Hungary’s 2016 Referendum on European Union Migrant Resettlement Quotas

Official name: Referendum against Compulsory Resettlemen(Népszavazás a kényszerbetelepítés ellen).

Date: October 2, 2016.

Question: Do you want the European Union to be able to mandate the obligatory settlement of non-Hungarian citizens in Hungary even without the approval of the [Hungarian] National Assembly? (Akarja-e, hogy az Európai Unió az Országgyűlés hozzájárulása nélkül is előírhassa nem magyar állampolgárok Magyarországra történő kötelező betelepítésé?)

Issue: The resettlement of 1,294 Syrian, Iraqi and Eritrean refugees from Italy (306 refugees) and Greece (988 refugees) to Hungary as part of a European Union plan adopted in September 2015 to transfer 120,000 such refugees from Italy and Greece to other EU member states over the subsequent two years (source in English).

Orbán government position: Rejects mandatory resettlement quotas.

Prime Minister Orbán on resettlement quotas:

“Only we can make the decision about who we want to live with. They can’t say this in Brussels and Brussels cannot settle people here whom we don’t want to live with.” December 4, 2015 (source in Hungarian).

“Letting the migrants in is hardly a correctable mistake. Moreover, [there exists] this question of principle: can somebody from outside Hungary tell us ‘you Hungarians must live with people you don’t want to live with.’ This doesn’t depend on whether this means ten, one hundred or one million people. Here we are defending our national sovereignty. If the Hungarian parliament decides to do so, then we will accept refugees, though we will never under any circumstances allow Brussels to force a quota system upon us.” December 24, 2015 (source in Hungarian).

Required voter participation for referendum to be valid: More than 50 percent of all eligible voters.

Required percentage of “no” votes for referendum to pass: More than 50 percent of all votes cast, not counting invalid ballots.

Consequences of valid referendum vote against resettlement quotas: No legal consequences. The purpose of the referendum, presuming that the “no” vote wins, is to provide the Orbán government with greater authority to resist the previously adopted and possible future European Union resettlement quotas (source in Hungarian). On September 23, 2016, Prime Ministry chief János Lázár said during his weekly press conference that “if the referendum is valid and successful, the government could propose amendment of the Fundamental Law” (source in Hungarian).

Legal foundation for EU resettlement quotas: Article 78 of the European Union Treaty of Lisbon: “In the event of one or more Member States being confronted with an emergency situation characterized by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries, the [European] Council, on a proposal from the [European] Commission, may adopt provisional measures for the benefit of the member State(s) concerned. It shall act after consulting the European Parliament” (source in Hungarian).

In December 2015, the governments of both Hungary and Slovakia submitted challenges to the European Court of Justice claiming that the European Union migrant resettlement quota adopted in September 2015 infringe EU law  (source A and B in English).

Other EU members that reject the September 2015 resettlement quota: Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania (source A and B in English).

Potential EU fines on member states that  refuse to participate in resettlement plan: On May 4, 2016, the European Commission proposed offering EU member states that chose “to temporarily not take part in the reallocation” the option of paying a 250,000-euro “solidarity contribution” per each refugee not accepted under the resettlement plan (source in English). Under this proposal, the Orbán government would be compelled to pay a “solidarity contribution” of 323.5 million euros if it refused to accept Hungary’s quota of refugees in accordance with the resettlement plan.

Orbán government referendum campaign: In May 2016, the Orbán government launched an “informational campaign regarding the Referendum against Compulsory Resettlement.” The government’s referendum campaign has been divided into three phases:

first, the display of billboard signs throughout Hungary bearing the following text (see sign):

Let’s Send Word to Brussels so that Even They Understand It! (Üzenjük Brüsszelnek, hogy ők is megértsék!);

second, the display of billboard signs throughout the country with the following six texts (see gallery):

Did You Know?: More Than 300 People Have Died in Terrorist Attacks since the Beginning of the Immigration Crisis. (Tudta?: A bevándorlási válság kezdete óta Európában több mint 300-an haltak meg terrortámadásban);

Did You Know?: Immigrants Committed the Paris Attacks. (Tudta?: A párizsi merényletet bevándorlók követték el);

Did You Know?: Harassment of Women Has Increased Sharply Since the Beginning of the Immigration Crisis. (Tudta?: A bevándorlási válság kezdete óta ugrásszerűen emelkedik a nők elleni zaklatások száma Európában);

Did You Know?: Last Year One and a Half Million Illegal Immigrants Arrived to Europe. (Tudta?: Tavaly másfél míllió illegális bevándorló érkezett Európába);

Did You Know?: More Than One Million Immigrants Want to Come to Europe from Libya Alone. (Tudta?: Csak Líbiából közel egymillió bevándorló akar Európába jönni);

Did You Know?: Brussels Wants to Settle a City’s Worth of Illegal Immigrants in Hungary.¹ (Tudta?: Brüsszel egy városnyi illegális bevándorlót akar Magyarországra telepíteni);

and third, the mailing of 20-page brochures entitled “Information about the Referendum” (see gallery) to all 4.1 million households in Hungary and the display of and a new billboard sign (see sign), this one in Hungary’s red, white and green national colors, bearing the text “Let’s Not Take a Risk! Vote No! October 2 (Ne kockáztassunk! Szavazzunk nemmel! Október 2).

Cost of Government Campaign: The Prime Ministerial Cabinet Office spent 3.9 billion forints (12.6 million euros) on signs and television advertising broadcasting the same messages as those displayed on the signs (source in Hungarian). The brochures cost at least 100 million forints (324,000 euros) to print and mail (source in Hungarian). Thus the total cost of the government’s referendum campaign is at least 4 billion forints (12.9 million euros).

Position of National Assembly parties toward referendum:

Fidesz: no;

Christian Democratic People’s Party: no;

Jobbik: no;

Hungarian Socialist Party: boycott;²

Dialogue for Hungary: boycott;

Together—Party for a New Era: boycott;

Democratic Coalition: boycott;

Hungarian Liberal Party: yes;

Politics Can Be Different: neutral.

Two-Tailed Dog Party anti-referendum campaign: On August 15, 2016, the Two-Tailed Dog Party (Kétfarkú Kutya Párt), an extra-parliamentary opposition joke-party, began collecting donations via its website in order to finance an anti-referendum sign campaign. By August 28, the Two-Tailed Dog Party had collected around 27 million forints (87,000 euros), which the party said would pay for 450 large signs, 500 medium-sized signs, 200,000 small posters and 100,000 stickers urging voters to cast invalid ballots in the referendum (source in Hungarian).

The Two-Tailed Dog Party signs referring in ironic and absurd terms to those that the Orbán government had posted earlier in the summer began to appear on the streets of Budapest in late August (see gallery).

Likely outcome of referendum: According to a Závecz Research poll conducted for the opposition website index.hu during the last week of July, 53.9 percent of respondents reported that they intended to vote in the referendum, while 18.6 percent reported that they intended not to vote. A total of 40.3 percent of respondents reported that they would vote “no,” while 4.2 percent reported that they would vote “yes” (source in Hungarian).

According to another Závecz Research poll in late August, 54 percent of respondents reported that they intended to vote in the referendum, an increase of 0.1 percentage points compared to late July, while 18.8 percent reported that they intended not to vote, an increase of 0.2 percentage points compared to late July.  A total of 36.8 percent of respondents reported that they would vote “no,” a decrease of 3.5 percentage points compared to late July, while 5 percent reported that they would vote “yes,” an increase of 0.8 percentage points from late July. Only 0.9 percent of respondents reported that they intended to cast invalid ballots (source in Hungarian).

 

¹On August 29, 2016, the Curia (Hungary’s supreme court) rejected Hungarian Socialist Party Vice President András Nemény’s claim that this sign was misleading because the phrase “a city’s worth” implied that more than the actual 1,294 migrants would be resettled in Hungary according to the European Union plan and that referring to them as “illegal immigrants” obscured the fact that they were determined to be genuine refugees. The Curia based its decision on the premise that the “government’s statements voiced as part of the campaign at most orient [voters], though do not inform [them]” (source A and B in Hungarian).

²Hungarian Socialist Party (HSP) President Gyula Molnár stated on September 1, 2016 that “the HSP is prepared to support the government in the effort against the obligatory quota in the event that the European Union indeed is planning such steps” (source in Hungarian).

See: gallery of Orbán government referendum signs; gallery of Orbán government referendum brochure; gallery of Two-Tailed Dog Party referendum signs.

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

Röszke—One Year Later

Migrants travel along defunct railway in northern Serbia on September 15, 2015 (photo: Orange Files).

Migrants enter Hungary via defunct railway in September 2015 (photo: Orange Files).

Tens of thousands of migrants passed along the defunct railway from Serbia into Hungary near the village of Röszke on their way to Western Europe during the summer and early fall of 2015 before the Orbán government closed this final gap in the border on September 15 (see The Fields Are Speaking Pashto and The Curtain Falls Again).

Now, in early September 2016: vegetation has engulfed the rails and the thick trail of discarded belongings and refuse that the migrants left behind them. There is no visible evidence of the mass movement of people that took place along these tracks just one year ago.

Same location in September 2016 (photo: Orange Files).

Same location in September 2016 (photo: Orange Files).

In March 2016, the governments of the former Yugoslav republics through which the Orbán government’s construction of a fence along Hungary’s southern border diverted the Western Balkan migration route closed their frontiers to migrants (source A and B in English). On March 9, European Council President Donald Tusk announced that “irregular flows of migrants along Western Balkans route have come to an end” (source in English).

As a result: during the five-month period from the beginning of April to the end of August 2016, just 11,662 migrants crossed the Aegean Sea from Turkey into Greece in order to travel the West Balkan route northward, compared to 225,505 migrants during the same period in 2015 (source in Hungarian).

Afghan migrants in Horgos (photo: Orange Files).

Afghan migrants in Horgos (photo: Orange Files).

One encounters some of the few migrants who are still attempting to travel the officially closed West Balkan route in the small Hungarian-inhabited town of Horgos (Horgoš) in northern Serbia about two kilometers from the sealed border. About 100 young men, Afghans and a few sub-Saharan Africans (and no Arabs), sitting around in groups near a small grocery store in the center of town.

They have no money. And unlike the migrants of 2015, they are ragged and weary. Some of them  have gauze bandages wrapped around festering wounds. Most say they have been waiting at the border for over two months in order to gain admission to the transit zone in Hungary, where they will be officially registered as asylum-seekers. A group of French-speaking Africans say that Hungarian authorities are permitting 15 migrants to enter the transit zone each day—14 who are part of family groups and only one person traveling without immediate family members.

End of the line (photo: Orange Files).

End of the line (photo: Orange Files).

In the meantime, these migrants are sleeping rough and living on Red Cross humanitarian aid. And they have become camera-shy: only a single group of Afghans consents to be photographed.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there were a total of between 250 and 350 migrants waiting in northern Serbia at the end of August to be admitted to transit zones in Hungary near Röszke and about 40 kilometers to the west near the village of Tompa  (source A and B in English).

In 2015, Hungarian police registered over 7,700 migrants entering Hungary via the defunct railway near Röszke during the final three days of August alone (source in Hungarian).

DSC_0185

September 2016 (photo: Orange Files).

The last gap in the fence: railway track at the Hungarian-Serbian border.

September 2015 (photo: Orange Files).

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

From the Archives: Journalist Zsolt Bayer

BayerGoodZsolt Bayer is an influential pro-Fidesz newspaper editorialist and television talk-show host widely known in Hungary for his outspoken criticism of Fidesz’s political opposition and for the anti-Gypsyanti-Semitic and anti-migrant attitudes expressed in some of his published writings.    

Bayer has been one of the main organizers of the pro-government Peace March demonstrations that have taken place in Budapest since January 2012.

On August 18, 2016, Prime Ministry chief János Lázár presented Bayer with one of the most prestigious state awards in Hungary—the Hungarian Order of Merit Knight’s Cross (Magyar Érdemrend lovagkeresztje)—during a ceremony held at the Hungarian Parliament Building in Budapest (source in Hungarian).

Biography

Grew up and completed high school in Budapest. Attended Hungarian history department at the Eötvös Loránd University Teacher’s Training College in Budapest. 

One of the 37 founding members of Fidesz in March 1988. Was the party’s press secretary from 1990 to 1993.

Began career as journalist in Budapest in the early 1990s, working for several newspapers including the tabloid Kurír and the liberal-left daily Népszabadság.

Served as chief advisor to the Millenium Government Commissioner’s Office during the first two years of the first Orbán government, 1998 to 2000.

Prime Ministry chief János Lázár (left) presents Zsolt Bayer with a state award in August 2016 (photo: MTI).

Prime Ministry chief János Lázár (right) presents a Hungarian Order of Merit Knight’s Cross award to Zsolt Bayer in August 2016 (photo: MTI).

Editorialist at the pro-Fidesz newspaper Magyar Nemzet from 2002 to 2007. Worked at state-owned Hungarian Television and Duna Television and the pro-Fidesz commercial television station Hír TV between 2000 and 2007. 

Joined the Gábor Széles-owned newspaper Magyar Hírlap as editorialist and television station Echo TV as political talk-show host in 2007.

Turns 53 in 2016. 

See the following Orange Files translations of editorials that Bayer has published in the pro-Fidesz Magyar Hírlap since Prime Minister Viktor Orbán returned to power in 2010:

“The Same Stench” (Ugyanaz a bűz);

“Who Should Not Be?” (Ki ne legyen?);

“Can/May” (Hat/Het);

“Letter to Vladimir Putin” (Levél Vlagyimir Putyinnak);

“Unavoidable?” (Elkerülhetetlen?).

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

The Hungarian Illiberal Democracy

BeFunky_orban_tusvanyos_2014_mti.png

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán proclaims the illiberal Hungarian state in 2014 (photo: MTI).

Since coming to power in 2010, the FideszChristian Democratic People’s Party (KDNP) government of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has systematically dismantled the liberal democracy built in Hungary following the collapse of communism and established in its place an illiberal democracy (see Proclamation of the Illiberal Hungarian State).

This hybrid political system has preserved many of the fundamental elements and attributes of liberal democracy: free elections; independent opposition parties; the rule of law; observance of the human and civil rights of all citizens; and respect for civil liberties—the freedoms of speech, religion, association, assembly and, on a practical level, the media.

The semi-authoritarian régime established in Hungary—the first to emerge within the European Union—also has the following general and specific traits that within the country’s present political context are indicative of illiberal democracy:

Manipulates elections and state institutions in order to preserve political power. See:

National Assembly Election System

2014 National Assembly Elections

Crunching the Election Numbers

The Budget Council

Establishes legal, institutional and economic framework to stifle independent media. See:

Media Laws

The National Media and Infocommunications Authority

Media Services and Support Trust Fund (MTVA)

The Big Gun Swings into Action

Black Screen of Protest

A Few Thousand Malcontents  

Uses powerful internal-security force for political purposes. See:

The Counter Terrorism Center

Marching to Praetoria

The Dubious Plot

The Dubious Plot (2)

Uses mass mobilization as show of force. See:

Pro-Government Peace March Demonstrations

Not with a Whimper

The Soft, White Underbelly

First Peace March (photo gallery)

Sixth Peace March (photo gallery)

Impugns and obstructs the operations of non-governmental organizations. See:

The Orbán Government and EEA-Norway Grants

Invasion of the HomoVikings

Slaying the Gentle Giant

Operates government-organized non-government organization (GONGO). See:

The Civil Cooperation Forum (CÖF)

Making Politics of Migration: the Civil Cooperation Forum Signs

A Thousand Clowns

Rejects multiculturalism; opposes immigration. See:

Hungary and the Great Migration

Je Suis Viktor

National Consultation on Immigration and Terrorism

Patronizes racist and xenophobic journalists. See:

Journalist Zsolt Bayer

Who Should Not Be?

The Same Stench

Stage 3: Dehumanization

Too Close for Comfort

Will the Real Mr. Fidesz Please Stand Up!

Advocates policies similar to those of the radical-nationalist opposition. See:

The Jobbikization of Fidesz (Act 1): Reinstatement of the Death Penalty

Follow the Evil Twin

Taking the Ball

Conducts Statist Economic Policy. See:

Nationalization of Private Pension Funds

Orbán Administration Measures to Reduce Household Foreign-Currency Debt

State Monopoly on the Retail Sale of Tobacco

See: entire article.

The main objective of illiberal democratic systems such as that currently functioning in Hungary under the leadership of Prime Minister Orbán appears to be to concentrate power as much as possible within the formal parameters of democracy. The rise of this type of system, which also exists in Russia and Turkey and is under formation in Poland as well, poses a significant threat to the unity and political stability of the liberal-democratic European Union in particular and to the global strength and influence of liberal democracy in general.

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

Propaganda Camp

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán prepares to speak at Tusnádfürdő on July 24, 2016 (photo: MTI).

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán prepares to deliver annual speech in Tusnádfürdő (Băile Tușnad) on July 24, 2016 (photo: MTI).

On July 24, 2016, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán held his annual speech at the Tusványos Summer University and Student Camp (Tusványos Nyári Szabadegyetem és Diáktábor) in Tusnádfürdő (Băile Tușnad), Romania.

Orbán, both as head of government and opposition leader, has long used the speech he makes at this camp in the predominantly Hungarian-inhabited Székely Land (Székelyföld) region of Romania to explicitly articulate his domestic political vision and his viewpoints on international affairs (see Proclamation of the Illiberal Hungarian State).

Prime Minister Orbán expressed two novel opinions in his 2016 Tusványos Summer University and Student Camp speech: first, he became the first leader of a sovereign state to endorse Donald Trump for president of the United States; and second, in answering a question following the speech, he advocated the creation of a common European military.

Below are Orange Files translations of several passages from Prime Minister Orbán’s July 24 speech in Tusnádfürdő (source in Hungarian).

——–

Thank you for permitting me to be here among you again with the passing of another year. The experience of seeing you again is, in itself, valuable and sets one’s heart in motion. This, in itself, would be a sufficient reason and motive for the existence of the free university [the Tusványos Summer University and Student Camp], although the free university has for many years—for more than two decades—performed another function that truly manifests itself here only when the incumbent prime minister of Hungary speaks to you. That is to say, a situation has come into existence, a free-university space in which it is possible to speak about politics in a different way, in which it is possible to speak about difficult and complicated matters in a different way from that which politics, as a profession, forces [one to speak] the other 364 days of the year. Problems arise from this afterwards as well. Because European politics has already made steady use of the form of speaking about politics and major European affairs that maybe nobody other than the speaker understands, but which at least does not bring trouble down upon the heads of the speaker. The world of a free university is, however, different. If we don’t speak frankly here in a way that we, too, can understand about the dilemmas that torment us, which incidentally are not just our dilemmas, but which, as you will hear later, are dilemmas tormenting all of Europe, then the free university isn’t worth anything, then it’s not a free university, but a propaganda camp.

——–

We would not have previously thought this [to be possible], but it is now looking more and more like they have pushed Hungary out of the European mainstream and they have tried to interpret everything that we have done as not being an accepted part of European politics. Be it our constitution strengthening Christian foundations, be it our demographic policies, be it cross-border national unification—now, in retrospect, with the passing of a few years, these look more like advantages than disadvantages. Nobody can at this moment say for certain that over the coming years the European mainstream won’t proceed [along the path] onto which they tried to drive Hungary away from the European mainstream. This is how the black sheep become the flock, how the exception becomes the main direction.

——–

As I was listening to Bishop Tőkés [the previous speaker, Reformed bishop and Fidesz Member of the European Parliament László Tőkés] I realized that I shouldn’t have been at a loss for what to do last night [when I wrote this speech], but I should have called him up on the phone, because he provided the phrase that I should really be talking about here as my point of departure. He quoted Nehemiah: “Do not be afraid, but fight!”

——–

If I told an English, German or French young person that if you abide by the laws, respect your parents, finish your schooling normally and work diligently, you will surely get ahead, get farther and you will live better than your parents did, I am afraid that they would laugh at me. This is the promise of European life that has been shaken, which has been lost—and this will have serious consequences.

——–

Since we are members of the European Union, today I will speak about what the European Union must do differently in order for fear and uncertainty to disappear from the lives of Europeans. First of all, it must quit doing a few bad things. In the West they call one of these things denationalization, presenting in a positive light something which I think is a bad thing. In my opinion reducing national sovereignty in favor of [increased] European spheres of authority represents one of the greatest dangers in Europe today.

——–

The European Union has today become a regional player. At best, it is capable of influencing events that take place in its environment, though slowly we are seeing that [it is capable of] not even this this much, since the main player in the Ukrainian-Russian conflict is not the European Union, but the United States. We see that the European Union doesn’t play the main role in shaping events in the uncertain region of Syria, the Middle East and Iraq, but the United States and the Russians. Thus we must state that today the European Union is deceiving itself when it views itself as one of the global players in the global political space. We must recognize that today, if we even have the ability to influence world events outside our own territory, this is restricted to the region [immediately] surrounding us.  

——–

We [Hungarians] have no identity problem. Not even as much as the British, who don’t themselves know exactly if they are European or not. For a Hungarian, this is not a question: if you are Hungarian, then you are European. We have been, are and will be [European]—this is the motto of the camp.¹

——–

Migration represents a threat, it increases terrorism, increases crime; migration on a mass scale changes the cultural profile of Europe and migration on a mass scale destroys national culture.

——–

I am not Donald Trump’s campaign manager, I never would have thought that the notion would occur to me that among the full-fledged possibilities he would be the best for Europe and Hungary. I never would have thought it, but it is nevertheless the case that I listened to this candidate and I must tell you that he made three proposals to stop terrorism. I could have hardly expressed  better as a European that which Europe needs. He said that the world’s best secret service must be established in America, that this is the precondition to everything. I agree with this. [. . .] The second thing the straightforward [derék] American presidential candidate said was that the policy of exporting democracy must be stopped. I couldn’t have expressed this more precisely, because, in the end, why are a massive number of migrants coming to Europe across the Mediterranean Sea at this moment? Because the Europeans and later the Westerners [Western powers] acting under the auspices of the UN, they successfully—we successfully—managed to crush the undemocratic, though from the standpoint of border defense extremely stable, Libyan system without making sure that a new government capable of providing stability came into being. We did the same thing in Syria, we did the same thing in Iraq too. The notion is true, therefore, that if we continue to place democracy-building in the forefront instead of stability in a region in which the success of this is extremely doubtful, then we aren’t going to build democracy, but cause instability.

——–

This [the failure of democracy building] is a big lesson with regard to the current Turkish events as well, which I naturally do not want to qualify, though if they ask me what our greatest expectation is, what Hungary’s greatest expectation is toward Turkey, then we will put stability in the first place. Of course the quality of political life there is not indifferent for us. Neither are human rights indifferent for us, especially because it is a question of a country that formally still wants to join the European Union, where these are fundamental, expected preconditions, though all in all, from the perspective of current life, it is more important that several tens of millions of people not tumble down upon the European Union with no screening, control or impediment of any kind.

——–

This [data showing the projected population increases in Egypt, Uganda, Ethiopia and Nigeria by the year 2050] clearly show that the truly great pressure is going to arrive to the continent [of Europe] from Africa. Today we are talking about Syria, today we are talking about Libya, but really we must prepare for population pressure from the region behind Libya and the magnitude of this is going to be much greater than that which we have experienced so far. This warns us that we must steel our wills. Border defense, especially when fences must be built and people must be stopped there, is a difficult thing to interpret aesthetically, but believe me, we cannot defend borders and therefore ourselves with flowers and stuffed animals. We must face this thing. At the same time, it is very important, and for us also very important from the perspective of the image that the outside world formulates of us, that we make it clear that we are not heartless people, thus we are able to make a precise distinction between migrants and migration. In most cases the figure of the migrant—of course not including the terrorists— is a victim, whom the unfortunate situation, the increasingly difficult possibilities for subsistence at home, bad government, our bad, enticing migration policy and the human smugglers have made into victims. We understand this, we know this precisely. However, migration, as I said, is killing us. And migration is embodied in the person of the migrant, thus no matter how much we empathize with them and see them as victims, we must stop them at our fence and make it clear that whomever enters illegally must, according to the laws, be put in prison or expelled from Hungary. Esteemed ladies and gentlemen, esteemed free university, there is no friendlier form of defense. Of course [it must be] in a human, lawful and transparent manner, but we must resolutely do this.

——–

After all this I must state, summarizing what I have said so far, that Europe has lost its global role, has become as a regional player, is not capable of defending its own citizens, is not capable of defending its own external borders and is not capable of keeping the community together, since the United Kingdom has just left it. What more is needed for us to say that the European political leadership has failed. It cannot achieve a single one of its objectives. Thus when we convene in Bratislava in September, we don’t need beauty spots, sweeping under the carpet and whitewashing, but we must clearly state that we must come together and talk about the future of Europe because Europe’s present political leadership has failed. We must make it clear that our problem isn’t in Mecca, but in Brussels; for us, the Brussels bureaucrats represent the obstacle, not Islam.   

——–

Today “old Europe” means Europe that is incapable of change. They [old Europe] are the founding members of the European Union, they are they are the ones who introduced the eurozone and are very visibly stagnating. And there is another Europe, those whom were admitted to the European Union later, whom are said to be the “new Europe.” This, on the other hand, is viable, full of energy, capable of renewal and is looking for answers to the new challenges and thus forms an important part of our continent. This is why I think that perhaps the differentiation between the old and the new Europe is much less offensive for us now than it was previously.

——–

Today in Poland there is no economic crisis. In Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary—I don’t dare comment on the case of Romania—young people think that the old European dream is still valid: if they abide by the laws, if they respect their parents, if they listen to them and their advice regarding the future, and if they work diligently, then a Polish, a Czech, a Slovak and a Hungarian young person will certainly live better and get farther ahead than his [or her] parents. This is the European dream, this is still valid in the new Europe, in Central Europe.

——–

In response to a question following his speech, Prime Minister Orbán stated that NATO, though an “important and good thing,” is no longer capable of guaranteeing peace in Europe, thus he advocates the establishment of a common European army that could function “without the Anglo-Saxons [the United States and the United Kingdom] and the Russians.”

Orbán also expressed support for the creation of a common Visegrád Group army, though rejected the notion of expanding the number of members in the alliance composed of Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary.

The prime minister said that the prospective common European and Visegrád Group armies were needed to defend Europe in the “east and south” and would be closely connected to defense of the continent against terrorism and migration (source in Hungarian).

 

¹ The motto of the 27th Tusványos Summer University and Student Camp: “We were, are and will be at home here in Europe” (Itthon voltunk, vagyunk, leszünk Európában).

—————————————————————————————————————————————–

Prime Minister Orbán’s March 15 Speech

Prime Minister Orbán waves to audience following his speech on March 15, 2016 (photo: MTI).

Prime Minister Orbán waves to audience following his speech on March 15, 2016 (photo: MTI).

On March 15, 2016, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán delivered his annual speech outside the Hungarian National Museum in Budapest commemorating the anniversary of the 1848 Hungarian Revolution against Habsburg rule. Below is an Orange Files translation of the speech (source in Hungarian).

————————-

————————-

Esteemed celebrators!

Europe is not free, because freedom starts with the statement of truth. Today in Europe it is forbidden to state the truth. Even if made of silk, a muzzle remains a muzzle. It is forbidden to state that those who are currently arriving are not refugees, but that a mass migration threatens Europe. It is forbidden to state that immigration brings crime and terror into our countries. It is forbidden to state that those who arrive from other civilizations represent a danger to our way of life, our culture, our customs and our Christian traditions. It is forbidden to state that instead of assimilating, those who arrived earlier have built a separate-entry world for themselves with their own laws and their own ideals that pry the millennial European frameworks apart. It is forbidden to state that this is not an incidental and unintentional chain of consequences, but a planned-out and guided action, a mass of people directed upon us. It is forbidden to state that in Brussels they are currently scheming to transport foreigners here as quickly as possible and to settle them among us. It is forbidden to say that the objective of this settlement is to redraw the religious and cultural patterns of Europe, to rebuild its ethnic footings, thereby eliminating the nation-states that represent the last impediment to the Internationale. It is forbidden to state that Brussels is today stealthily swallowing more and more slices of our national sovereignty, that in Brussels many are today working on the plan for a European United States for which nobody ever granted them the authority.

See entire speech.

—————————————————————————————————————————————–