“We stand before a challenge that is nothing less than the gate of the realization of a deliberate, left-wing spiritual construct that wants to put the nation-states of Europe in parenthesis. If they can no longer prevail over Christianity and nation-state identity and the values and responsibility arising from that in the world of traditional political struggle, then they wish to do away with it on an ethnic basis. That is the sorry truth. A betrayal is taking place, dear ladies and gentlemen. They have betrayed Europe, and if we do not stand up for it, then they are going to take this Europe from us”. – Viktor Orbân, Hungarian Prime Minister
The following is a rough translation of the speech delivered by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán on Friday, October 30th. It is based on the full version of the speech published by mandiner.hu.
In the speech Orbán recounts how, in the wake of the Socialist victory in 1994, Fidesz joined forces with the remnants of MDF and the Christian Democratic Peoples Party in 1996 to create a nationalist, Christian, conservative political alliance that was to come to power two years later. Prior to that time, Fidesz had been a liberal party. Orbán also trumpets the fact that the Hungarian Constitutional Court is now controlled by a “conservative, national, Christian Democratic majority” responsible for enforcing “the first written, democratic constitution of the Hungarian nation”.
The speech was delivered at a gathering organized by the Association of Christian Intelligentsia, the Association of Hungarian Civic Cooperation, and the Batthyány Circle of Professors. Minister of Human Resources Zoltán Balog serves as the current president of the Association of Hungarian Civic Cooperation. Previously, former foreign minister János Martonyi filled the post. The pro-Fidesz professors’ association has existed since 1995.
Viktor Orbán’s utterances are often complex and difficult to understand, even for native Hungarian speakers. We’ve done our best to prepare a serviceable translation in the short time allotted to this task.
For an analysis of the speech, we recommend reading the comments of Hungarian Spectrum blogger Éva Balogh.
The sign of the time is how quickly a person reaches the pulpit. 20 years ago it was easier.
I respectfully greet you! Good day, dear ladies and gentlemen!
With a grateful heart I thank you for the opportunity and for inviting me here to this council meeting, and thank you for listening to what I have to say, to which I happily agreed, because for those of us who deal with public issues in a professional manner, this genre is our favorite genre. This is the only genre where unkemptness can be forgiven. Members of government are systematically required to speak out in closed, strict, logical order and construction. In part because this is required of others, in part because this is a demand of the profession, and in part because it is a unique characteristics of Hungarian politics, where the intellectual expectations of politicians is significantly higher than in the rest of the world, including a number of other European countries. However, it is good that there are moments of exception that allow a person to react and talk about ideas that are formulating to be in a sort of creative circle and atmosphere, and for him to mutually enjoy the birth of ideas with the audience. It is with this hope that I arrived here today, and thank you once again for the invitation.
First of all, I would like to react to what was said. I have my own speech as well, but I would like to deliver that afterwards. First of all, I would like to express my recognition to those who participate in this work. If they do not consider it immodest, then I would say that I express the recognition as a professional, as I have been able to participate in the writing of programs on numerous occasions, and perhaps not all of those sitting here know how difficult of a task that is. A person at once has something to say about the entire world, and it is difficult to determine what to leave out, and what it is that is important to him, but perhaps that will not be as important to readers as the entire thing having an ear, tail, a start, a middle, and a finish, so that the reader gets a feeling of fullness, even though every author acknowledges at the start that it is impossible to offer a sense of fullness in such a short piece. Those who undertake such work and give their name to it are entitled to respect for courage beyond intellectual or professional respect. I now give this to you.
The second thought, the second reaction of mine, is that this is a tradition in Hungarian politics. There were unfruitful and fruitful versions of this, Dezső Szabó, László Németh, I could list for you all of the great ones, who as literate persons felt that they have something to say, and in fact had an obligation to say something about the actual state of affairs, threatening dangers and the desirable direction in their estimation. This tradition has left a number of exciting but destructive forms and many less exciting but constructive forms in Hungarian culture. I also congratulate you for this tradition of involvement, participation, joint design and joint liability related to the Hungarian tradition. I am happy to be able to see Bishop Gyulay again. I remember when we were preparing for discussions in 1996 when many said that Gyulay would not agree. Excuse me, but that is what was said. I said that I thought he would agree. Now I am going to use a word not commonly used with bishops, I said that I think he will agree because Endre Gyulay is a cool (vagány) bishop. They asked where I got that from. I said: first from the fact that he holds the speed record for driving between Szeged and Rome, secondly he always spoke in an unconventional manner, and I think there is a chance that if we approach him with the necessary respect, then he will agree to appear with us at an unconventional event like the one in 1996 and about which I am about to say a few words regardless of whether the discussions of the time had been cited correctly, and that he had previously openly and severely warned us in previous times, and I cannot say that he was not often right. I am happy to again be sitting on a podium with the gentle bishop. Thank you!
I would like to react to one of Father Osztie’s thoughts, or two, or three, or four. Yes. So first Father Osztie told us that they managed to identify 661 problematic areas. That is not the worst number. The question, however, is whether this is a lot or a little? I thought about this while I was listening to him. And without doubt 661 problems sounds like a lot, doesn’t it? To identify so many problematic areas in the life of a nation is quite an alarming thing. But yet, why is it I do not feel that the 661 identified problems are pressing us down to the ground? Perhaps because—I wrote it here for myself—because the question is not how many problems we have. Because it could easily be that were I to sit down with my large family at home and add up all the problems of the seven of us, the number would be larger than 661. But the question is not how large the number is. Rather the question is whether we have a chance, a real chance, and whether we see such a chance, to solve these problems. In this sense it is not the number of problems, but their relationship to us that is the question. And in fact in Hungary before 2010 not only was the number of problems great, but the conditions for solving them were missing. I breathe easier today because we take that the preconditions for solving the problems already exist, and that we are no longer deprived of them. I even wrote suddenly for myself four such things that can be mentioned as preconditions to solving major problems, so that there can be a certain and public law basis.
We sowed this with the constitution. That we should not be in debt, that we should not be the indebted servants of others. Thinking back to the history of the foreign currency debt, the question of the bank tax, and the path of the state debt, that it is still possible to say that, of course, we are still debtors, but we are not indentured servants. The third thing that some people have expressed, is that there is a problem with the people. I would say that, despite all the problems, then let us change the public opinion that you can get something for nothing. That is a bit of a Anglo-Saxon saying that I took from Cameron, excuse me. Who says that, of course, the state will help you, and is prepared to do so, but something for something. But it does not exist that I give you something for nothing. Let there be some reciprocity. Something that expresses the joint responsibility, and not only those bear the responsibility who have something to those who do not, and are obliged to give to them, and for some kind of cooperation to come about from this, the social political of “something for something”, if I may put it that way. Either “something for something” public work program, or “something for a reason” employment policies. I feel that this public opinion, which is one of the foundations or preconditions for solving the problems, is practically a given today in Hungary. And finally, we must have the ability to defend our country. In part from the point of view of public security and public order, in part when facing a foreign threat, whatever expected form that may take, for example that which we just experienced. I wanted to share with Father Osztie that, yes, 661 is a high number, but we are sovereign and can be sovereign in our own lives, and we can be sovereign in solving the problems of our own lives, and that is a big thing.
Now I am going to venture into unauthorized territory, because I would like to add a commentary to Father Osztie’s comment that that church, by which I think he meant the Catholic church but I’m afraid that the truth extends beyond the Catholic church, has no strategy. I poked my minister, Zoltán Balog, and I told him that now that András Veres has been elected bishop there will be a strategy, but whether there will be gratitude towards the government, we do not know now for sure. Nonetheless, I think there will be a strategy, and in that I am almost certain in light of the past twenty years spent together with the bishops and directors of the Catholic church, and I know that it will not be easy for the government, because very determined, clear needs, expectations, moral and other natural points will come across my desk, which is exciting and interesting, just as will be the conversation with the hope, as Father Osztie said, that it will bear or yield fruit at the end.
When are the civil organizations important? This also pertains to him. They seem more important as the campaign approaches than between the two elections. In this there is much truth, but I consider this a natural cycle, and I wrote down the thought to myself not to look at our sins but at the faith of your church. I would also like to add one more comment, and that is that one of the most difficult tasks—and this is not the first time I’ve chatted about this with Father Osztie and the intellectuals he recruited—one of the most difficult questions intellectually, is how to make sensible economic policy suggestions on a Christian basis. This is not such an easy thing to do, as the modern and let us say capitalist economy built on private property cannot be understood without profit. It does not work, as we are in the custom of saying, that it is kind of bicycle that if we do not pedal it falls over. At the same time, it is clear that the common good must be given place in the operation of the economy, and reconciling the two is the most difficult task of program writers, and I would just like to quote here, perhaps the words are correct from this point of view and marks out for us good directions, and gives good directions for thoughts, that it is perhaps worthwhile to examine the economic policy in the time of Helmut Kohl, where the common good, responsibility, interests, and making profit could be expressed in organic unity. And while today’s economic miracle can be attributed to measures taken afterwords indirectly, but the foundations, the intellectual foundations were sown 16 years ago at the time of the Kohl government, in which it is perhaps worthwhile to immerse ourselves. János Martini said such writings are risky and that making public such a program always constitutes a risk, that it will be misunderstood and misconstrued. How right he was! However, this can only be avoided in one way. More precisely, it can be avoided in two ways. One: we say nothing. There is such a political school. This is the school of western films, no words, only moving pictures. Either we avoid it by saying the same thing as the others, in which case there is no problem. The problem, however, is that this does not work for us. Without doubt the Hungarians must accommodate to power relations. And we mustn’t run headfirst into walls, and it is not possible to disregard the point of view of sensibility. But for the Hungarians this causes difficulty if we recognize something, moreover something that possesses significance, not to speak out, express, and call other people’s attention to it. If this document is a product of the national character, then perhaps it is also worth mentioning this. I am not using the word “truthtelling”, but rather a focussed field of vision that is in the Hungarian character. It wants to recognize relationships. Moreover, it wants to recognize complexities, and if it has already recognized them, then it wants to share them with others. This relates to the question of cowardice in the soul of the Hungarian people. So, if I properly understand the Hungarian world, then here the collective wisdom reigns that everyone can be happy, both the ugly and the pretty, the stupid and the clever, and the industrious with the lazy. According to the Hungarian interpretation, a certain kind of person can never be happy, and this is the coward. Because a Hungarian is always aware of his cowardice when he is a coward. This cannot be said of every people. But the Hungarian knows when he is being a coward. It oppresses, bothers, bathes him and does not leave him in peace. Sooner or later the thought arises to free himself of his own cowardice. I think this is an important thing, and for this reason it is rather unavoidable for the Hungarian right-wing (it would be good, by the way, were it unavoidable for the left-wing as well) for the different spiritual groups to regularly formulate what it is that upsets them, and in place of what counts as cowardice, and come forth with a kind of intellectual literate courage and responsibility as is happening now, along with those thoughts which we think politics should take into consideration.
Dear ladies and gentlemen!
After that I will now turn to what I have to day. “Signs of the times”. It occurred to me when I sat down to write an evaluation of this document. “Time is right, and decides what we do not”. I feel this is suitable, given that in 1996 finally the desire, will—coincided with the formation of a political alliance in the interest of improving the nation among political powers previously pulling the nation in different directions. That is the point of what happened in 1996. 19 years have passed. In order for the alliance to endure, it must possess a certain foundation. What we can say today is that a spiritual foundation is required for the long term maintenance of an alliance. These documents, which we are debating today—we debated them earlier when discussing the Saint Stephen Plan—all of which were about how our alliance has spiritual foundations, but an alliance also requires human foundations as well. Personal loyalty, courage, camaraderie, and I have to say that if we want to answer the question, that today that does not come by itself, and it is not always this way, today why rivals are arising to the middle-class, national, Christian side, because among us let it be said, that is the situation today, and let us not force the issues on merit now, but this is the situation, here we stand, and I think the answer to the mystery is here. In this society there is loyalty, friendship, camaraderie, commitment and persistence. And I would call your attention to the fact that this is especially so after 2002, after not seven but eight lean years, when it was not so easy in those trouble times to stand by each other, as, by the way, those writing the documents believe, or the heads of those organizations, and these organizations as institutions retained certain values. This is what gives the Hungarian middle-class, national, Christian side what today appears to be insuperable—of course this is not the case, but—seems to be insuperable dominance over other political organizations.
It is also a sign of the times that I became that veteran that has to explain what happened and how. I won’t say that I am the last witness, but I am one of the last. How did this thing happen? The thing happened that in 1994—as they said then, today it sounds unkempt and uncouth, but it is indeed the truth—the communists returned. In 1994 without a doubt in a changed form. I would not like to debate their role in the regime change which they tend to overstate, but without a doubt they came back after parliamentary elections and—let us say not with Soviet tanks, which was a qualitative change, and few dispute that they did not come back by arresting the political opponents as they did after winning the elections in the ‘40s, but—they returned. It was a serious trauma then. I will not quote at this time the arguments, because I do not precisely remember either, what happened prior to 1994, when József Antall was alive, and Péter Boross was the Minister of the Interior, I could mention the older ones, Imre Kónya or Balázs Horváth, who were also Ministers of the Interior. And I could mention those speeches, that addressed the question of whether it was even possible for those who had built a one-party dictatorship in this country to come back in a free election without an external invasion. And at that time there were many who thought that this was impossible, but it turned out in 1994 that they were wrong, and that this is not the case, and that it is possible. It even happened. And then in October 1994—it already started in summer, but in October—the public expression of this, and an experiment took place in the creation of a civil alliance. Here I most quote the person of Archbishop Seregély, who I hope received an invitation and that the reason he is not here is not because we forgot about him, but perhaps for other reasons. If he has problems with his health, then we wish him a speedy recovery, because he was the one who, for us, was the bravest church leader in the autumn of 1994. The one who attended in person the political event where we made our experiment—perhaps in the Erkel Theater before it closed—that we would jointly run party lists and candidates in municipal elections, that is MDF, the Cristian Democratic Peoples Party, and Fidesz. This is not easy, as we had spent the previous four years in opposition. We were not idle, MDF party members could attest to this, and MDF was in power at the time. And then in 1994 we made the joint decision—it was rather a decision in our case, in their case they were compelled to do so—that we do not want to cooperate with those in opposition to which we made a system change in 1994 (sic), but that it would be better to remain in opposition and search for some form of cooperation. Here Archbishop Seregély was the one whose personal appearance make it clear that there was a kind of—perhaps he would allow me to put it this way—expectation in light of the acceptance of civil, national Christian values —let us leave it at that for now: acceptance—powers, that they should work together with one another in the interest of the homeland. And at that time it was not successful. So creating a civil alliance in the Fall of 1994 was not successful. Nobody remembers this now, but the first experiment failed. The result of this was the defection from the KDNP of those who were willing to cooperate under the name of the Christian Democratic Alliance, and a complicated internal struggle within the MDF, the result of which was the creation of an alliance for 1998.
So I consider it important to mention the face and the role of Archibishop Seregély here, because since then I consider it a cord measure how he treated us. He often warned us, with excessive strictness, he warned us often, sometimes exaggerating the size of our sins, but nevertheless he was right about what he read in our heads, and, in general, time later proved him right in these things. Then in 1996 we arrived to the point of today’s meeting. With a brave gesture Mr. Nemeskürty, a teacher, whose role must be mentioned as well. Together with Bishop Endre Gyula he had the courage, and I remember his temperament as he stood on the stage at the Margit dormitory, and told us that there was no example in the history of Hungarian public life when the Catholic church was willing to debate a circular letter, this one bearing the title the “More just and more brotherly world”, or any other document attempting to formulate long term plans with any organization. There was never an example of this, said the teacher. And I think that the fact that this came about was due to the teacher’s powers of persuasion and his working capacity and confidence in young people, which was not fully justified at that time, but which perhaps confirmed and answered his hopes. Since that time this community has been dealing with, and for this reason we can cooperate with the Christian church organizations, and since then this community is dealing with the problem of the truth and the majority. One of the greatest challenges to modern democracy for Christian-motivated, Christian-based organisations. Because what is the situation here?
The situation is that in vain does somebody possess the truth if he does not command a majority. And in vain does he have a majority, if he does not serve the truth with it? And how is it possible to resolve this, because it is not always possible to gather a majority on the basis of truth. We have arrived to a complex issue, and I will not discuss all of this now. I just wanted to indicate that an answer to this problem, which is both a problem of philosophy, values, and organization building, was born which we call the KDNP-Fidesz cooperation, in which there is a role in our political community for KDNP, which does not have to chase after votes, because the alliance with us guarantees political strength and weight. Its only task is to serve as an anchor. We are tied to certain values, and the question of whether the line is short or long is a tactical consideration, but one thing is certain, that since then it is anchored. That is why, for example, it is not by chance that the composition of the Constitutional Court today, which I think to be at least as important as the parliament, since the Constitutional Court decisions give the foundation for certain questions. But if we look at today’s Constitutional Court, it is fundamentally a Christian Democratic majority constitutional court. We are not accustomed to speaking about this, because it is somehow not appropriate, but if we are being so honest and open, as the Americans, who openly speak about how the composition of the Supreme Court is progressive, and how Republican thinking or conservative thinking, then we can do the same, and confidently state that today a conservative, Christian, national, middle-class value system majority constitutional court exists in Hungary, which tries with its decisions, by the way, to enforce the constitutional fundamentals that we jointly created with the Christian Democrats. This is a good political construction. I consider it a key question that the unity remain in the coming years or decades, and that this unique kind of construction remain, where a good division of labor takes place between the Christan Democratic People’s Party and Fidesz.
Dear ladies and gentlemen!
This is how we came to power in 1998. After that what happened in 2002 happened, and we learned a lot. Perhaps this is how I would summarize these wonderful years, and then in 2005 the Circle of Battyány Professors felt the time was ripe and shook us awake, and said, alright, alright, of course it is necessary to fight battles, but in order to blow the horns and the troops to assemble under the flag, it is necessary to say something. Not just how nice it would be to get back at them, and to slap them in a cultured, democratic way. This is also a nice political program, but it is also necessary to say more because the country deserves more. And then we created the Saint Stephen Plan, which I consider to be an important document. Perhaps it has received less attention in the writings of Hungarian political history than its weight and significance merit, but that environment, when in 2010 the Hungarian people did not have a feeling that the political powers preparing to win the elections did not go to battle without a strong long term program, but that there is something behind them, was thanks to the Saint Stephen Plan. Of course, it is possible to argue, whether certain parts were good or not, but it was a coherent, overall picture, plan, description about the kind of Hungary in which we would feel ourselves at home. For this reason I would like to give the authors of the Saint Stephen Plan the obligatory respect they are due.
And here we are in 2015, and we are debating a document that could last for ten years. And I did not read a long, large volume of studies, but rather this short material, which I got from the minister. This document could justly aspire to serve as a compass needle for the next ten years. There will be a lot of discussion about it. I hear that a country tour is being prepared, and that it is worthwhile to summarize those experiences, and then cast the whole thing in its final form, but I think that if those undertaking to do this work complete it, whom I respectfully thank, then once again there will be a document for the middle-class, national community on the basis of which a right-wing government can honorably complete its work over the next ten years.
Dear ladies and gentlemen!
I would like to say a thought or two, even though I know that I have used up my time, about being proud about sowing a certain constitutional basis for a Hungary that is middle-class, national, and Christian in its approach. This is important to state because the arguments surrounding the constitution and the embers and fireworks surrounding its adoption overshadowed the simple laconic statement–that for as long as the Hungarian nation has existed, this was the first written, democratic constitution of the Hungarian nation. It was the first written constitution as previously an unwritten constitution based on the Holy Crown reigned in Hungary per the Anglo-Saxon tradition. Then came the written, communist constitution, and then its modification, which itself was only considered a transitional constitution, and then came the first democratic, written constitution, which is tied to our political community.
Dear ladies and gentlemen!
I think it important that among the many problems addressed by this constitution, perhaps in response to Bishop Gyula’s statements, is the one that pertains to the issues of responsibility, obligation, and freedom. One of the paragraphs of the constitution, which is worthwhile rereading from time to time, carries the title “Freedom and Responsibility”, which addresses the very thing of which the bishop spoke. Our constitution makes it clear, that if we separate freedom from the world of responsibility, then it will result not in freedom, but in solitude. An ever growing solitude, and from the solitude unhappy people, and from the unhappiness frustration, and from the frustration, political tension which in the end will burst our society and the desirable framework for coexistence. So the connection between freedom and responsibility, which is addressed in the document, I think is a key question.
In relation to the questions about debt, I would like to tell you that, of course, we are in the habit of speaking about state debt, but if we can return for a moment to the issue of indebted servitude, then I have to say that in the past five years we succeeded in significantly decreasing people’s debts. The monthly payments are no longer as large as they used to be, or that of companies—here (central bank governor ) György Matolcsy deserves credit–nor that of settlements, because the state assumed the debt from the settlements. Finally, we succeeded in decreasing that part of the state debt that was denominated in foreign currency, and we succeeded in decreasing it as a percentage of GDP.
And finally I would like to speak about what János Martini also spoke about. Because there is a problem, a challenge, that if we do not confront, do not resolve, if we do not step up, then the Europe about which János Martini spoke to us this afternoon, and which all of us like, and for which our ancestors sacrificed not a few of their lives, that Europe will disappear. I would like to dispel the misunderstanding, which is why it is good that I can speak in an unkempt and free manner, because I have yet to complete this thought for a long time. I have to somehow condense it for the Fidesz congress, and that is still two weeks away, but the situation standing before us here is not simply a question of incompetence, not simply a mistaken assessment of the situation, when we see that despite every declaration, every consultation, every day many thousands of people are delivered to Europe. They don’t go on their own, I’m sure you have noticed, but now they transport them, and my position is that this is not by chance. It is with difficulty that I can imagine that the great European powers that have secret services and the ability to collect information, given their influence and their money, and the unlimited intellectual capital at their disposal, that they run into such a situation so unprepared as what we call the immigration crisis. It is not possible that such well organized states that became the most prominent states of European civilization owing to their special ability to form a state, organized, disciplined, strong, decisive, are capable of displaying the unfortunate behavior like what we are seeing here. One suspects that it is not by chance like this. And how true is it!
I will read out some thoughts, because the situation is that not only are we obliged to respond, and not only does it bother the right-wing if they cannot state what they think, the overly tense grasping of the essence is not only characteristic of the right-wing, but also has traditions Europe’s left-wing, and sometimes they also write what they think. I will even read for you what is happening, if you will permit me, because I think this is the donkey driver, this is the plan, the realization of which we are seeing day by day.
“Using a proper perspective we can recognize over the states the still democratic community architectonic. We have to regard the European Union, which, with good reason, was created together by two equal constitutional subjects, one being the European citizens and the other being the European states. It will turn out at the end whether there is any point to this. From this perspective it is clear that the pacification of the warring nations, so not only the founding of a United Organization of Nations, but also the unification of Europe was the motivating goal forming the starting basis for a long term objective, namely the creation of political action skills that go beyond the nation-state”. I continue. “The states international capabilities are to be further developed as a cosmopolitan society perspective of states and world citizens. So the states, the states international community are to be further developed as a cosmopolitan community of states and world citizens”. The politically constructed world community perspective was even referred to by Ferenc Kőszeg in some weekly paper, and in this way I came across this wonderful action plan. “The politically construed world society perspective does not appear so utopian, if we take into consideration that human rights rhetoric and politics over the past few decades could actually become influential globally. This cosmopolitan need means that the role of human rights does not stop at the multi-faceted world of unequal social conditions of moral judgment. Human rights must become embodied politically in the constituted world society.” In other words, the right of asylum, migration, movement, and going somewhere else as opposed to the Tőkéczki kind of responsibility—approach—is actually to be construed as a kind of human right.
Dear ladies and gentlemen!
We stand before a challenge that is nothing less than the gate of the realization of a deliberate, left-wing spiritual construct that wants to put the nation-states of Europe in parenthesis, and if they can no longer prevail over Christianity and nation-state identity and the values and responsibility arising from that in the world of traditional political struggle, then they wish to do away with it on an ethnic basis. That is the sorry truth. A betrayal is taking place, dear ladies and gentlemen. They have betrayed Europe, and if we do not stand up for it, then they are going to take this Europe from us. This Europe will not long be the Europe of European citizens, but rather that of some well organized, and if the Soros Foundation comes to mind, then it is not unfounded, well organized, moving large amounts of money, activist thinking outside the framework of nation-states, and the fulfilment of the dream of a leader whom nobody elected. Rather then a Europe of we, European citizens over the next few years. Maybe this seems vague, maybe it seems premature, maybe it appears unjust in some elements what I am saying, but I cannot explain in any other way those events to which we are witness day by day. What can be the cure? The cure can be the same as it always was.
We have to ask the question, the first question of democracy. Who authorized European leaders, and on the basis of what authorization is it happening that they do not allow, but are transporting in the hundreds of thousands groups that are foreign to European culture to the European continent? In such a manner that soon Europe’s cultural identity can be called into question. Who gave them an authorization? Nobody authorized them to do this, some intellectuals wrote wonderful books about it. I read from one of these, but the answer can only come from our side, that in opposition to this conspiracy and this betrayal, we have to turn to democracy, and we have to turn to the people, and we have to inform the European people either as Europeans or as the citizens of nation-states in some way so that these people will say that they do not want what is happening, and that they approach this differently, and interpret the developments in a different content, and that they have the right to do say yes or no in a democratic manner to what is happening now in Europe. We have to create the methods of this. A European discussion must be started sooner or later, and I do not want to make any public proposals now as to how to go about this, but I would like to indicate, that a big European debate in this question cannot be avoided.
It is this way, dear ladies and gentlemen, because we do not even notice how low we have fallen. Europe does not even notice how far it has sunk. This is the fence matter. Look now at the good folks of Austria. I don’t say that there was no point to our living together with them for the past few hundred years, but even then the Austrians are a decent type. Nevertheless, this country was the most successful company after the Second World War according to all the indicators, moreover a democratic country. And look now: the elected leader says they are not building a fence, but a gate with long wings. Now upon first hearing this, it is a funny thing, but let us look at its pathetic nature. Where have we come to, that the Europe about which we were proud, because this was the world of freedom of thought, freedom of speech, and freedom of opinion, is in such a spiritual state that it is not possible to say certain words, and not bad words, but the fence word. It is not the case that the Austrian chancellor did not learn these letters at school, or that his sound forming organs do not work in the case of these few letters, but rather that he thinks that by saying certain words in Europe today there can be serious political consequences, and for this reason he does not allow himself to do so. Is this our Europe built on freedom of speech, opinion, and thought? That we can no longer speak about our problems, our thoughts and or proposals.
Dear ladies and gentlemen!
I think the problem is big. I would like to make one suggestion to the writers of this document, because the document indirectly deals with this question, but I would propose that a chapter entitled Europe’s future and identity should be added to the document which tries to elaborate on this issue
Dear ladies and gentlemen!
I would like to finish with thoughts indicative of the same direction as I have previously stated. This Europe needs to have a discussion with the goal of a strong, Christian Europe emerging from the discussion. And in this strong and Christian Europe we can live our lives in a middle-class, Christian, strong Hungary. If someone thought this is not a European thought, I would like to remind those of Schuman, one of our founding fathers, who said that Europe will either be Christian or will cease to exist. Today both roads stand before Europe.
Thank you for your kind attention!