Keresés: %s

Twenty agricultural ministers – including Hungary – supported the joint statement on maintaining the budget of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) at the current level under the next Multiannual Financial Framework at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council held on 14th of October 2019.

Hungary cannot accept a larger reduction than the UK's withdrawal from the EU justifies, therefore maintaining CAP funds at the current EU-27 level is a minimum requirement - said Zsolt Feldman, State Secretary of Agriculture, head of the Hungarian delegation in Luxembourg.

Besides Eastern European Member States, Austria, Belgium, France, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain also supported the joint statement aiming to keep the CAP budget at the current EU-27 level.

It is not realistic to maintain the CAP budget at the current 382 billion EUR level as the United Kingdom - one of the biggest contributors – is going to leave the EU, but Hungary can only accept a reduction that can be justified by the Brexit - emphasized Zsolt Feldman.

The Secretary of State has drawn the attention to the fact that in case of Hungary the Commission’s proposal foresees an almost 17 percent reduction of CAP funds compared to the current programming period. Rural development would suffer the greatest cuts, as it would receive 26 percent less EU funds. This level of reduction is unacceptable, especially if we take into account that the new CAP regulations would place a significantly heavier burden on producers. We cannot expect more from farmers with less subsidies - said Zsolt Feldman.

The decision on the next Multiannual Financial Framework, including the amounts to be spent on the CAP, will be made by the Heads of States, but the common statement of twenty Agriculture Ministers can be considered as an important political message ahead of the future negotiations. The importance of the initiative is even greater if we consider the fact that supporters include both old and new Member States as well as net contributors and beneficiaries.

On 24 October 2019 the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs (EPSCO) Council discussed agenda items relating to employment and social affairs. The head of the Hungarian delegation was Mr Bence Rétvári, Deputy Minister and Parliamentary State Secretary.

The Council adopted contingency measures about the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund, supporting workers who may loose their jobs in the event of a no deal Brexit.

The Council adopted conclusions on the Economy of Wellbeing. The conclusions call upon the Commission and Member States to systematically take into account the wellbeing perspective when designing policy measures. The Council Conclusions interpret the economy of wellbeing as a policy orientation and governance approach which put people and their wellbeing at the centre of policy and decision-making. It recalls the challenges and possible responses to specific areas such as poverty and social exclusion, the changing world of work and working conditions, gender equality, social protection, health and long-term care, and education. It also sets out several tasks for both the Member States and the new Commission. It invites the Commission – inter alia – to propose, on the expiry of the Europe 2020 strategy, a new long-term growth strategy for the Union, aimed at ensuring that the Union becomes the world’s most competitive and socially inclusive, climate-neutral economy.

Ministers held a public debate on how to strengthen anti-discrimination measures in the European Union. The aim of the debate was to take stock of the current situation and to identify challenges and possible ways of taking forward the EU's fight against discrimination beyond the field of employment. Representatives of the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), the European Network of Equality Bodies (Equinet) and the Social Platform contributed to the debate by presenting their findings regarding the topic. Member States underlined their commitment to step up efforts in the area. Ministers also emphasised the importance of awareness-raising, education, prevention and the need for respecting the principle of subsidiarity and the competences of the Member States. The presidency will draft a summary of the debate to support the new Commission and incoming presidencies in their actions against discrimination. This report will be presented to European Council in December.

During the Council’s meeting the Commission presented its communication on more efficient decision-making in social policy. The communication encourages moving to qualified majority voting or using the ordinary legislative procedure in areas that are still governed by unanimity or require a special legislative procedure. The presentation by the Commission was followed by an informal lunch debate on the same topic.

The Council adopted conclusions, which aim at promoting the International Labour Organisation (ILO) centenary declaration on the future of work.

Ministers also held a policy debate on "Matching skills and labour market needs in the changing world of work” with the aim of exploring the best strategic approach to continuous lifelong learning.

Within the framework of the European Semester, the Employment Committee (EMCO) and the Social Protection Committee (SPC) presented the key messages from their annual reviews on the employment and social situation in the EU and policy developments in the Member States. The Council endorsed the messages.

The next meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council (Trade) will take place in Brussels on 21 November 2019. The Hungarian delegation will be led by H.E. Péter Szijjártó, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
The Council will review the state of play regarding the World Trade Organization (WTO) reform process and ongoing negotiations. During their discussion, Ministers will focus in particular on the crisis of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism and the possible EU strategy, with a view to the likely demise of the Appellate Body as of the 11th of December. In addition, Ministers will review the state of play of the preparations for the 12th Ministerial Conference of the WTO to be held in June 2020 and discuss the EU’s possible priorities. Hungary considers it crucial to preserve the multilateral trading system and we are committed to the comprehensive reform of the WTO.
Ministers will take stock of the state of play and latest developments in the EU-US trade relations. Discussions will focus on the ongoing bilateral exchanges and negotiations, potential areas of future cooperation, the prospects for US imposing automotive tariffs as well as the application of retaliatory duties in connection to the Airbus WTO dispute. Hungary supports the strengthening of EU-US trade relations and welcomes the progress made in the negotiations on conformity assessment and the cooperation on standards. For Hungary it is vital that new automotive tariffs are avoided.
Commissioner Malmström will present the annual report on the implementation of EU free trade agreements (FTAs), to be followed by an exchange of views on the general state of implementation and possible ways to improve its effectiveness. 
Under “Any Other Business”, the Commissioner will provide information on the results of the 2019 Eurobarometer survey on international trade. In addition, the Netherlands will present their proposal on Responsible Business conduct. 
During a working lunch, Ministers will discuss trade relations with China, with special emphasis on the latest developments in the negotiations for a Comprehensive Investment Agreement. The Council will also be debriefed on the state of play of ongoing trade negotiations.

The Transport Council held a broad exchange of views on various development objectives of the sector on 2nd December 2019 in Brussels.

The head of the Hungarian delegation, Mr László Mosóczi, Minister of State for transport policy underlined that Hungary is committed to implement the various development objectives of the sector in line with our national interests.

Council agreed its position (general approach) on the proposed reform of rail passenger rights. The updated rules will improve the rights of passengers with disabilities or reduced mobility, ensure a uniform application of the rules, improve the provision of information and promote the use of 'through-tickets'.

The Council also agreed on a general approach on a proposal to streamline permit-granting measures in order to facilitate the completion of the trans-European transport network (TEN-T).

Ministers held a policy debate on 'digital transport services for people: the next steps for sustainable European solutions'.
The Council also held a policy debate on the future of the Single European Sky.

Over lunch, ministers discussed the promotion of alternative fuels.

The Council did not reach a general approach on a proposal to revise EU road charging rules (‘Eurovignette’ directive). The aim of the proposal is to address issues relating to road infrastructure financing, congestion and environmental impact.

'Any other business' included presidency information on the proposal on seasonal time changes. To conclude the meeting, the incoming Croatian presidency presented its work programme.

At the Competitiveness Council meeting on 28 November 2019, ministers discussed ways to support European small and medium-sized enterprises and to strengthen the EU's external competitiveness.

During the debate the forthcoming EU SME strategy, Mr László György, State Secretary for Economic Planning and Regulation at the Ministry for Innovation and Technology, presented the main pillars of the recently adopted Hungarian SME strategy. In the strategy, with a perspective to 2030, the envisaged measures cover areas such as support for technology change and digitalisation, reduction of administrative burdens and red tape, or support for generation change. Mr György added that the deployment of green and high-tech solutions are essential for the future of both Hungary and the European Union. It is therefore recommended that EU and national policies aiming to strengthen the SME sector pay particular attention to adapting green solutions and supporting innovation capacities.

As for the debate on the external competitiveness of the EU, Mr György called for more effective actions to protect EU-based businesses against unfair, competition-distorting practices in third countries. He stressed that the EU must also strike the right balance between emission reduction measures and competitiveness. The measures should contribute as much as possible to reducing CO2 emissions, but the same time we also need to ensure that our companies are not disadvantaged in the international market by unjustifiably stringent regulations.

The Competitiveness Council also discussed a draft directive on the public disclosure of income tax information. László György agreed with the objective of increasing publicity and transparency in the area of corporate taxation, but could not support the means proposed to achieve these goals. The main reason for opposing the proposal for regulation on the table is that it may put an unjustified administrative burden on our companies, thereby exposing them to a competitive disadvantage versus companies operating in third countries under less stringent rules. The Council has not endorsed the proposal.

At the research section on 29 November 2019, the ministers discussed three legislative files in order to reach a political agreement: the draft regulation on the Euratom research and innovation training programme (2021-2025); the recitals of the Horizon Europe R&I framework programme and its 4th annex on synergies, and the draft regulation on the European Institute of Innovation and Technology. As unanimity could not be reached in case of the Euratom file, the Council endorsed the Presidency’s progress report. The Council agreed on its position in case of the above-mentioned parts of Horizon Europe and the EIT regulation. The text of the latter was complemented with a review clause.

Apart from the legislative files, the ministers endorsed the progress report on the EIT’s Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda and the council conclusions on the updated Bioeconomy strategy, a sustainable bioeconomy for Europe.
The debate at the ministerial lunch focused on attracting private R&I investments for sustainable growth and the contribution of Horizon Europe to that. State Secretary Prof. József Bódis (Ministry for Innovation and Technology) highlighted that favourable conditions shall be created at national and EU level for instance by having attractive regulatory and fiscal frameworks, cutting red-tape and facilitating access to financial support. He stressed that enterprises shall be strengthened by supporting their technological and organisational innovations, fostering industry-academia partnerships and involving them in knowledge and technology transfer related activities.

The Hungarian economy is changing dimensions, focusing on higher value added jobs, services, research and development, said Péter Szijjártó, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade at the “Invented and made in Europe” conference held at the Permanent Representation on 9 December.

Catherine Estrampes President and CEO of GE Healthcare Europe highlighted that cooperation between Hungary and General electric looks back to 30 years and is an excellent illustration of transatlantic innovation partnership, in which the recent Catalyst Programme launched between University of Debrecen and Massachusetts Institute of Technology represents a new milestone.

The event included a roundtable discussion with the participation of Kurt Höller, Director of Business Creation at EIT Health Mathias Goyen Chief Medical Officer of GE Healthcare Europe, Ernest Lara Catalyst Europe Manager at MIT, Zoltán Szilvássy rector of Debrecen University, István Szabó Vice-President of National Research Development and Innovation Office and Bjoern Eskofier from Friedrich Alexander University. The panellists agreed that close cooperation is needed between academia and business sector with due support from the governments in order to ensure market uptake of innovative solutions.

Ildikó Horváth minister of state for health underlined that we need innovation that brings adequate answer to the challenges our healthcare system is facing today.

In his closing remarks, Jean-Eric Paquet director general of DG Research and innovation of the European Commission gave insight in the planning of future EU funds to support innovation.

Health is a fundamental element of economy of wellbeing and a key ingredient of sustainable economic development and demographic turn, therefore it deserves investment as good health means better future, told Ildikó Horváth Minister of State of health to the Hungarian News Agency after the health EPSCO Council of 9 December.

At EPSCO, ministers also exchanged views on access to medicines and to fight medicine shortages, in addition they discussed how to further increase the role of the EU in global healthcare.

Based on the information of the European Commission on the Green deal, and the background paper prepared by the Presidency on the EU environment and climate policy in the legislative term, the Ministers exchanged their views. Ministers welcomed the European Green Deal. Many Member States urged the acceleration of the fight against climate change and the increase of the EU 2030 climate goal. Other ministers argued for the assessment of economic and social impacts at Member State level and drew attention to the high cost of green transition, which requires appropriate financial tools at EU level.

Following the discussion, AOB points were presented relating to recent environment and climate international meetings. Before lunch, Council Conclusions on the post-2020 biodiversity framework were adopted. In relation to the COP26 climate conference, Presidency and Commission highlighted that a deal could not be reached on international carbon markets under article 6 of the Paris Agreement. However, the review of the Warsaw International Mechanism to address loss and damages was completed successfully. They emphasized the importance of increasing the ambition in 2020 and fostering EU’s climate diplomacy efforts as part of the preparation for the COP26 climate conference to be held in Glasgow.

At the afternoon further AOB, items were discussed. The Commission informed the delegations on the latest conclusions of a study on the implementation of the Aarhus convention. The Slovenian delegation presented their points relating to the management of large carnivores.

Finally, the incoming Croatian presidency presented its work programme.  

During the lunch, an informal discussion was held on the European Environmental Agency’s State and Outlook of the Environment 2020 report with Hans Bruyninckx, Executive Director of the European Environment Agency.

On 12 February 2020, at the Portuguese Permanent Representation to the European Union in Brussels, the leaders of 8 Higher Education Institutions from 6 countries solemnly signed the consortium of European regional universities RUN-EU ERASMUS+ project application.
Hungary was represented at the event by staff of the Permanent Representation of Hungary to the EU, Mr Balázs Gergely, Mertens, and Ms Ágota Dávid, Science and Technology Attaché. Also present for the launch was Ms Zsófia Villegas-Vitézy, Cultural Counsellor, Embassy of Hungary in Brussels and Director of the Balassi Institute, Brussels.
The Hungarian partner, Széchenyi István University, was represented by the Vice-Rector for Educational Affairs, Dr Eszter Lukács, who, during the RUN-EU Members’ Pitch, presented an overview of the University, highlighting the accomplishments of the institution’s internationalization strategy. 
All member institutions, including Széchenyi István, the two Portuguese Universities, the two Irish, one Finnish, one Dutch and one Austrian, were accompanied by student delegations who had the opportunity during the pre-workshop to present their own expectations of the project.

In the context of the European Green Deal Competitiveness ministers had a policy debate on the challenges and opportunities relating to the transition to climate neutral and circular industry. Member states broadly agreed that a right balance had to be established between the objectives of the Green Deal on the one hand and maintaining the competitiveness of the European industry on the other. It was not contested either that digitalisation, the use of digital technologies were essential enablers of the transition to a climate neutral and circular economy. The Hungarian delegation suggested that instead of designing individual policies for certain sectors, fairness, equal opportunities and technology neutrality should be established as leading principles in policy making.

The Council adopted its conclusions on Better Regulation "Ensuring competitiveness and sustainable, inclusive growth", also supported by Hungary. The Hungarian Government upholds progressive initiatives concerning regulatory and administrative burden reduction, which could contribute to enhancing the competitiveness of European enterprises, especially, small- and medium sized companies.
The ministers exchanged views on the Single Market Performance Report, which was a novelty in the cycle of the European Semester 2020. The majority of ministers endorsed the scope of the Report and highlighted the need for a holistic approach regarding different policy areas, also supporting that the Report should form part of the Semester in the future. Many stressed the urgent need for eliminating the market barriers, especially in the services sector, with a view to deepening the Single Market. Hungary acknowledges that the European Semester, as a coordination tool for economic and employment policy at EU and Member States level, is a well-functioning framework which also present concrete results. In our view, we should focus on strengthening the original objectives of the European semester in the future.

As a reaction to the latest developments concerning the spread of the Coronavirus ‘COVID-19’, the Council reviewed its possible impacts on the EU industry. Together with the Commission, Member States agreed that coordinated actions were needed on European level in order to contain the supply disruptions already visible in the industrial value chains.

On the second day (28 February) the Council adopted a partial general approach on the Annex to the Strategic Innovation Agenda (SIA) of the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT). The document sets out the priority fields and strategy of the EIT for the period 2021-2027. It defines the EIT's objectives, key actions, mode of operation, expected results and resources needed. It also ensures coherence of the EIT with Horizon Europe.

Next, ministers exchanged views on the EU strategy regarding international cooperation in research and innovation. The delegations acknowledged the importance of international cooperation for maximising the potential of European R&I. At the same time, several ministers stressed the need for cooperation agreements to meet the conditions of reciprocity, added value and respect of EU values. There was broad support for a differentiated approach, allowing for collaboration with countries in areas of mutual strategic interest. Furthermore, ministers called for investing more in research and innovation in order to attract talented researchers from third countries but also to keep EU researchers within the EU.
 

On 3 March 2020 the Permanent Representation of Hungary together with Medicines for Europe, with the support of the Croatian Presidency of the Council of the EU, a seminar entitled “A European Union that ensures patient access and sustainability” was held with the participation of around one hundred guests.

The seminar was dedicated to improving access to pharmaceuticals by analysing how to overcome barriers to access to oncology treatments. The event will also focus on sustainable health policies that aim to prevent medicines shortages by tackling their root causes.

In his welcoming speech, Tibor Stelbaczky ad interim permanent representative highlighted that during forthcoming period of the EU health policy, cancer will be a highlighted policy area where access to cancer drugs will play a crucial role. In addition, security in the supply of medicines in a globalized value chain is more and more vulnerable.

Goran Štefanić Deputy Permanent Representative of Croatia highlighted we need not only available but also affordable medicines, in this respect he highlighted the importance of voluntary regional cooperation. The Croatian Presidency intends to raise the topic of medicine shortages on the EU’s Pharmaceutical Market at the informal EPSCO meeting scheduled for late April.

Christoph Stoller President of Medicines for Europe highlighted that generics and biosimilars are essential element of the EU cancer beating plan. To combat shortages pan European cooperation is needed and in public procurement local manufacturing should be recognized. The president advocated appropriate procurement guidelines incentivizing local production, a strong European industrial strategy, better use of digitalization and a more regular and open flow for strategic discussions, including high level pharmaceutical forum.

The technical discussion was introduced by introductory speeches, where Sylvain Giraud, European Commission Head of Unit gave his views on how breaking down silos for safe, effective and affordable medicines. This approach comprises of a more comprehensive appraisal of the value of medical technologies, the sharing of experiences and pooling expertise in the field of procurement, working more together and sound governance and appropriate us of hospital medicines, and maximisation of saving to be reaped from generics and biosimilars.
Zoltán Kaló, Professor of Health Economics from Semmelweis University talked about the challenges in the field of access to pharmaceuticals in Central-Eastern Europe. Professor Kaló highlighted that incidence of cancer is not higher in the East than in Western countries, and pharma expenditure is proportionately higher in eastern countries, and yet cancer mortality is higher in those countries. A systemic problem behind this might be that appearance of biosimilars in those markets do not lead to increased patient access.

Finally Olga Solomon, European Commission Head of Unit allowed insight in the upcoming new Commission vision in ensuring equitable and sustainable access. Olga Solomon highlighted that time difference between market launch and reimbursement, therefore patient access might differ significantly. The preliminary results of orphan and paediatric regulation reveals that unmet medical needs still persist, that can justify review of the legislation. The new pharma strategy will focus on better access, need based innovation and safer supply chain.

During the first panel discussion extensive debate has taken place on overcoming access barriers to oncology treatment.
Valerie Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) presented the latest findings of and OECD study. An important lesson is that countries should share their experiences in managed entry agreements.
Zoltán Kaló, highlighted that innovation tackles narrower and narrower patient population. On the other hand in the off patent sector better access to biosimilars is not appropriately ensured, which is a situation that is calling for dedicated political action.
Rosa Giuliani, Director of Public Policy, European Society of Medical Oncology said that better synergy is needed between EU and national processes, in order that new technologies with good added value have better uptake. Unfortunately, access differences persist at regional and institutional (hospital) level.
Maja Bercic, Chair of the CEE Network, Medicines for Europe pointed out that there are serious inequalities among member states. It is also a problem that in many countries cheap biosimilars are listed on the high priced medicines list with prescription restriction.

The second panel focussed on Maintaining generic medicines availability and preventing shortages

Ilka Wölfle, President of the European Social Insurance Platform highlighted that very often older medicines can disappear from the market that can lead hindered patient access. In some countries budgetary measures can trigger parallel export from other member states. Market concentration can also lead to limited production capacities, which is further aggravated by parallel trade. ESIP is waiting for the Commission’s report on medicine shortages. Lastly, competition in the generic market has to be ensured.
Adrian van den Hoven, Director General of Medicines for Europe pointed out that some member states apply parallel import quotas which drains out medicines from low prices countries. This is not the purpose of the single market. It would be important to better reward local manufacturing in procurement. COVID-19 has hit two important source of EU active manufacturing capacities (China, North Italy), and India has just announced restriction of active substance export. We need open dialogue on regulatory flexibilities to overcome bottlenecks. As a response, to journalist question he underlined there is no current shortage attributed to coronavirus, but on the longer term supply chains might be affected.
Stephanie Kohl, Policy and Advocacy Officer at European Association of Hospital Pharmacists pointed out that medicines most affected by shortages are antibiotics, cancer drugs and vaccines. Shortage might have different causes from country to country. Contingency plans and proactive measures are needed. She shared the views that it would be important to abandon paper leaflets as hospitals normally use electronic versions.
Rosa Giuliani reminded, that cancer medicines are actually priority medicines under the WHO. Root causes of shortages should be continuously monitored and we need better anticipation mechanisms.

As closing remark Edina Tóth, member of the European Parliament highlighted that the Europe’s future Beating Cancer Plan and the Special Committee on Cancer in the European Parliament are both long-awaited actions that support Member States and European citizens in taking further steps to combat against Cancer. She recognized that it is necessary first to address the roots and to prevent the European market from shortages and secure supply for our citizens.

During the first Environment Council environment and climate ministers had an exchange of views on the European Green Deal, especially on the concrete steps and measures needed to be taken so that the EU reaches its climate neutrality objective by 2050. Majority of Member States welcomed the European Green Deal. Many Member States emphasized that urgent actions and further measures are necessary to be introduced for fighting climate change, for which the Green Deal provides an appropriate framework. Several ministers stressed the importance of strengthening the EU leading role in the run up to COP26 climate conference.

The Council adopted the EU's submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) on the long-term low greenhouse gas emission development strategy of the EU and its member states. The EU and its member states are fully committed to implementation of the Paris Agreement and its long-term goals, and the climate neutrality objective of the EU.

The ministers have adopted the Council Conclusions on Ambient Air Quality. The „Conclusions” aims not only to establish the future ambient air quality policy of the EU, but also to provide direction to the Commission in the preparation of the air quality legislation.

The ministers exchanged their views on the Greening of the European Semester. Most Member States supported the greening process; nevertheless, they agreed that the focus of the Semester should remain on the macro economical features.

The Commission presented its proposal on a European Climate Law and on a Just Transition Mechanism under the European Green Deal, and its communication on the European Green Deal Investment Plan. Ministers had the possibility to express their first thoughts on the new Climate Law. Ministers emphasized the importance of access to EU support mechanism and financial tools and of just transition to climate neutrality and supported the establishment of Just Transition Fund.

Today the COVID-19 epidemics are tangible reality which brings us to a new phase where we have to deal with intra EU transmission cases.

In Hungary we have our first cases, which come by no surprise, as it was also a matter of time that we also have to step from preparedness to mitigation responses.

The Hungarian healthcare system is ready for the appearance of the COVID-19 disease. We have sufficient laboratory and treatment capacities in order to provide sufficient protection.

To secure this readiness, good cooperation at international and EU level played an important role as we had more time to strengthen our capacities. WHO coordination, ECDC guidance, the Union Civil Protection Mechanism, the work in the Health Security Committee, and the IPCR mechanism were instrumental. The Commission Taskforce set up by President von der Leyen is also reassuring that the Commission is aware of the cross sectoral nature of challenges.

We deem, that current mechanisms provide for sufficient cooperation, and we have reached the point where we should avoid generating further workload by setting up new horizontal coordination mechanisms.

We agree that today, in order to maintain good responsive capacities, strengthened EU cooperation is needed.

In this respect, I would like to highlight the following areas:

- cross-sectoral monitoring of the situation is essential in order to ensure smooth continuity of our everyday life;

- it is important that we successfully implement joint procurement procedures, such as the one in the field of personal protective equipment;

- travel advice provided for EU passengers and measures applied at entry points should also be coordinated,

- we need increased efforts to monitor the integrity of global value chains, having particular regard to the manufacturing of pharmaceuticals. We call upon the Commission, the European Medicines Agency that, together with national authorities and stakeholders, to implement efficient mechanisms to ensure safe supply of pharmaceutical ingredients;

- we still need to maintain coordinated and reassuring communication towards the public and healthcare professionals, in order to avoid panic.

We do not know how long we have to face this situation, but Hungary remains fully committed to EU level cooperation in order to better protect our citizens.

„My feelings toward Hungary were less detached. I confess that I regarded and still regard that Turanian tribe with acute distaste. Like their cousins the Turks, they had destroyed much and created nothing. Budapest was a false city devoid of any autochthonous reality. For centuries the Magyars had oppressed their subject nationalities. The hour of liberation and retribution was at hand.” – wrote British diplomat Harold Nicolson – in 1919 –, who played a major role when the Trianon-borders were drawn.

My fellow compatriots,

What did this diplomat know about Hungary? About St Stephen founding the state, about the wisdom in our first king’s admonitions, about the valiance of St Ladislaus, about the heroism of János Hunyadi, about the world acclaimed victory at Nándorfehérvár?

What did he know about the Renaissance court of King Matthias, about his library unrivalled in Europe and the codices it contained, about the giants of the reform age, our freedom fight in 1848, or the economic boom, the scientific achievements of the half a century before World War I?

Nicholson knew precious little of all this. Yet – as a diplomat, party to the decision – he still fundamentally influenced the future of Hungarians.

Hungary mourned – on 4 June - one hundred years ago today. Budapest was also draped in black. Flags were flown at half-mast. Newspapers were published with black mourning borders. Most of the shops, schools and offices remained closed. Buses and trams were halted. Bells tolled in the capital and everywhere in Hungary. Hungarians observed five minutes of silence.

Not a single Hungarian could come to terms with the loss, the humiliation, the codified illegality.
Hungary lost two-thirds of its territory in 1920. Her population shrunk from 18 to 7 and a half million. More than three million Hungarians found themselves outside of the borders. Romania was given land that itself was larger than what was left of Hungary. The majority of our wheat fields, 90 percent of our forests, two thirds of our railway networks were given to neighbouring countries.

Less mention is made of the economic development that Trianon halted. We know from our elementary school studies about the role played by István Széchenyi in building the first cylinder mill in Budapest. It is a lesser known fact that 60 years later, at the turn of the century, Budapest was the largest mill center of Europe. Only Minneapolis in the United States surpassed it globally.

We do not usually talk about the dynamic development of the Hungarian machinery industry. This, despite the fact that we have every reason to be proud. The first locomotive manufactured in Hungary came off the line in 1873 and 27 years later the one thousandth unit rolled out of the factory.

Within 30-40 years, Hungary was able to produce any equipment and machinery needed in agriculture.

World leading electric industry. Dynamic urban and railway infrastructure development. Public and private buildings lending a true metropolitan atmosphere to Budapest. Only London preceded the Budapest underground in Europe. The Parliament building was inaugurated in 1904.

Beside the losses suffered by the country and the halted economic development, we should also talk about the direct losses suffered by the people.

Several waves of atrocities swept across Hungary between 1918 and 1920. There was no decision yet in Trianon, the new borders were not yet drawn, but a “post-war war” was ravaging the Carpathian-basin. Initially it was only the rampage of the “free corps”, the looted granaries, the burning palaces, ethnically or socially motivated violence. Later the brutality of the occupying Czech, Romanian and Serbian units.
Salvos, arbitrary violence, looting, the defilement of women. Hundreds of thousands of people forced to flee. Those staying behind being deprived of their work, their jobs and their means of living. People losing their land, their houses and their belongings. Terror, fear, humiliation, settlements torn apart.

When talking about Trianon today, it is the fourth successive generation posing the same questions: Could the world war have been prevented? Who was responsible for what? Why was the Trianon dictate so utterly unjust on Hungary?

Many of the historians studying the era, share the opinion that – although the leader of every country spoke about peace – in reality everybody was preparing for war at the beginning of the 20th century.

The decline of the Ottoman Empire, the political vacuum created on the Balkans, the expansion of tsarist Russia, the intensification of the Pan-Slav idea, the growing strength of Germany, revanchism in France because of losing Alsace-Lorraine, the growing autonomy demands of ethnic minorities were all pointing in this direction.

After the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy wagered that its conflict with Serbia would remain local and be limited to the Balkans at the most.

This was supported by the European experiences of the previous 50 years. Vienna thought, that Germany’s stance regarding the Monarchy will keep Russia away. Saint Petersburg thought that the Russian mobilization will prompt the Monarchy to retreat. Berlin believed that England will remain neutral and this will keep France away.

Everybody was wrong.

The Hungarian Prime Minister István Tisza was initially against entering the war. He thought that a concurrent war against the Russians, the Serbs and the Romanians would not leave enough troops to protect Transylvania. A probable victory would tip the delicate ethnic balance of the Monarchy. After two weeks of wrangling, Vienna convinced Tisza, who at the Ministerial Council meeting deciding on the war only insisted that the Monarchy should issue a statement, that it did not intend to annex Serbian territories.

The Austro-Hungarian Monarchy declared war on Serbia, Hungary became a warring party. Soon the war developed into a world war. After four years of fighting, Hungary – as a losing party – could not escape serious punishment. Why?

After the German blitzkrieg strategy proved to be a fiasco and the war was consuming more and more resources, the Entente and the Central Powers insisted that countries, which had remained “neutral” up until then, should join the war. However, bringing the neutrals – Italy and Romania – into war was only possible if they satisfied territorial demands of these countries, which was only feasible at the price of the complete military collapse of the enemy. Italy entered into the war on the side of England and France in the hope of getting South-Tirol, Istria, a part of Dalmatia and some parts of the Ottoman Empire as well as the hope of expanding its African colonies. The Entente – already in 1916 – promised Bukovina, Transylvania and a substantial part of East-Hungary to Romania.

By today it is more of a historic peculiarity that – on 7 May 1918 – two years after entering into war, Romania signed a peace with Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. This also came at a price. The recognition of the Union of Bessarabia with Romania that was declared earlier.

However, six months later – by when Germany had in essence capitulated – Romania decided to disregard the peace treaty and entered into war again on the side of the Entente powers in the hope of acquiring the territories they wanted earlier.

By 1918, the fate of three monarchies was sealed – the German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and tsarist Russia – which had in earlier centuries fundamentally decided the state of power play in Europe.

France – after its earlier ally fell out – was in need of new alliances, in order to balance the weight of Germany. Furthermore a buffer zone was indispensable in order to prevent the expansion of the Bolsheviks.

This new alliance also came at a price. The winning powers forced the defeated parties, mainly Hungary to pay this price.

In his admonitions, Saint Stephen warns his son to not punish or condemn anyone immoderately.
Five countries finished World War I on the side of the defeated. Let us compare the extent of the punishment meted out on Germany and Hungary. While Germany lost 13%, Hungary lost 67%, that is two-third of its territory. While close to 4% of Germany’s population found itself under the jurisdiction of another country, in the case of Hungary, almost 60% of the population was impacted.

Let us also record a few other facts. Hungary was only invited to the peace talks with one year delay; until then the country was not able articulate its position and its arguments during the drafting of the treaty conditions. The Council of Foreign Ministers dedicated only one single session to discussing the Hungarian borders. They approved the report of the two preparative committees without any tangible debate. (This is why characters, like Nicholson quoted at the beginning of the speech could play such a significant role.) The Wilsonian principles on self-determination were only applied to the detriment of Hungary. By the time the Hungarian delegation arrived in Paris, US President Wilson had not only turned his back on his principles, but also the negotiations, the US party was represented at the hearings by their ambassador to Paris. Albert Apponyi, the leader of the Hungarian delegation was given one single occasion to speak. There was no possibility to debate, to share arguments, to presents documents for public scrutiny.

The fate of Hungary was not decided in 1920. It happened much earlier. At disingenuous behind the scene talks. Unprepared politicians, political desperados, self-proclaimed prophets, paid agents, biased, partially corrupted experts, journalists tainted with anti-Hungarian bias all worked together to create what we call the Trianon peace dictate today.

One hundred years on, we have every right to ask the question: Did Trianon bring peace? No, the carnage continued two decades later. Did it help the economic development of the Central and Eastern-European region? No. Did it help reduce the ethnic tension in the region? No. The decision turned a multinational country in several multinational countries. Thereby sowing the seeds of further strife. Furthermore, it was unable to prevent the expansion of German national socialism or Russian Bolshevism.

In his memoirs of the war, Churchill wrote the following: „… There is not one of these peoples or provinces that constituted the Empire of the Habsburgs to whom gaining their independence has not brought the tortures which ancient poets and theologians had reserved for the damned.”

The last question we have to ask is: Was the Trianon decision just? The fact that we Hungarians consider it unjust is understandable. But what do others think about this?

Years later, Harold Nicholson, who I quoted at the beginning of my speech, who could hardly be accused of pro-Hungarian sentiments wrote the following: „The Committee on Romanian claims (...) thought only in terms of Transylvania, the Committee on Czech claims concentrated upon the southern frontier of Slovakia…these two separate Committees had between them imposed upon Hungary a loss of territory and population which when combined was very serious indeed.
Had the work been concentrated in the hands of a ‘Hungarian’ Committee not only would a wider area of frontier been open for the give and take of discussion, but it would have been seen that the total cessions imposed would place more Magyars under alien rule than was consonant with the doctrine of self-determination.”

But we could also quote British Prime Minister, Lloyd George at the time: „There will never be peace in South Eastern Europe if every little state now coming into being is to have a large Magyar irrendenta within its borders. I would therefore take as a guiding principle of the peace that as far as is humanly possible the different races should be allocated to their motherlands and this human criterion should have precedence over considerations of strategy or economics or communications…”

Finally let us quote the Francois Mitterand, the Socialist President of France who said the following in 1992: “All the peace treaties of this century, especially the ones after the Great War of 1914-1918, starting with the Versailles Treaty, but also that of 1945 and those that followed were all unjust peace treaties which always negated historic, geographical, intellectual or ethnic realities in order to cater for the glory or the power desires or direct interests of the winner. The drama of the next war was always coded into the provisions of the previous peace treaties.”

Distinguished Commemorating Audience,

I could also quote Ady, Attila József or Kosztolányi about all that happened before and after Trianon. Gyula Juhász, Babits, Karinthy. Krúdy, Móricz, Reményik. Kós Károly, Antal Szerb, Márai. We could dedicate a separate commemorative session to the pain they felt because of this injustice.

Yet, I will not quote from them, but instead I will bring a few lines from Arnold Ruttkay, who was born after the Trianon dictate and fled to Australia in 1948:

„What more do they want…?
Weren’t all the seals on the peace document,
the ancient land given for free enough….?
Wasn’t the border drawn hastily
in the backyard by the raspberry bushes enough?
Weren’t the removed street signs,
the rewritten maps and the fallen statues enough…?
The mother tongue has gone into hiding a long time ago,
Only to be whispered behind closed windows.
The old school has closed,
the song has faded,
the bell tower no longer stands and
memories shiver with fear.”

On the one hundredth anniversary it is also fit that we should inspect ourselves.

The tragic situation of Hungary between the end of the World War and the Trianon decision was only aggravated by the catastrophic blunders of the country’s political leadership. During this barely two-year period conservative incompetence, liberal inaptitude and Bolshevik utopia all came together.

Procrastination, vain hopes, unfounded hopes for cultural dominance and historic deeds made it impossible to assert interests on an uneven playing field. Where were the intelligence reports about the background talks and deals of the Entente and later Little Entente countries at the turn of 1918-19? Where was the elementary instinct of self-defence to reorganize the military and protect the borders? Where was the diplomatic background work, personal experiences, the presentation of our arguments to have the ethnic borders respected?

It took more than political blindness to think that it was going to be enough to take a principled stance against profiteers and booty hunting efforts, to not see what kind of political and economic deals were made in the background. Seriously irresponsible behaviour.

Mihály Károlyi could have done at least one thing: to keep the military together and to create a strong law enforcement. This could have been protection against the Czech and Romanian incursions into the country. It could also have been an opportunity to isolate the communists.

Could timely, perseverant and tenacious political and diplomatic lobbying have helped to reduce the losses, in light of the fact that Apponyi’s performance – when everything was already decided – managed to capture the interest of the British Prime Minister and to inspire feelings of sympathy in the Italian Prime Minister?

A war lost, the chaos caused by two revolutions. The grave socio-economic consequences of Trianon. A state on the verge of bankruptcy.

But the nation wanted to live. Reconstruction of the country had to begin.

István Bethlen’s government was left to do the work. English historian Bryan Cartledge described Bethlen – who was a member of the Hungarian delegation in Paris – with the following words: “…the absence of talent was striking in the post-war period, István Bethlen was the only man of talent, who could efficiently represent Hungary on the European political stage.
He learned his lesson well as a junior member of the delegation at the Paris peace conference. Later he was also able to efficiently apply everything that he learned.”

During his first year in office, István Bethlen, who became head of the Hungarian government in 1921 had the National Assembly pass a law, which dethroned the Habsburgs. Organized a referendum in Sopron, reducing the size of the population ceded to Austria by 55 thousand. Worked authoritatively to create the conditions for political stability first and economic recovery later. Reduced the international isolation of Hungary. Managed to secure a loan with the help of the League of Nations to relaunch the economy. Introduced customs tariffs to protect the Hungarian market.

The result exceeded all expectations. From 1925 onwards the government registered budget surplus every year and could significantly increase the money spent on education and public health. This provided the financial foundations for Klebelsberg’s far-reaching education and cultural policy. By 1929, industrial production exceeded the 1913 figure by 12 percent. It was not the fault of Hungary or the Hungarian people that the global economic crisis halted this momentum.

One hundred years have passed. Filled with pain, further losses and a lot of lessons learned. Since World War II, Hungary has been repeatedly accused of wanting to change the borders, disregarding the fact that when an opportunity presented itself, Hungary never submitted any territorial demands against her neighbours. No claims were made after the fall of the Ceauşescu-regime, the disintegration of Yugoslavia, or the demise of the Soviet Union, the birth of Ukraine or the break-up of Czechoslovakia.

We give respect to our neighbours, but we ask them that they respect us and the Hungarians living in their countries.

We give respect to the ethnic communities living in Hungary and would like them to look on us with respect.

We have to work for each other and not against one another. What the major powers spoiled, we should rectify. If we can do this, then we can lift the curse of Trianon.

But let us be clear and unequivocal. We will not be party to any cover-ups, any falsification of history and the disowning of Hungarians living outside of the mother country. We will be partners in honest dialogue, in making use of historic opportunities, in strengthening the Hungarian-Hungarian bonds, as well as the ones between Hungarians and other nationalities. Nobody can deny us the right to work to ensure that the spiritual borders of the nation remain unchanged, if the geographical ones have changed.

For 10 years now, this day – 4 June – is called the Day of National Belonging.

During the past 10 years we have worked to finally build where so many decades in the past were only about destruction. We worked to fill with content the noble idea of national policy and to forge closer bonds between fellow Hungarians through the process of simplified naturalization. To support the small Hungarian communities across the borders, just as much as we support larger institutional networks. To provide training and grants in order to develop the competitiveness of Hungarian businesses abroad, to renew church and community spaces.

For 10 years we have been working to provide social assistance, scholarships and support for Hungarian schools in order to provide perspectives, where education and jobs are needed primarily to keep young Hungarians in place. To rectify, to save our shared values that have started to go into decline, to renovate our tormented memorials. To secure common funds for common objectives.

All those who will act like this in the future will not only look to what we used to have but will also see everything that we have now. The graduating class of the János Selye High School in Komárom. The children and the staff at the houses of Saint Francis Foundation in Déva. The young people singing in Hungarian at the Saint Michael Children’s Home in Rát. The students of the II. Ferenc Rákóczi Teacher Training College in Beregszász. The children of the kindergarten in Nagykapos. The young talents of the Újvidék Art Academy. The young people gathering around the Three heap Altar in Csíksomlyó.

Within 10 years the National Assembly has tripled the funds available to promote national belonging. Thank God, the work of 10 years has come to fruition by today.

Count István Széchenyi closed his treatise „ Credit” with the words: “Many people believe that Hungary belongs to the past, but I believe firmly that Hungary is not a part of the past but the future."

Speaking in the parliamentary debate on accepting the Trianon dictates, Albert Apponyi alluded to Széchenyi and encouraged members of the National Assembly with these words: “Hungary is not a part of the past but the future!”

One hundred years on, after two world wars, tormented by Trianon and economic crises, after more than four decades of a communist-socialist detour, a defeated revolution and several times being on the verge of collapse, we are here, we are alive. Having trust in the future we can say: the Hungarian nation is not a thing of the past but of the future.

https://www.keh.hu/speeches/2760-Hungarian_President_Janos_Aders_speech__on_Day_of_National_Unity&pnr=6

The Hungarian government is urging a fair EU financial framework through which the European Union will be able to help economic recovery in Europe with flexible means and measures, Justice Minister Judit Varga stated after a video conference of the General Affairs Council.

According to the summary sent to the Hungarian news agency MTI, regarding the European Commission’s proposal on the next multiannual financial framework (MFF) and the Recovery Fund the Justice Minister highlighted at the event that in order to offer a solution that is acceptable for all Member States, the proposal “cannot leave anyone behind”.

Therefore, it must be primarily fair and balanced; the common statement adopted by the V4 prime ministers on 11 June can offer a sound basis for this, the politician pointed out.

Ms. Varga highlighted that there is no general, one-size-fits-all crisis management solution.

“Hungary has implemented major reforms in the past few years, and thanks to the Hungarian people’s efforts, it is has made good progress in the process of convergence,” she said.

Therefore, the Member States pursuing disciplined economic policies primarily need further investments for a swift recovery, rather than structural reforms, Ms. Varga stressed.

The Minister added that the recovery effort in the Central and Eastern European Member States must be based on a reinforced cohesion policy “which has already proved its worth, has created an added value in Europe and whose contractual goals are just as topical today as they were before the crisis”.

Ms. Varga laid down at the same time that the Hungarian government’s position remains that a successful fight against the epidemic cannot be punished with the withdrawal of funds.

The Justice Minister also observed that if they succeed in remedying these problems and reaching a fair agreement, Hungary will be able to support an overarching EU recovery plan.

(Ministry of Justice/MTI)

On Tuesday Prime Minister Viktor Orbán held a video conference with the President of the European Council, Charles Michel – Bertalan Havasi, the Prime Minister's press chief, informed the Hungarian News Agency (MTI). The purpose of the meeting was to prepare the EU summit planned on 17-18 July.

Viktor Orbán stressed Hungary is interested in a fair EU budget, but the current proposal on the table is far from that.

The Hungarian Prime Minister said during the negotiation it cannot happen that richer member states receive more support, because that would be contrary to the European values,.

On Friday at a press conference held after the summit of prime ministers in Warsaw, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán described the past one year of the countries of the Visegrád Cooperation (V4) as good. On 1 July, Poland took over the presidency of the V4 from the Czech Republic which held it for a year.

The V4 had a good year; by European comparison, all four countries managed the epidemic well, and won the first battle, Mr Orbán said.

The Prime Minister highlighted that the second battle is about preserving jobs and kick-starting economic growth.

All four countries are keeping their sovereign debts under control, and it is not because of them that the need has now emerged for an extraordinary European financial plan, he added.

He said Hungary instinctively rejects the idea of joint borrowing; however, there are countries which need help now, and therefore they accept the European plan to take out a loan together.

Mr Orbán underlined at the same time that they are far from an agreement. At this time, we need a smart financial alliance among Member States, and the proposal currently on the table is far from this, he said.

He took the view that Poland will play a key role in the negotiations as they have just taken over the V4 presidency, and so there is more responsibility on the Polish prime minister’s shoulders than if he only negotiated on behalf of his own country.

The Prime Minister said they have faith in the successful outcome of the negotiations, and sincerely hope that leaders all over the world will come to occupy important positions whose mentality focuses on the economy and who are able to put their own economies in order after the epidemic.

He said he is rooting for US President Donald Trump because, in his view, he is the only candidate who is able to put the US economy in order after the pandemic.

He observed that in Hungary the 2021 budget had been adopted, and that this budget had been drafted without extra EU funds.

Regarding talks in the EU, he also mentioned that content and quality were more important than time.

It is rare that finance ministers with extensive experience lead the V4; however, this was so in the past one year during the Czech presidency, and this will also be the case during the period ahead. Therefore, they have high hopes for the Polish presidency, Mr Orbán pointed out.

He said he asked the Polish Prime Minister to ensure that the V4 also address the issue of migration. In Hungary they can see what is happening, that migration is intensifying by the day, that ever more people smugglers are being apprehended, that the number of illegal entry attempts is on the rise, and that on the migration route the number of infections is increasing, he listed.

He stressed that the first task will be to conquer the epidemic and to restart the economy, to be followed by the management of the migration situation; in this, Poland now taking over the V4 presidency can count on Hungary’s full support.

In answer to a question, Mr Orbán said they are making good progress as regards the EU financial plan; the Czech Prime Minister is handing over a united V4 to his Polish counterpart who – it is to be hoped – will be able to preserve this unity.

He took the view that the European financial plan is different from plans in the past.

In the case of the seven-year budget, each Member State makes a contribution; countries which are bigger and richer pay more, while other countries pay less, he highlighted.

The Prime Minister said what is happening now is, however, entirely different. No one will make any contribution, and so no one takes precedence. They will raise this money together, meaning that the EU will take out a loan. This means that there are no contributors who could have a greater say, and no one can claim that their voice should be louder because they pay more.

According to the Prime Minister, we need a smart financial plan which is beneficial for everyone, and where no one has any privileges in defining the content of the plan. This debate is different in its nature from the usual debates about the budget.

In this debate, the Polish Prime Minister will have to lead the V4 to victory, and it is to be hoped that he will be able to do so, Mr Orbán said.

(Cabinet Office of the Prime Minister/MTI)

If we fail to come to an agreement on issues in dispute in connection with the budget and the rescue package, that will be because of Holland, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán stated in Brussels on Sunday, ahead of the third working day of the EU summit about the next seven-year budget of the European Union and the attached economic recovery package.

Talking to the international press, the Prime Minister said the Dutch would like to introduce a mechanism which monitors the disbursement and utilisation of EU funds, in particular, in the case of the Southern countries. He underlined that this is an entirely new mechanism also in connection with the rule of law.

Regarding the rule of law – listed among the issues that remain open for the time being – he said its existence and guaranteeing its existence are of fundamental importance for all 27 Member States.

“The EU rests on the foundations of the rule of law, and if a country fails to accept the importance of the rule of law, it must immediately leave the European Union,” he said.

He highlighted that as the issue of the rule of law is fundamentally important from the viewpoint of the European Union, Hungary asked for guarantees that the rule of law procedure instituted against the country will be brought to a conclusion within the shortest possible time, he added.

He pointed out that the introduction of an entirely new mechanism requires the amendment of the treaties of the EU. According to Hungary, there is no need for a new mechanism, but we are ready to debate it. Carrying out this job, however, takes more than just a few casual words; it requires a lot of hard work and deliberation, he underlined.

Regarding Dutch-Hungarian relations, he said “I don’t know what personal reasons Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte may have for hating Hungary and me personally, but he keeps attacking our country relentlessly,” he said.

He recalled that Mr Rutte takes the view that Hungary does not honour the rule of law, and therefore economic sanctions should be introduced against it. This is unacceptable as there is no decision about the state of the rule of law in Hungary, he pointed out.

Mr Orbán said the considerable progress made at the summit so far is due to the fact that the leaders of all EU Member States are aware of the gravity of the economic situation that has developed in the wake of the pandemic and of its anticipated consequences.

He highlighted that instead of a dozen, there are now only four cardinal issues yet to be debated, and so there is a good chance of coming to an agreement. In addition to the rule of law, among the issues yet to be discussed he mentioned the size of the recovery fund which must, in his view, adequately address the economic crisis that we are faced with. The percentages of non-repayable grants and credit within the package are as yet open issues. In this regard, he highlighted that the Netherlands is urging the introduction of a mechanism which would vest it with significant power regarding the disbursement of EU funds, in particular, in the case of the Southern countries.

He added that Hungary supports the Italian position as those countries must be given money – and as soon as possible – which have the greatest and most urgent need for it.

Regarding the ratios of grants and credit, he highlighted that if we take a look at the sums allocated to countries of similar sizes with similar populations and similar revenues, the difference in the case of the part allocated to Hungary is humiliating, amounting to many billions of euros. Hungary finds this unfair, but in the interest of European unity it is prepared to accept even such a solution, he said.

In the context of the rebates payable from EU contributions to better-off countries, the Hungarian Prime Minister said while rich countries want to retain this privilege, following Britain’s departure (Brexit), “this mechanism should be eliminated”.

Regarding non-governmental organisations, he said their EU grants should be reconsidered as they attack the governments of Member States from the grants they receive. Therefore, at the summit he suggested that such organisations should be awarded EU grants based on similar considerations as political parties. Member States eventually rejected this proposal, he informed the press.

Mr Orbán stated that reaching an agreement on the issues now being debated in Brussels is essential, and so he is ready to continue negotiations even during the course of next week in the interest of a successful outcome.

(Cabinet Office of the Prime Minister/MTI)

László Kövér, Speaker of Hungary's National Assembly, asked his Dutch counterpart, Khadija Arib, for her cooperation, with the common goal of working together in order to help those EU Member States most affected by the coronavirus pandemic.

The following is a courtesy translation of László Kövér's letter.

Dear President Arib,

With the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, the role of the Parliaments of the Member States has increased significantly in the European decision-making process. Despite the different constitutional traditions, the Hungarian Government, as like the Dutch, is responsible to the Parliament; its mandate derives from the Parliament, and the Parliament can present guidelines in affairs of the European Union.

The current EU summit is key to the future of the Union. Several Member States are in need of help because of the economic crisis caused by the coronavirus pandemic, and we cannot deny solidarity with them simply because neither the Netherlands nor Hungary is among the countries most affected by the economic crisis. However, the mandate given to our governments by the Hungarian and Dutch parliaments is incompatible. Therefore, the current agreement is subject to conditions that the Hungarian Prime Minister must veto based on the mandate given to him by the National Assembly; and, vice versa, the Dutch Prime Minister has to do the same. In this situation, I would like to express the openness of the Hungarian Parliament to a dialogue between our parliaments. The planned trip of the Dutch representatives to Hungary and the rescheduling of my postponed visit to The Hague due to the coronavirus pandemic may offer an excellent opportunity for this.

Mrs. President, I ask for your cooperation, with the common goal of working together in order to help those EU Member States most affected by the coronavirus pandemic. I hope that in the current difficult situation, we can also help to find a way to a stronger Europe.

Yours sincerely,

László Kövér

The following is the official, Hungarian language text of the letter.

While in recent years the answers that could have made Europe competitive have not been conceived, under the leadership of Poland, Central Europe’s economy conveys the promise of a success story, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán told journalists on Monday in Bled, Slovenia.

The Prime Minister said he attended the Bled Strategic Forum, conducted bilateral talks with Central European prime ministers, and also met with representatives of the Hungarian community in Slovenia.

He took the view that what could of interest to members of the international public is how Central Europe’s elected political leaders envisage the future of Europe. “The discussion itself was an interesting civilisational conflict” at the forum because a journalist from a well-known “neo-Marxist British newspaper, The Guardian” acted as moderator, trying to intensely question the attending prime ministers about reality according to Western European linguistic terms, and it transpired that “we describe reality using different words, seeing it differently, and following from this, we see the issues of the future, too, differently,” he said.

Mr Orbán stressed it had become clear that Central European leaders saw three important issues as common tasks for the years ahead. The first one is that Serbia must be admitted to the European Union under any circumstances and within the shortest possible time because without Serbia the European security architecture is not complete, and “migrants, too, are coming from there,” he explained.

He said there is a country which should form part of Europe and the European Union. Despite this, it is in an in-between status which is entirely the EU’s fault. Serbia would be happy to join, it is possible to conduct negotiations with them, everyone appreciates that Serbia is important, and yet, the political courage and leadership decision-making competence it takes to cross this important threshold is missing in the EU, he said.

He observed that Hungary has a vested elementary interest in Serbia becoming a member of the EU within the shortest possible time, and we therefore support this country with all possible means.

The Prime Minister said security was also an important issue which leads to the economy because one can observe in the world that the United States and China have “outstripped us”. The reason why they overtook the European Union is that they have the military capacity which makes ongoing scientific renewal possible.

He said the modern world’s greatest discoveries which determine economic development  usually enter the realm of civilian life from defence industry research. As long as there is no European army and a research capability behind it, we will not be able to catch up with the great powers that determine the speed and direction of technology, he said, adding that we would need a European military force.

According to Mr Orbán, the third important question is competitiveness from the respect of the production of goods. The reason why European goods are not purchased is that our standards are no longer what they once were or the quality of competitors’ products is better, we charge overly high prices, taxes are too high and bureaucracy abounds, he listed.

He said the European economy should be “streamlined” to make it competitive.

The Prime Minister said the same problems have persisted for some time now, they have been identified, but in recent years the answers that could have made the European Union competitive have not been conceived.

He highlighted that it is good news at the same time that, under the leadership of Poland – whose economy is the most robust in Central Europe – the economy of the V4 and the region conveys the promise of a success story. The pandemic is not sparing us either, we must fight for every single job and investment, but on the whole, this region is much more promising from the viewpoint of international competitiveness than the rest of the EU, and Hungary is located in this part of Europe, he recalled.

Mr Orbán also spoke about the fact that the sensation of belonging to the Hungarian community appears to be emerging also in this region. “In nursery schools, schools, culture centres where real life is taking place” one can sense in Prekmurje (Muravidék) that there is a motherland which looks after and cooperates with the Hungarians living there, he said.

The Prime Minister welcomed the fact that in Slovenia a right-wing, national government is in power at present which wants to cooperate. They are close to identifying the details of a programme, as part of which the Slovenian government will support the Prekmurje region, while the Hungarian government the Rábavidék (Porabje) region with larger sums of money. As a result, the leaders of the two countries will commit also personally to bettering the lives of Slovenians in Hungary and Hungarians in Slovenia, he explained.

He took the view that they are making much better progress now, and with the incumbent Slovenian government they have found a form of cooperation – that the Left over there is attacking – that is based on mutual trust and national friendship. In Slovenia, too, there is a keen fight, the same as in Hungary, “also here, they dig you in the ribs if you want to do something,” he said.

He stressed that on the whole Hungarian-Slovenian cooperation is better than ever.

(MTI/Cabinet Office of the Prime Minister)