukraine and then, additionally to that, the energy security issues.

So, the first pack would be the security challenges. The second pack – sorry, I should have started with that, since we are here in London, is Brexit, and not from the perspective of why you have decided and how. Our position is that we regret a lot the decision of the British people, but in the meantime, we never commented, we never judged, we never interfered because in the meantime, we think that it is only the British people who have the right to make a decision about the future of their country, so we respect. We regret, but we respect the decision and we have to understand that Brexit is a huge loss to the European Union, when it comes to political issues, when it comes to defence issues, and when it comes to economic issues. Since UK represents currently, one seventh, around 14% of the economic performance of the European Union and under current turbulent circumstances of global economy and global trade, losing 14% of the economic performance is tough.

Number three is the challenge ahead of the European Christian culture. We understand that the roots of the European heritage is being challenged. There are decisions made in the western part of Europe to take off the cross from the monument of the Pope. There are decisions to take off symbols of the Christian religion from the walls of the public buildings. The relationship of ours to our own heritage is being under challenge as well, and I speak on behalf of Hungary and the Hungarian Government, we have to do our best in order to save and preserve the Christian tradition and heritage of ours.

Number four is the debate between the Federalists and the Sovereigntists. What, kind of, European Union we need in the future and number five is a – and that should have been put number one as well, because now, this is a most serious debate, about the quotas, about how we deal with migration.

So, if you allow me, I would like to say that putting into consideration all these historic challenges, we think that debate, the fact of a debate, is natural because when should we have a debate about the future of Europe if not now, when we have historic challenges ahead of us? So, it’s not bad news that we have debate, according to our understanding, the bad news is that this debate goes emotional very quickly and this debate loses its relationship with reality and with common sense, very quickly. And since this debate goes emotionally, we lose the chance to have a rational outcome, that’s our fear. So, our interest is to keep the debate about the future of the European Union on a basis of common sense, because we think that all participants who take part in this debate have one common goal, and this one common goal is a strong European Union. Now, the debate is about how we get there and there are, let’s say, diverse approaches.

Number one, we understand there’s an approach, which can be called as a Federalist approach, says that the weaker the member states are, equals the more power is in Brussels, the bigger chance we have to have a strong European Union. We think it’s a dead-end street. We think totally to the contrary. According to our understanding, European Union can only be strong if the member states are strong and we need strong member states, in order to have a strong European Union. We don’t like the approach of the United States of Europe. We think that it should be dealt with in another way, and if we don’t support the Federalist way and if we don’t support the United States of Europe, then I think it’s a legitimate question from your side on what we support. And I have collected six points where I would like to explain to you what, kind of, measures we think would be necessary, in order to make European Union strong.

Measure number one or approach number one should be the following: to let competition flow within the European Union as well, within the European Union. Because we understand European Union has lost a lot of its competitiveness. Look at the – look all the rankings in the world, look at the competitiveness, look at the emerging powers, so we think we lost a lot of competitiveness recently and we have to gain it back. But in order to gain it back, we have to let the member states to compete and here, I would like to emphasise one very important point here, which is the tax policy. So, we think that all the endeavours towards a tax harmonisation are very dangerous, from the perspective of the future competitiveness of the European Union. We must not do that.

Tax harmonisation means that you basically, award and honour irresponsible economic policies, or irresponsible fiscal policies. Why? Because tax reduction is not for free. I’m coming from a country where we have the lowest tax rates of Europe. We have flat tax, both on corporate and personal income, 9% on corporate income, which is the only single digit corporate income tax rate of Europe, and 15% on the personal income tax side, and this was not for free. We had to carry out a very disciplined fiscal policy, in order to reach that possibility and we understand that, and it’s politically not always easy or not always simple. And we understand that there are political leaders in Europe, who have not carried out such, kind of, disciplined fiscal policy because politically, it would have been complicated, and now they ask for tax harmonisation, meaning that those ones, who were disciplined should suffer. And we don’t want that, we want a European Union where competition is allowed to flow internally as well.

You spoke about the Franco-German, I wouldn’t say axis, Franco-German co-operation of the European Union as a basic or a core of how our competitiveness will be shaped in the future but, you know, I don’t agree with that because you have to look at the figures and the figures show the following. Trade volume last year annual, between the four Visegrád countries and Germany was 65% higher than the annual trade volume between France and Germany. So, the Visegrád countries became a growth engine for Europe and why? Because we all based our policies on security and on economy on common sense.

We built work for our societies. We made it very clear to our people that we need to combine our efforts, in order to be stronger in the future, and it could happen, as it was in 2010, that for two/three years, we had to work more for the same amount of money, or even less salary, but at the end, we became stronger. And if you look at the growth, for example, our average in V4 is 4.1%, European average is 2.4%, so that shows very clearly that economic policies, based on common sense, basically at the end, pay off. And the Visegrád Group remain the strongest and the tightest alliance in the European Union, and we are no more part of the problem, but we are part of the solution, in this regard.

Number two, I think all European policies should aim to give back the security to the people because currently, we have to understand that the migration policy and the policy to socially integrate those ones who arrive to the European Union is a failure. If it was not a failure then there would be no parallel societies in the western part of Europe. If it was not a failure then there would not have been 29 terrorist attacks committed in the last three years by persons with a migratory background, killing 330 people and injuring or wounding another 1,300. And we don’t accept the position, which says that migration is by definition good, that migration, is by definition, the best thing that could happen to humanity. No, we don’t agree with that. We don’t agree with that.

We think migration, the issue of migration, the phenomenon of migration has a serious security factor and that’s why we consider, for example, the protection of our border as an obligation, which we have to fulfil, and we think that no-one has the authority, no country has the authority or the legal possibility to put pressure on others to think in the same way, regarding migration. Because we understand that there are countries who think or say or act accordingly, that migration is the best answer for their challenges, regarding demography or labour market. We accept that, we respect that, but please, don’t put pressure on us to think the same way.

In Hungary, we don’t share this opinion. We don’t look at migration as the necessarily best answer, neither for the demographic challenges, nor for the labour market challenges. So, we look at migration as a serious issue, with a huge security component, and we should not turn our back to the developments of the last three years in the European Union, because sometimes, someone have to answer the question, how it was possible to allow more than a million people to come to the territory of the European Union without control? Without knowing who they are? Without knowing what are their plans? Without knowing what, kind of, affiliations they had to organisations, which we don’t want to see in Europe?

Under current turbulent times, when ISIS is being pushed back and the foreign terrorist fighters would like to return to Europe. So, we think that border protection, the ability to regain the full control over our external borders is vital, and all European policies should focus on that. So, number two was giving back the security to the people.

Number three, preserving the Christian culture and the European identity. So, I think that it’s a very legitimate expectation, from our side, on our behalf, that if someone comes to Europe, must respect rules, regulations, habits, tradition and heritage and no-one can expect from us to get rid of our heritage, our culture, our religion, just because we have newcomers. The newcomers must understand that this is a Christian continent, and I’m terribly sorry to note that, this sentence that Europe is a Christian continent, you know, to say this sentence, you need more and more braveness. And, you know, I’m really fed up with the hypocrisy regarding this, because when we gather – when come together, the Foreign Ministers of European Union and we speak, for example, about the situation in the Middle East ,as if we had any, kind of, influence on that, but we speak about it a lot. And I usually speak in asking my colleagues to speak up, to step up in favour of those Christian communities, which are in need and then they always say, “Oh, Péter, you know, be more careful and let’s speak about religious minorities,” and I say, “Why should I say religious minorities, if I mean Christian communities? Because, who will speak about protecting the Christians, if not us, the Christians?” And I think it’s extremely important to speak about this honestly, because simply, we don’t want to see a Europe where the symbols attached to our Christian heritage are being taken off.

Number four, we want – I think it’s absolutely vital to have a fair debate about the next Multiannual Financial Framework, because this is going to determine the competitiveness of ours, and here I would like to address, if you don’t mind since we are in a country which has the second biggest economy of Europe and the fifth biggest economy of the world, and we respect that a lot and we have tight co-operation because there are more than 800 British companies active in Hungary, employing more than 50,000 people, so I want to speak about this honestly.

There’s a context being built in European media and European politics as well, saying that the Central European countries get so much European funding, and they are so unfair that they don’t take part in burden sharing and these Central European countries, you know, get – as if they got these European funds, based on the generosity of our Western European friends, you know? That they are so nice to us that they give it as a humanitarian aid. No, this is not the case. This is not the case. This is a two-lane street. Yes, we got European funds, based on the contracts, but the other lane of the street is there as well, which is that we have opened our economies, opened our markets and putting – in 2004, when – so, when we joined the European Union, we opened our markets and, you know, you have to understand that because of our history, the accumulation of national capital was so low at that time, that it was obvious that basically, none of our national companies were competitive. And the big profits were made and the market shares were taken by the Western European companies, be them British, be them German, be them French, Italian, Dutch, whatever. And, you know, number one, I’m not a Communist, so I don’t have any profit from anyone and number two, I’m a Minister responsible for investments as well, so I’m very happy if foreign companies make profit on the Hungarian market, because I understand, at least, that the more profit they make, the more they reinvest and then the more jobs they create. Fine, I’m happy with that, but then don’t deny that. And don’t deny the fact that 70% of all European funds given to the Central European countries, go back to Western Europe through their companies, 70%. And huge profits made by Western European companies, so don’t portray this thing of MFF and European funds as if we were only the beneficiary and if we had not put anything in the basket.

And on the other side, you know, we see that there’s an endeavour to build a mechanism of political blackmailing. Because when we speak about this possible pre-condition of how a rule of law is playing out in a country as a pre-condition for the European funds to be drawn, that’s simply a structure for political blackmailing, because who will judge that? It’s going to be the LIBE Committee in the European Parliament, which is now putting Hungary under torture, saying that we have growing anti-Semitism in the country and we are the worst dictatorship of ever. Or is that the first Vice President of the European Commission, or whom, to make the judgement whether rule of law plays out in your country or not? So, putting this as a pre-condition, as a subjective pre-condition to get European funding, instead of having an objective criteria, this is simply an instrument for political blackmailing, and I think it’s not showing to – or pointing towards a strong and united European Union. So, this constant accusation of each other, constant stigmatisation, picking one or two member states. Okay, today it’s Poland and Hungary, but who’s going to be next? The other two Visegrád countries or both or whom? So, I don’t think that shows into the right direction.

Number five is the issue of European Union being closed or far away from its citizens, which is a democracy issue, from our perspective. So, we are – to be honest, we are shocked by the approach that – which, kind of, says that all major issues must be decided before the elections for European Parliament next year. Why? In our understanding, it should be formulated the following way. All Europe – all major issues should be decided at the elections of European Parliament and not before. We should leave it to the people. Let’s make the decisions about the most important issues. Let’s leave it to the people and get out from the ivory tower in Brussels and understand what people want. So, we look at the next European Parliamentary election as a huge opportunity for the European citizens to raise their voice, which direction they want to go, when it comes to migration, when it comes to competitiveness, when it comes to any other issues.

And sixth and last point of mine is that we must enlarge. We must enlarge. You know, if I put forward the – I mean, the European Union. If I put forward the – or if I put into consideration the track record of the current European Commission, so what is the track record? Three points. First time ever, number of member states going to decrease, first time in history. Number two, most serious threat of terror ever. Number three, Euro-Atlantic alliances being challenged. What, kind of, track record is that? And, you know, when European Commission comes forward with saying that, well, towards the Western Balkans 2025 is the first realistic date. 2025? It’s seven years. It’s 2,500 days from now. What do we need 2,500 days for? What do not we need about – what we do not know about the countries in the Western Balkans now? What we need to come to know in 2,500 days? So, we don’t want to see EU 27 for a long time. We want to see EU 28 again, EU 29, EU 30 and member – number of member states should be increased, because maybe here, in the Western part of Europe is not so obvious, but the Western Balkans is a place from where tensions can rise, and there are history tensions on the Western Balkans, I’m telling you. If there were no historic tensions, then the current President of Serbia, as a Prime Minister, wouldn’t have been attacked in 2015 in Srebrenica. Even between two EU members in the Western Balkans, there’s a border dispute, then imagine all the others who have not been part of this integration. So, we look at this issue as very important, from the perspective of economy and from the perspective of security as well, that we must enlarge the European Union as quickly and as soon as possible.

My last point, if you don’t mind, is specifically about Hungary. Since I was in some British media today, and I – now this is the bonus that I can be here, I understand that my country is portrayed in Western European media in a very tough way. You know, we see the repots, but, you know, there were Parliamentary elections in Hungary in April. It was very obvious who represented what position. We had been in office for eight years before the elections. There was a record turnout, so everybody knows everything about everyone in Hungary now, when it comes to politics and when it comes to parties and when it comes to Governments, because there’s an eight-year track record. And there was a record turnout, 70% and 49.6% of the votes went to my party, on it’s own, 49.8%. 2.8 million votes, record. 600,000 more than last time, after eight years in office. 1.7 million more than the second placed party. 353,000 more than all other parties in the Parliament together. So, I really consider the constant allegations and accusations on my country as an insult towards the people of Hungary because, for the third continuous time, they decided this way.

Third continuous time we got constitutional majority and we have not won it on the Lottery, that was on fair, free and democratic elections. And we really expect international public, media, Politicians to respect the decision of the people of Hungary, as we respect the decision of the British, for example, when it’s about Brexit and we never comment on the election outcomes of other countries, because it’s well above our payroll. So, I’m very happy that I could present you our ideas, Mr President, in front of such a distinguished audience, I really do appreciate this opportunity. I’m open for questions, and I served six years as a spokesman, so I’m pretty happy with the tough situations, as well, Thank you very much for your kind attention [applause].

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Thank you. Thank you very much, Foreign Minister. Thanks for laying out your viewpoints, I think, clearly, robustly. It’ll give an opportunity, I think, as you said, for a proper conversation and set of questions from our members and guests here today and as you said, you volunteered as a former spokesman, you’re happy to take whatever comes your way. Let me just – while people are gathering their thoughts, just throw in one question that popped out to me, from your remarks, in particular, and then I’ll take questions, and we’ll let people raise their hands.

Right at the beginning you said, you know, “We need a debate about the future of Europe, but it gets emotional very quickly,” yeah, “and we need to keep it rational.” I think anyone looking at the debate coming from Hungary from the outside would say that it’s the Fidesz Government that makes it emotional very quickly, not the outside world. The waves of migrants, which are no longer coming, but certainly, in the context of the election that was just held, was certainly described as still coming. The idea that there are internal fifth column, whether it’s Soros group or whatever, that’s there to undermine Hungary, the end of Christianity when, certainly in Central and Eastern Europe, you know, it’s an absolute minority, and even across the whole of the EU, it remains probably under 10%. I mean, the language and the emotion, it would strike many people looking from the outside, actually comes from inside Hungary, not from the rest of the EU. So, how does that play out? You know, who’s being emotional here?

Péter Szijjártó

Okay, just give you one story there. I should go back to answer, or I should stay here?

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Oh, no, no, stay here. We’ll have a…

Péter Szijjártó

I’ll stay, okay. Yeah, and I just don’t want to show impoliteness.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

No, no, perfect from here.

Péter Szijjártó

Okay, if it’s fine this way.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Yeah, yeah.

Péter Szijjártó

So, you know, I’ve been a part of the Foreign Affairs Council for almost four years now and whenever I speak on live, the mainstream, which happens quite some time, then, until November 2016, I was always stigmatised as a Putinist. From November 2016 onwards, I have the refreshing experience to be able to choose whether I’m stigmatised as a Putinist or a Trumpist. So, I think we should get rid of this dogmatic way of thinking and debating with each other.

I think, you know, Hungary is not an exception, when it comes to the issue what is the main issue of national elections currently in Europe? Because if I just recall my memories from the Austrian election or from the very recent Italian one, and then the Hungarian, they were different, but there was one common point, migration was very high on the agenda, migration was the number one issue. And the way parties differentiated themselves from each other was basically, the approach towards migration, who is pro-migration, who is anti-migration, and you see that in the – in Austrian parties, with a very clear anti-migration agenda have won.

In Italy, parties, with a very clear anti-migration agenda, have won. In Hungary, the Government, with a very clear anti-migration agenda, has won and whether this debate is, you know, emotional or not, yes you might be right, but, you know, this is because of personal experience in Hungary. In 2015, we had 400,000 illegal migrants marching through the country, and that was an experience we never want to have again. Why? Because, you know, we were not actually ready, and we were very much surprised by the fact that there’s an influx of people coming to our country, without a willingness to respect our rules, regulations, without respecting the way we live, occupying railway stations, and blocking motorways, attacking Police, rejecting co-operation with local authorities, you know, demanding that they want to be taken to Germany. And my question is, for what and based on what? These people came to Hungary from peaceful countries, either from Serbia or from Croatia. My question is, what is the reason to allow anyone to violate a border between two peaceful countries? What is the reason for anyone to violate the border between Serbia and Hungary or Croatia to Hungary? These are two peaceful countries, and free all together. Free countries with no war. Countries where there’s no-one’s life is in danger, so, you know – and the answer was, because these people wanted to go to Germany, but come on, is that really a fundamental human right to go to Germany? No, I don’t think so. I don’t find it in any international regulations.

So, yes, yes, migration issue is still very high on the agenda in Hungary because of the fact that the European Union was still not able to put together a proper policy on that because we want to get rid of this policy of European Union, which can be very easily translated as an invitation. We want European Union to speak clearly on that and make it very clear that entering the territory of European Union is only possible in a legal way, and we will not let any illegal migrants enter the territory of European Union, that should be said and regain the ability to control the external border, that’s what we have done. That’s what we have done.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Is there a – sorry, just one more point to stay on the thing.

Péter Szijjártó

Yeah, yeah, okay.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Is there an irony in the fact that, as you said, you want to move to a position where there is simply one – Dublin 2, this idea that the countries that are the original recipients of refugees and immigrants have to process them and keep them, but the idea that the EU should move to a position where maybe there’s an EU process of registering, you know, so you create a collective responsibility for any refugees or immigrants who come. That’s going to create, in a way, a much deeper form of European integration than exists currently, a much less Sovereigntist approach and yet, this seems to be the idea being promoted by the new Italian Government and I think supported by Hungarian Government. How would that work, if you see what I’m saying? That’s – in a way, you’re going to be ceding sovereignty over your borders to an EU process of adjusting who’s coming in and who isn’t. Or would you not be?

Péter Szijjártó

No, we have a proposal and that’s maybe – this is the best way I can answer your question to put forward our proposal, which is complex, by the way. The number one issue must be regaining the ability to protect our external border and, you know, don’t play the words, don’t play with words. Yes, it is possible to protect the maritime border, Australia has proved that. Australia has a little bit longer maritime border than we do have in the Mediterranean and they made it. And Minister Salvini made the decision that he didn’t allow the ships full of illegal migrants to enter the – any port of Italy, and I think it’s a gamechanger in a positive way, it’s a gamechanger because that has shown that yes, it is possible to protect ourselves on the Mediterranean as well. So, this is number one, protection of external border.

Number two, we have to bring help where it is needed. We have to bring help where it is needed. We give financial support to communities in the Middle East, for example. We just signed a co-operation agreement with Germany to ensure water treatment supply, water treatment assistance to countries, which have been taking care of refugees already, because our position is – why we say bring help where it is needed, because our position is that it is not a fundamental human right to pick a country where you would like to live in and go there, but it is a fundamental human right to have a safe life in your home, or if it’s not possible, to have a safe life in the closest possible place. So, we think that we should guarantee that those people who have to escape from their homes, can stay as close to their homes as it is just possible, so when the conflicts are over they can return. That’s why we support robust financial assistance programmes not only for Turkey, but for Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq as well, because these countries have been taking care of refugees. Because, let’s be honest towards each other, how many of the migrants you think will return to their homes from Europe after the crisis are over, based on that they come here? So, you know, we have to bring help where it is needed, and we have to stick the funding, our European funding or development policies to very strict conditionality. So, if we give money, as this financial assistance, development funds, for countries in Africa, Middle East, wherever, we have to make it very clear that we have expectations.

If you get the money, then deliver, carry out all those reforms, which will end up in getting rid of the reasons why people are escaping from your country. Be them political, defence or economic measures, you know? So, this is our approach, because the current EU policy is an invitation, and why do we encourage people to take the life risk? Why do we encourage people to pay to the smugglers? Why do we tell them or whisper them that however you come to Europe, at the end, you will be received? I don’t think it’s a good policy.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Yeah, and we see Germany, at the moment, with a repatriation policy proves very difficult as well, once people are in. Right, we’re going to have lots of questions. So, what I’m going to do, a little exception here, but I’m going to take, sort of, three at a go, but I will keep a list. You’ll have an opportunity to answer them all, but I just think that way I’ll get a much better mix. So, the gentleman over there, I’m going to take two back there and then come round the front. Yeah?

Alex Folkes

Thank you. My name’s Alex Folkes.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

If you just introduce yourself, yeah.

Alex Folkes

I’m a Member of this organisation and I’ve been around in politics long enough to remember when Fidesz was a Liberal party. Could I ask about a contradiction, Foreign Minister, in what you said earlier? Your final point was about the need for the EU to expand and you talked about the Western Balkans, and at least two of the countries that are looking to accede to the EU in the Western Balkan areas, are majority Muslim countries. And yet, you also said that – about the need to, in your words, “Protect Europe’s Christian heritage,” something I don’t believe exists, but that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. Could I ask how you anticipate being received in the Western Balkan region, with your invitation to join the EU or your aim to join the EU, when you make comments, which will be perceived as offensive by those countries?

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Okay, that’s number one. Take two, yeah, exactly, those two there next to each other, yeah, and then I’ll – and hopefully, we’ll have plenty of time. We’ve got plenty of time.

Jonathan Eyal

Jonathan Eyal from the Royal United Services Institute. Your Prime Minister made a speech in memory of Helmut Kohl only recently and he said that “The European Commission has abandoned its role as an impartial administrator of the treaties and that the next Commission must be a very different Commission from this one.” In what way must it be different and is this a position that is shared by the other V4?

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Right, very specific. Good question, and one more here, yeah.

Denis MacShane

Thank you, Denis MacShane, former Europe and Balkans Minister, just currently writing a book on the Western Balkans, and I’d very much welcomed, Minister, your support for enlargement, and I completely agree with the points you made. But as a technical point, I just wonder if Hungary can play a role, because one of the difficulties is particularly on the question of Kosovo, as you will well know, and the argument used not to recognise Kosovo by Slovakia and Romania is Hungarian irredentism. I don’t use that word negatively, you know the problems, as well as I do. Is there anything Hungary can do, as it were, to soften that, to remove that as a, kind of, a scratchy, difficult, grating point, in the next two or three years, four years to come, particularly on the Kosovo/Serbia issue?

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Okay, so let’s just start there. A couple of questions, taking enlargement from different angles, and then a very specific one about the role of the European Commission.

Péter Szijjártó

So, when it comes to the Western Balkans, you know, we had historic tensions and maybe I combined a little bit these two questions about Serbia/Kosovo and the Western Balkans and then, if you have any further – if I have any further views, I do it one-by-one.

So, when it comes to Serbia, we had terrible historic tensions with them, because of history, and then, the current President, serving as Prime Minister before, and our Prime Minister, made enormous efforts, in order to come to a peaceful period of time. And currently, I can tell you, that the widest dimension of rights ensured for a Hungarian minority is provided by Serbia, putting into consideration all of our neighbours, including the EU member states. So, the most rights given to our minority is given by Serbia. Putting even into consideration that we are among those countries, who recognise Kosovo, but that never caused a tension in our bilateral relationship, and here I would like to refer to the relationship with other neighbouring countries of ours. So, because of history, we have, you know, Hungarian minorities in all neighbouring countries of ours, and with Slovakia that caused again, serious tensions, but then, we came together, interestingly enough, a characteristically Christian Democratic Government and a characteristically, I’d say Central or Social Democratic Government, came together and said, “Look, we should understand that together, we definitely will be stronger,” so let’s make a box full of unresolved issues on the minority side. And don’t put it as a precondition to enhance our co-operation on other fields of life, to overcome these serious issues, we don’t deny that they are there, we don’t forget about them, they are there. But we change tactics and we built common success stories, cross-border co-operation, building bridges verbally and not – I mean verbally as well, infrastructure projects, energy projects. Now Slovakia is the number three trading partner of ours, you know? And from time-to-time, as we have built common success stories, they are good platforms to take one serious issue from the box and resolve it, another one and resolve it. But don’t put it as a precondition to solve all unresolved issues, of minority issues, but really, build common success stories. So, that worked with Slovakia.

And that is about to work with Romania as well, putting into consideration that Ukraine made a historic achievement, as they passed a law in the Ukraine and Radovich violates seriously, the rights of minorities, they – it ended up in a situation, which was totally unimaginable, even a couple of months ago, that Hungary and Romania would be on the same side of a minority issue, you know? And we fight shoulder-to-shoulder in favour of minorities, that was totally unimaginable. So, the expression you said here, I don’t even want to echo that because that’s a stupid allegation against us and a serious insult. I have to tell you that we made enormous efforts to build common success stories with our neighbours, in order to overcome historic tensions.

From the perspective of the Western Balkans, regarding the Muslim faith, you know, I don’t think that I would commit an offence against anyone, if I speak about the necessity to protect our Christian values. And I respect your position that you say that we don’t have Christian heritage, I think we do. And it’s not a problem because I mean, this is a part of cultural debate that we think different things about the same issues. I’m coming from a country, which considers itself as a Christian country, and I have to tell you, loudly, that we are proud of it, and I will be never shy to say that, and regardless of any, kind of, development in Europe, we will be always proud of being a Christian country. Why shouldn’t we? Why shouldn’t we? But being a Christian, does not mean anti-something else, and I don’t think that I put an offence on representatives of other beliefs, just because I think that the Christian heritage should be preserved, because I’m pretty sure that our Muslim friends are doing a lot, in order to preserve their heritage as well. Fine, but don’t force us to forget about our own heritage. And I think it would be great if countries from the Western Balkans could come to the European Union, as soon as possible and, you know, the feeling you try to portray here is, somehow not shared by my friends, namely the Foreign Minister of Albania or the Foreign Minister of Bosnia, they never raise me such, kind of, issues you raise to me here. They never complain, why I speak in favour of the Christians, and I rather trust them, how they feel, you know.

And my question about the Commission…

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Alright.

Péter Szijjártó

…sorry?

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Yes, please.

Péter Szijjártó

I put here forward the track record of the Commission, as we see it. We have suffered many accusations, in the last years, under the term of this Commission, very unbalanced, very biased, you know, based on the opinion of some NGOs, without taking care of reality, you know? European Commission does not have the task to make politics. They have the task to be a, how you say, guard of the treaties. But politics will be made by the member states, by the European Council. It’s absolutely not the task of the President of the European Commission to gather the member states to discuss issues. There’s the European Council for that.

You know, it was, kind of, creating an uncertain situation that during the time that the President of the Council of – but the President of the European Council was in Budapest, then the European Commission or the Head of the Commission come in the meeting for the member states. So, I think this, kind of, hidden or sometimes not very hidden way of changing the treaties is simply against the rules and procedures of the European Union and no institute, no institution of the European Union should go beyond its limits put forward in the treaties.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

If I remember my European Union integration studies correctly, I think the Commission is meant to be the Executive.

Péter Szijjártó

Yes.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

And the Council is the Legislature and obviously, the Parliament then advises, so I mean, while I might have some sympathy with your view on how far the European Commission goes or doesn’t, surely, it’s not exceeding its mandate to try to play that executive role of agenda setting? That’s what it was in the treaties, designed to do.

Péter Szijjártó

Okay, then there we have a debate for sure.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Okay, certainly. And I’m just going to add one point because I think – I wanted to come in earlier but, when you said that in a way, coming from a country that’s proud of being Christian, there’s nothing – you know, why should we be criticised for asking it to remain Christian, but again, my knowledge of Christianity is it’s welcoming of charity, welcoming of inclusion, welcoming of minorities, that is what Christianity is about. Christianity is not exclusive in that sense. Now, you know, if one was going to become a majority country, I could imagine you could have a identity debate about that, but if it’s the question of having, you know, a few 1,000, which I think the case is in Hungary’s, you know, quotas, not that quotas are a good thing, but the numbers per se are surely, not a threat to Hungary’s identity and Christianity, if that is the identity, is about charity and helping people in need or even welcoming people who are not in need. How is that un-Christian?

Péter Szijjártó

That’s why we bring help where it is needed. So, that’s why we usually receive Bishops coming from the Middle East region. You know, they beg, they beg us not to encourage their people to leave their homes. They always ask us to give support in order to send for their communities wherever they live. That’s why we pay for, for example, the medical costs of hospitals in Iraq. That’s why we pay for reconstructing torn down houses for the Christian communities in the Middle East. That’s why we give scholarships for 100s of students coming from war-torn areas, in order to be well educated, get good skills and experience and then go back and help their communities to revitalise. That’s why we bring our water treatment facilities where the refugees are. That’s why we finance building schools in the Middle East.

We take our share, but please, do not portray the situation in a way that the only form of solidarity is whether you align with the quota system or not, whether you give up your solidarity in making the decision whom you allow to come to your country or not. Because if you never accept Brussels, Geneva, New York, anyone to make a decision instead of the Hungarian authorities, whom we allow to come to our country, but we always bring help where it is needed. We just recently gave 8.75 million euros, altogether with the other three Visegrád countries, altogether it’s 35 million, to help an Italian project to protect the Southern Border of Libya, for example. So, we are always there when – and, you know, we spent one billion euros on protecting our border, one billion euros on our own, in order to comply with the Schengen obligations. We could have spent it on boosting our national economy or creating new jobs, but we spent it on fulfilling the Schengen obligations of ours and why don’t we take this into consideration as a form of solidarity as well? Who decides upon that?

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

All fair points. Lots of hands going up. Right, there are two in the corner there, and this gentleman here has been waiting very kindly, and I’ll then get to this next group. Yeah?

Patrick Curry

Thank you. Sorry, is it on? Patrick Curry, a Chatham House Member. Minister, you’ve been extolling the virtues of defending one’s own culture and I’d like to invite you for a speculation on the inevitable question of Brexit. Do you actually think that the fact that there has been massive emigration from the Visegrád countries into this country has played any role in the Brexit discussion or in the Brexit decision, rather? And do you perhaps think, based on your latest argument, that there might even have been a case for financial transfers from Britain to the Visegrád states for people from those states to remain at home?

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Not – okay, not to leave, okay. Exactly, microphone front, thanks.

Richard Danyo

Richard Danyo, Chatham House Member. I thoroughly agree with your insistence upon the importance of heritage, but – and I would pay tribute to the cultural contributions of Hungarians, over many centuries, to the heritage of Europe, and I’m slightly surprised by your somewhat partial account of Hungarian heritage, not mentioning the Magyars or the Huns or the Jews, three groups of people who were without a home and who came to Hungary for that reason.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Okay, thank you. Question here at the front?

Peter Price

Peter Price, former Member of the European Parliament. I want to ask about your stance on the Multi-Annual Financial Framework. You’ve outlined to us the economic success of Hungary, over the last decade, through the tax and other policies of your Government and through the investment from Western European countries. Is the logic of the success that you’ve outlined, that Hungary should now receive a lesser proportion of the Multi-Annual Financial Framework, and should a proportion be set aside for the accession before 2007 – 2027, of countries from the Western Balkans?

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Okay, let’s take that little group there and then I’m – we might go five minutes over, if people are alright, because then we’ll just have time for a last little group, as people have been asking there.

Péter Szijjártó

Shall I go ahead?

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Yes, please, take these yeah, ‘cause I think they’re all quite broad.

Péter Szijjártó

Actually, the first question could be taken into consideration as a serious insult against the people of the four Visegrád countries. Not personally, because I’m a Politician, so you can tell me anything, but against the people, against the people of the Visegrád countries. How can you confuse aggressive, illegal migration and flows of people who violate borders, attack Policemen, occupy open spaces, openly disrespect regulations, with people who live with the opportunity of one of the freedoms, one of the four freedoms of the European Union, coming here peacefully, getting permission, not tearing down a fence, not violating your border, not behaving aggressively against your Policemen, but coming here peacefully, asking for permission, getting that, based on one of the four freedoms of the European Union, and work here and contribute to the success of this country? I mean, it’s confusing, that is a serious insult. Because these people did not come here illegally and did not come here aggressively and, you know, I’m a little bit fed up with the other comparison, which has not been put here forward, but I put it forward, which is a confusion between the 1956 and the current illegal migration wave. Because, you know, there was a revolution killed in 1956 in Hungary, after which many people had to escape, but you know what they have done? They went to the first safe country, Austria, and they stayed in refugee camps for weeks, months or even years, and they waited there peacefully, respecting the regulations, not behaving aggressively for the Western European and North American countries or Austria, to decide whether they’re going to be received or not. And gradually, according to the willingness and readiness and openness and decisions of the countries of the Western Hemisphere, they left Austria. Then, they understood that there’s an opportunity. They were not violating borders, not going across five, six, seven peaceful countries, just because they wanted to get somewhere, so…

And when it comes to the Brexit, you know, I think we were the only country, which became part of the campaign here, as we had a whole page advertisement in the – was it the Daily Mail, Ambassador, right? In the Daily Mail, where we said that we leave it up to you, we will leave it to you, this is your country, your decision, but we would be proud or honoured to stand together with you, as part of a strong European Union. Well, we don’t know whether it helped or not, but the outcome was totally – was different, compared to the European expectations, for sure. So, this is about Hungarians and Brexit. And when it comes to the Jewish community, if I understood correctly your question sir, you know, we are proud of the Jewish community in Hungary.

We have the biggest Jewish community of Central Europe, the biggest one. It’s very telling that we have the biggest synagogue of Europe and one of the biggest Catholic cathedrals of Europe, in walking distance. That shows very clearly the way we live together in Hungary, peacefully, on the basis of mutual respect. We have announced zero tolerance against anti-Semitism in Hungary, zero tolerance. If you didn’t die in the Holocaust, according to the penal code, you must – you can be sent into prison.

We have introduced a programme, in a framework of which we do not only reconstruct synagogues in Hungary, but in the neighbouring countries as well, using Hungary budget money. And it was a marvellous occasion that the old synagogue of Subotica, which is called in Serbia Subotica, in Hungarian Szabadka, was reconstructed, financed by Hungary and the inauguration ceremony was in the presence of the Hungarian Prime Minister and the Serbian President, on the – in the territory of Serbia, financed by Hungary. And I think we have to be very proud of our track record, when it comes to fight against anti-Semitism. You know, it’s not Budapest, where if you walk around Verecke, you will be beaten up, that’s another European capital.

It’s not Budapest, where, if you are an old lady, a Jewish lady, living alone in your flat and you’re going to be robbed and burned as well, right? It’s not Budapest. Please come to Budapest. You will see the renaissance of the Jewish culture, the events of theirs, very popular, and, you know, no reason for Guards with weapons on a Jewish event. And you know what? Prime Minister Netanyahu was in Budapest last year, first visit of an Israeli Prime Minister since the transition.

A couple of weeks ago, we had a common event in Washington, organised together by the Israeli Embassy and the Hungarian Embassy and the Israeli Ambassador to DC said it very clearly that in Budapest, it’s good to be a part of the Jewish community and if the Israeli Prime Minister comes there, the Ambassador to DC says that. Why are we under constant accusation of anti-Semitism? I simply don’t understand that. So, you can be sure, sir, that we are very proud of the Jewish community living in Hungary, which, once again, I would like to underline, the biggest central European Jewish community.

Now, when it comes to the Multi-Annual Financial Framework, our position is clear, yes, the MFF should reflect the willingness of ours to enlarge the European Union. Yes, there should be money allocated for the enlargement process, and for the hopeful situation that one or two of the Western Balkan countries will become Members of the European Union, even before the conclusion of the next MFF. And when it comes to the Visegrád countries, you know, I think it’s more than likely that this is going to be the last occasion when we negotiate about MFF as countries being not the beneficiary, if this is the right expression, right?

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Yeah.

Péter Szijjártó

So, it’s more than likely that when we negotiate, when we renegotiate about the next MFF, we will negotiate as net payers, because if you look at the economy dynamism in V4, it’s almost obvious, but for sure, more than likely that we’re going to be next contributors during the next talks.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Right, let’s take our last little group of questions, I’m sorry.

Péter Szijjártó

And sorry, just – can I say just the one last – sorry, sorry, just one last sentence. You know, as the size of European Union is shrinking, we just simply don’t understand why we have to spend more on administration of the European Union, in parenthesis.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

It’s ‘cause you’re losing all those great British Civil Servants, that’s what’s going on. There’s a lady waiting there. Exactly, yeah, there’s a microphone there, and then, I’m going to take these two here, ‘cause they were first and the gentleman at the back. I’m going to take four. I’m sorry, I’ve got to go with the hands I saw first. Yeah, please, Gisela.

Gisela Stuart

Gisela Stuart. Just a practical question, as you expect to become a net contributor, presumably, that would also mean that you’d be meeting the convergence criteria and therefore, could possibly fall under the obligation to join the euro. Any thoughts?

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Thank you. Okay, very specific. There were two questions here. Sorry, yeah, and a question at the back, I’ll get to you, sir, yeah. You two, go on, yeah.

Phillip Blond

Both of us?

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

You were both there together.

Phillip Blond

Thank you. Phillip Blond from ResPublica. I very much welcome your defence of the role of Christianity in Europe, but I think you underplay it somewhat. Because if you actually look at the governing principle of the West it’s been liberalism, but the type of extreme liberalism we now have, is now the main driver of instability. It leads to massive economic concentration, monopoly, oligarchical models and it leads to extreme forms of social liberalism that are all about erasing identity, even at the most intimate and crucial levels, where you can have men self-identifying as women and invading female space.

So, what we see across Europe is that as genuinely, as your Prime Minister has talked about, a new post-liberal reality emerging, that could easily, I think, claim support of at least a third of most populations in Europe. But unfortunately, when you and the Poles talk about Christianity, it’s always along a nationalist basis and that’s what I find confusing, because if you look at the last time Christian democracy really influenced Europe, it was internationalists. It’s the work of Rüpke, [inaudible – 64:32] creating a social market economy, doctrines of subsidiarity, it was a global internationalist view that won in Europe. So, what I would ask is, why reduce Christianity to a nationalist idiom? Surely, your chance is now is actually to create this Christian democracy at the universal level, because that is what Christianity is, it’s never reduceable to simple nationalisms and I feel that’s the political own goal that you’re constantly scoring.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Okay, microphone in front of you? There’s two more.

Péter Szijjártó

Okay, no problem.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

And I’ll add one on, yeah.

John Birch

My name is John Birch. I’m a former British Ambassador to Hungary. The Central European University, founded by the Jewish American Hungarian Philanthropist has brought greater claim to Hungary, has attracted scholars from all over Europe, in fact from all over the world. Why is it that your Government is trying to close down this university and why is the Government not condemning the vilification of George Soros?

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Right at the back there. Sorry for everyone else who’s wanted to come in, but I’m sure we could go on all evening here.

Gabriel Partos

Yes, I’m Gabriel Partos, from The Economist Intelligence Unit, and Mr Szijjártó, in the concluding remarks of your presentation, you pointed out that large sections of the Western media have been hostile to your Government and then you also, rightly pointed out that your party has won three consecutive electoral victories, so what I was wondering is, what level of criticism do you find is – do you consider appropriate or permissible, on the part of the media, or indeed, on the part of European institutions, such as the European Commission, which you’ve criticised, or the European Parliament, or indeed, the European Court of Justice?

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Okay, so a little group there and I’ve got one closing question. The Minister’s alright a little bit for another five minutes and I hope you’re okay, because I think this is a great conversation and I’ve had to – not been able to take, you know, some questions, so you keep going.

Péter Szijjártó

I was in the BBC today, so no surprise. Okay, so when it comes to the Eurozone issues, I have to tell you that in our constitution, it says that the official currency of the country is forint and in order to change that you need a two-third majority. When it comes to the post-national and post-Christian era, what you speak about that, what you have spoken about, sorry, you know, we don’t want Europe to be turned into a post-national and post-Christian era. Because we challenge those thoughts, which one of them was expressed here already and during the first round of questions that we have no Christian heritage or Christian tradition. Yes, we think we do. I mean, we still want to put effort in remaining in a period, which is Christian and based on nations, so we believe in a strong EU, based on strong member states, as I have told you, and I agree with you, that Christianity should not know borders, according to nations.

Christianity is much more a general issue and, you know, but I’m coming from a small country, so I should not have the ambition to put an influence, in this regard, on the wider context. It’s enough to have the ambition to build a Christian democracy in Hungary, and we are very happy that we have allies and friends who think the similar way like the Polish, obviously, and you see that there are others as well. Maybe more and more I would believe who base their position on Christian values as, we are very happy, for example, with some approaches in the States, when they speak about the necessity to protect the Christian communities, when they speak the necessity to protect Christian values, we have more and more allies from the United States, in this regard as well, which had not been the case before November 2016, for sure.

Now, when it comes to a very specific issue of the university, I think it’s very important to stick to the facts, and that might combine these two questions. So, like this one, saying that Hungary University would like to shut down or close the University of George Soros. No, we don’t want to do so. You say that the university was founded by Soros, who is a Jewish person. I don’t think we should take into consideration the religion of any other persons, with whom we are having a debate. We don’t have a debate with George Soros because he would be a Jewish person. We have a debate with George Soros, based on what he thinks about the future of Europe.

In this regard, we don’t care about his religion. We have an open debate with him. We have an open debate with him on the vision how Europe should go forward, but come on, this is a matter of democracy. Why should we agree with him? He don’t think – he doesn’t think that the phenomenon of nation states, borders, must be kept in a way. Yes, we think it should and we have many differences, many differences. It’s an open debate and, you know, if you become part of a political discussion, by intention, then you have to count with the consequences that the counter-arguments will be put on the table as well, and if you finance organisations to take part in a campaign, and if you have an open goal to fire a Government in a country, then you have to count with the consequences that yes, maybe the incumbent Government will get in the debate with you.

I don’t know why we should not have a debate with influential persons who have different opinions about the future of our own country, than we do? And yes, many NGOs financed by him became active participants of the election campaign in Hungary. He made open statements that he thought it would be good, it would be desirable to fire the Government. But if you enter – if you become an actor of an open political discussion, you have to count with the consequences that there will be counter-arguments on the table. But from that, it’s totally independent what goes on with the regulation of higher education, because what the higher education law says in Hungary is the following, you can only issue a diploma of another country if you have registered education activity there.

Do you think it’s impossible to perform accordingly? ‘Cause I don’t. If it was impossible, then I wouldn’t have signed the agreement with the other American university, operating in Hungary, called McDaniel College from Maryland. We have agreed the – we have signed the agreement with them how to operate further, because they have a school back in the United States, they have education programme in the United States, so yes, they are allowed to issue a diploma of the United – registered in the United States in Hungary. So, if the CEU has a school in the United States, which it does not yet, they will be allowed to issue the diploma, registered in the United States in Hungary.

They have a Hungarian university registered in Hungary, issuing Hungarian diploma. No problem with their operation. They have the registration, they have the approval, they operate, according to the standards and laws. So please, why do you say that we want to close their institute? Why do you say that? No, we don’t want to do so. We just want to keep level playing fields. If you don’t have a school in the US, don’t issue a diploma of the United States, then why don’t you issue a diploma of Australia? It’s the same, you don’t have a school there either. So, we have more than 20 foreign-based universities in the country and you hear only one to complain about this regulation. Why? Maybe – sorry, maybe because they are interested in a political scandal instead of solution. Why didn’t you hear McDaniel College complaining about that? Because they have a school in US, they have a school in Hungary, so they issue two diplomas. CEU just has a school in Hungary, why should they issue two diplomas? Then why not three or four or five or six, you know?

So – and then, comes to your question, what we consider as appropriate criticism, you know, and this is a good example. It has been stated, along the international media, that the Hungarian Government is violating freedom of academia because they close that very famous, very well-known University of George Soros. No, and no-one came to us and ask, how it is possible that there’s a school in Hungary, which doesn’t have education activities in US and issues a diploma of the United States? Why didn’t you write the truth, in this regard, and why did you write that Hungary wants to shut down a university by violating the freedom of academia? So, this kind or I was there, and it’s a unique experience, I have to tell you about that.

I was there in the LIBE Committee of the European Parliament. You’re a Member of Parliament, you must remember that, Excellency, so – and there, you know, there was a report put forward about Hungary and I was looking at it, saying, no media freedom. And my question is, how it comes that if you open the internet, I mean, Hungarian sites if – you know, I’m in advantage because I can read what is written there, and a very complicated language. So, it’s a massive majority for the opposition approach there, massive criticism against the Government.

Regarding the national televisions, the most popular, way most watched television is a very heavily anti-Government television. Then it is stated there that we have serious anti-Semitic problems in Hungary, after the track record I put forward here. Putting the election outcome into question, come on, 70% turnout. 1.7 million votes more than the second place, and it’s still – you know, so what we really ask for is a debate, based on facts. And we debate as long as you want, based on facts, but debating perceptions, debating lies, debating unbalanced reports from five NGOs out of the 60,000, which exist in Hungary, this is something that is, you know, very complicated to get along with. But, you know, we understand, we’ve been in politics for a long time, we understand that this is just a desire, from our perspective, and you can be sure that we will get along with this approach as well.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

So, just to close-up and we’ve gone over, but you can see people are staying here ‘cause this is a – obviously, an interesting and serious discussion. I mean, from my impression, I’m not an expert on Central and Eastern Europe, but there is one element at the heart of the suspicion that’s coming in and the questions that you get here, which is that your Prime Minister has proudly announced that he wants to create an illiberal democracy. And there’s one other set of countries that aspire to an illiberal democracy and in Russia, the idea of majoritarianism, which is slowly then entrenched, through gradual control of the media, it might not be the case if it’s today, but I think I’m right in saying, the Hungarian Government’s been involved in trying to encourage some similar type of positions in Slovenia, and some other media organisations there that take a more Breitbartish approach, should we say, to the world. So, the question is, what does your Prime Minister mean by an illiberal democracy, because that phrase, it strikes me, and I would put forward, is at the heart of the suspicion that you’re dealing with?

Péter Szijjártó

Yeah, yeah, right.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Because the way we interpret it is in one direction only, which, as I said is, something that does challenge what have been European values, since the Second World War and the terrible times that we had there, where we saw what majoritarianism led to, and the theories that that – it’s an easy genie to let out of the bottle and that your Prime Minister is actually encouraging that genie out of the bottle, ‘cause it serves him well. So, close-up with that ‘cause I think that would answer the big questions here.

Péter Szijjártó

Yeah, yeah. Sure, sure, sure, although I’m not quite sure that we’ll end up in a friendly context, but what I can tell you is the following. That we might agree that if you quote anyone, especially Prime Minister, then you quote what he really said and not quote just pushing – putting two, three words on the table. What he said – he said was the following, that we don’t like the approach. We are fed up, and so on and so forth, that if there’s a country where the election is not won by the liberals, that is considered not to be a democracy anymore, that’s what he said.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Okay.

Péter Szijjártó

And this is something that we don’t accept. It can be a democracy if not the liberals win. That’s what he said.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

And so, therefore, providing once the non-liberals win, to use your phrase…

Péter Szijjártó

Like us.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

…like yourselves…

Péter Szijjártó

Why shouldn’t it be a democracy?

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Absolutely, it can still be a democracy. So then, the key element remains the checks and balances, which include a free media.

Péter Szijjártó

Of course.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

So, you’re absolutely committed to non – newspapers that might have 97% Government funding, as there is one or two cases of such, where some business people, who are able to get good deals, end up having control over certain media organisations, that has an echo of the Russian approach to democracy. There’s two styles of democracy.

Péter Szijjártó

Sorry, is that the fact or a perception what you have put forward here?

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

I’m quoting simply off what I thought was a well-resourced and well-researched article of the New York Times, which quoted…

Péter Szijjártó

Okay.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

…a number of peoples, and you could say the New York Times…

Péter Szijjártó

Great, great.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

…makes it respected.

Péter Szijjártó

Very balanced source you quoted here.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

But it’s a source, but if it’s an echo…

Péter Szijjártó

But can you tell me – can you give me the…

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

…Mr [inaudible – 79:19]…

Péter Szijjártó

Can you – okay, but that’s a serious accusation again. Serious accusation again. Can you give me the concrete issue?

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

The concrete issue would be that you have people involved heavily in business, who are linked to Government contracts, who are therefore playing majority positions or playing majority positions in media organisations, which are then taking the Government line.

Péter Szijjártó

So, you say that there are people or businesses in Hungary, which win, how you said, Government contracts or whatever…

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Well, no, are just involved in them.

Péter Szijjártó

…just because being owners of media outlets, that’s what you say?

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

No, I said they have then, involvement in media outlets as well.

Péter Szijjártó

But…

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Which maybe doesn’t matter, but these are – when you say illiberal democracy, there is a – or the democracy that an illiberal party wins…

Péter Szijjártó

But then you argue against private ownership in media or you argue against companies taking part in public procurement, who own media or – sorry, and I don’t get the perception…

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

No, I’m more interested in the media…

Péter Szijjártó

…because New York Times writes that there’s no freedom…

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Yeah, I’m more interested in that.

Péter Szijjártó

…of media in Hungary. Come on.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

No, I didn’t say that.

Péter Szijjártó

This is again, the perception…

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Yeah.

Péter Szijjártó

This is again the perception, which is very complicated to address…

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Yeah.

Péter Szijjártó

…because there’s no concrete issue behind. I’m telling you…

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

It’s the ownership of media…

Péter Szijjártó

…I’m telling you…

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

…not the contracts…

Péter Szijjártó

…please, but just…

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

…the ownership of media.

Péter Szijjártó

…please, ask someone who speaks Hungarian…

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Yeah.

Péter Szijjártó

…and pick five out of the Hungarian news sites. Have a look at the six national television networks.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Yeah.

Péter Szijjártó

Have a look at the newspapers and at the end of the day, please make your assessment on your own, with your own eyes and own mindset, whether there’s a Government, a pro-Government or anti-Government majority in the Hungarian media. Please, try it out and then we can come back to this conversation.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

I think our job, as always, and I think you’ve heard from our…

Péter Szijjártó

Study Hungarian. Study Hungarian.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

We probably should study Hungarian, but I think, and we maybe get overambitious and arrogant ‘cause we speak the English language, which is so ubiquitous, but what I would say is that we’ve had the opportunity and you’ve taken the time, which we greatly appreciate, to answer a lot of questions.

Péter Szijjártó

It’s my honour. My honour.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

And our job here, and I appreciate our members staying so long, is to throw the tough questions and for you to answer them. And as you said, you’ve had the experience to be able to do it and I think you’ve laid the position forward very clearly. Our members are able to go away from here, I think much better informed than they arrived and so, we appreciate you very much taking the time to do this. Thank you very much for staying so long and please, a strong hand for the Foreign Minister of Hungary, Mr Szijjártó [applause].

Péter Szijjártó

Thank you for the invitation.

Dr Robin Niblett CMG

Well done.