orbán radio interview
Budapest, 2018. november 23. Orbán Viktor miniszterelnök interjút ad a Jó reggelt, Magyarország! címû mûsorban Nagy Katalin mûsorvezetõnek a Kossuth rádió stúdiójában 2018. november 23-án. MTI/Balazs Mohai

Referring to bank cards and visa for migrants, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán said in a public radio interview on Friday that pro-migration forces consider European institutions as a “transport agency” because they believe migration is in Europe’s interest.

Orbán said this was to Hungary’s detriment. Only after the European parliamentary election will the situation change, he added.

He said that whereas the European Union justified repressive measures against European citizens by citing the fight against money laundering, the European Commission “is giving anonymous bank cards to people we don’t know … and many of them become terrorists and criminals.”

“The rightful question is, why is this happening and where does the money come from,” he said. Fidesz MEPs, he added are investigating the matter, he added.

Referring to the “migrant visa”, Orbán said:

“This is the kind of slippery slope which could again lead to a broken Europe.”

He said the EP had already voted the measure down, but it is now on the agenda again and “they want to push it down our throats.”

The prime minister said European politicians who are about to lose their mandates are “panicking” about the issues close to their hearts and they are rushing to conclude the migration issue.

He said

Brussels had failed to keep migrants out of Europe and had also failed to keep Britain inside. Brussels, he added, had made serious political mistakes in their handling of Brexit.

At the same time, the document received in advance of the special EU summit on Sunday, “which is satisfactory from Hungary’s point of view”, protects the interests of Hungarians living and working in the United Kingdom, Orbán said, adding that the rights of Hungarian workers will not be compromised.

Orbán noted that surveys have been carried out in Hungary and in the UK concerning EU matters. In Hungary’s consultation and referendum, Hungarians said they wanted “more national sovereignty and less Brussels,” while the British went even further, he said. He also noted that the Hungarian government put an newspaper advertisement urging the British to remain in the EU.

Orbán said that the people who attack Hungary for granting asylum to former Macedonian Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski were “identical” to those people and organisations that support migration.

The organisations most critical of the Hungarian government regarding the case are all in the pocket of US billionaire George Soros, he said. Since Gruevski, as prime minister, took tough action against Soros networks in Macedonia, “they are keeping track of his life”, he added.

Gruevski headed a country that played a key role in combatting migration, and without him it would have been far harder to protect the Hungarian border, Orbán said. So he and his country have always been viewed as Hungary’s allies, he added. He was the first politician in the Balkans who built a fence and stopped migrants, for which Hungary also granted help, Orbán said.

“Allies should be treated with decency, and when they turn to us, they deserve decent treatment,” he said, adding that he was “pleased” this was not the first time that a former leader had thought that in Hungary they would get fair treatment.

The asylum procedure is not carried out by the government but the authorities and “the more distance the government keeps to such procedures the better,” he said. The government’s job is to ensure the framework for a fair procedure and then accept the decision made by the authorities, “which is what happened in this case, too”, he added.

Commenting on Gruevski’s travel arrangements to Hungary, the PM said: “The whole thing had an exciting storyline … and every crime story is exciting”.

“We are not influenced by the procedures in Macedonia,” he said.

“What we are interested in is whether the request submitted to us is legally well-founded, whether the authorities carried out a fair procedure and acted lawfully. Once a decision is made, it must be respected,” Orbán said.

Commenting on the extradition request submitted by Macedonia, he said Macedonia must also follow a legal procedure. The Hungarian authorities will assess it and come to a decision, he added.

Read more news about GRUEVSKI AFFAIR!

Meanwhile, in connection with a meeting of the Diaspora Council and the Hungarian Permanent Conference (Máért) last weekend, Orbán said that the “hundred years of Hungarian solitude” had come to an end and that Hungary’s neighbours realised that “working with us is not unnatural; indeed, it is worthwhile.”

Serbia has a major role in this, he said, adding that Hungary had 800 years of friendship with the Croats and it had managed to build a relationship based on mutual trust with the Slovaks. Further, Hungary has taken steps forward with the Romanians, he said.

“Those who work together with Hungary are doing well,” the prime minister said.

Joint economic development schemes are good not only for Hungarians outside the borders but also for non-Hungarian citizens of neighboring states, he said.

Orbán said Hungary is trying to help Ukraine understand the difficult situation of Hungarians living there. Further,

Hungary “not only accepts Ukraine’s territorial integrity, but also demands this from Russia.”

The government does not want to differentiate between Hungarians and other national minorities in Transcarpathia, but wants to help everyone, he said. But for all our friendship towards Ukraine, “all we have got in return is an anti-Hungarian policy,” he said, adding that hopefully the next Ukrainian president would formulate a Hungary-friendly policy instead. Orbán said Ukraine’s NATO and EU accession depended on Hungary’s help, so it is “self-defeating” to pursue an anti-Hungarian policy.

Source: MTI

1 comment
  1. Fidesz is right! Migration cannot be a human right! The UN Migration Pact states that migration will from now on be a human right. Is it actually possible to grant such a right? To understand this better it is necessary to study the background. What is right? What is a human right? Is there an international order that can maintain and guarantee law? A right is an agreement between two parties that enter into an agreement of their own free will and also accept it. This definition was first formulated by Hobbes. It concludes that a right can only arise from an agreement between people. Law cannot originate from nature or from god because then there is no reciprocity and acceptance. If there is already natural law or divine right then that is unchangeable because it is not determined by people. It is not possible to conclude a contract with animals. Animal rights are right between people, not between people and animals. In addition, a right must be for mutual benefit. If the citizen hands over the right to carry arms to the government, he must get protection from that same government in return. If the citizen gives the government the right to levy taxes, then that citizen must benefit from the taxation. A purchase agreement is an agreement whereby a party delivers something (a good or a service) and another party pays for it. An agreement that represents a burden for one party and benefits for another party is not a right, but a unilateral obligation. The transfer of citizens’ rights to government is called the social contract. It can only exist between citizens who share the same government. Because only a national government can enforce the enforcement and enforcement of rights, there is only rights if they are agreed within a state. Human rights are rights that are regulated by law in an international treaty because they are considered to apply to every human being, regardless of nationality, religion or skin color. Human rights are not the outcome of a social contract between citizens and their own government. Human rights are agreements between states. Precisely because there are major differences between the legal views of certain countries, human rights have been kept as general as possible. Human rights are a popular subject for NGOs such as Amnesty International because they create the opportunity to circumvent the nation state. A parallel legal order emerges, as it were, alongside national legislation, so that there is the possibility that these two legal orders come into conflict with each other. The central problem that arises is the issue of sovereignty. A state is sovereign and makes decisions based on its own considerations and interests. The assignment of a right means in fact the ceding of a piece of sovereignty. Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that everyone has the right to leave his country and to return there. This concerns tourism and business travel, no right of migration. The right to migration means permanent residence in a country of your choice, without imposing any conditions, such as valid identification, a residence permit, a work permit. If the right to migration is a human right, then there will be a conflict with the national sovereignty of the country to which you are migrating. The receiving country can refuse a visa for tourists and businessmen because that is not in violation of art. 13 of the UDHR. Without a visa someone cannot travel, at least not legally. The UDHR also provides that everyone has the right to work (Article 23 of the UDHR) and reasonable welfare and medical care (Article 25 of the UDHR). In the current situation, these ‘universal’ rights cannot yet be claimed by a random migrant because there is still a distinction between legal and illegal migration. However, in the UN Migration Pact the distinction between legal and illegal immigration disappears (purpose 7, point 23b). The magic word here is legal migration: because of the pact, every African who takes a step somewhere on the bottom of the EU suddenly becomes someone with all rights to lifelong residence and care. According to the Pact, he is legal and falls into the country of arrival under art. 23 and 25 of the UDHR. If he does not want to return – and why would he want that? – then no one can force him. There will undoubtedly be enough left-wing judges who will explain the UN Migration Pact as a purely legal issue. Without any consideration for the nation state or the taxpayers who pay the salaries of the judges. And the media that now carefully and impartially keep the existence of the UN Migration Pact with the citizen, if the migratory flow swells again, will just as carefully and impartially inform the citizen that an international treaty that must be fulfilled. And the politicians, who now tell us that signing the migration pact is an act of humanity, will bombard the taxpayer with the accusation that the resistance to the implementation of the migration pact is once again ‘inhuman’. Migration cannot be a human right because it is a violation of the sovereignty of the arrival country. There is no social contract with migrants. The obligations are almost completely unilateral with the country of arrival. It is in the current situation that Morocco refuses to take back hundreds of illegal migrants from that country. This will only get worse. But after drawing up the migration pact, Morocco can refuse everyone: after all, the Pact is not binding … not even for countries of origin. But the UDHR is indeed binding. In 1974, the UN held a Population Conference in Bukarest. Western countries suggested that African countries should do more to limit population growth. The African leaders simply refused that. As a result, the last Population Conference was held in 1994 because there was no message in Africa about population restrictions. The African woman got an average of 7 children in 1974 and that is still the case. As a result, half of the African population is younger than 20 years and has little future prospects because the population is growing faster than the economy. Only 15% of them have completed high school. According to the World Bank, 70% of young people in Africa are unemployed or low-paid work for family. (Source: Africa Renewal) Of the entire African population, an average of 16% is considering emigrating and 20% of them see Europe as the most attractive destination (source: Afrobarometer). In numbers this amounts to 35 million Africans. According to the same study, for almost 80% of these people the motivation is economic: looking for work or escaping poverty. The UN Migration Pact paves the way for them because the Pact also makes migration possible if the migrant has left his country due to natural disasters and other uncertain situations. The question is: who will judge that? Is overpopulation a natural disaster? Poverty and unemployment are undoubtedly insecure situations – is it also covered by the Pact? However, the Pact goes even further: people who want to leave their country as a result of ‘slow’ natural disasters such as climate change, soil deterioration, drought and sea level rise will henceforth fall under the new regime (Global Compact for Migration, target 5, provisions 21g and 21h). Here too the question arises: who evaluates that? And in the event of a difference of opinion between the country of arrival, the migrant and the country of origin, should a disputes committee be set up? Conclusion: in the UN Migration Pact the formulations are so broad and the provisions are so one-sided that the consequences cannot be overseen. Enforcement and compliance will prove unworkable and lead to enormous tensions in politics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.