Blog

Good evening, and welcome to the program about the Visegrád 4. Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia are successfully acting together in more and more instances. Their last joint action was the initiation of an investigation on the Austrian family allowance benefits that discriminate against foreign workers. As the result of the V4’s action, the European Commission will soon launch a probe into the matter. Here are the details.

The Visegrád 4’s step was successful against the Austrian decision that would lower family allowances to children of non-Austrian EU workers, starting in January. The decision affects Hungarian families to the greatest extent, including almost 40,000 children. The Visegrád 4 countries, alongside Bulgaria, Lithuania, and Slovenia think that the Austrian decision seriously violates EU law, the principle of equal treatment, and the principle of social security coordination, and unjustifiably discriminates foreign workers as they pay the same taxes and contributions as Austrian nationals. Marianne Thyssen, EC Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs, Skills and Mobility, said that the EC believes that all EU citizens are entitled to equal rights on the basis of the principle of free movement and should not be discriminated in terms of family allowances.

Katalin Novák, State Secretary of Family and Youth Affairs of the Ministry of Human Capacities, is our guest today. Welcome and good evening. I would like to provide some context to the issue and talk about how the proposal came about. According to a survey from last year, an average Christian family has 1.6 children in Europe, 2.2 in North America, and 4.2 in Sub-Saharan Africa. Am I right in thinking that we have no reason to be relaxed in Europe?

If we look at the European demographic rate, we indeed have reasons to be worried. There is not a single country in Europe where enough children are born. We can say that none of the EU member states’ populations have the “life instinct” to have at least as many children as is necessary to maintain the population at its current number, not to mention the goals of growing the population or making it younger. Therefore, we can talk about an old and continuously aging Europe, which presents a serious challenge to all of us. I believe that the issues are whether we are willing to face this challenge, whether we are willing to face it honestly, and what kind of answers we can come up with.

And, also, whether those countries that have a traditionally family-centric attitude, such as Germany, Italy, Spain or Greece, are facing the same challenge. These countries have experienced a dramatic population decline too. On the contrary, France, the UK, and Scandinavia do not face the threat of population decline. A lot of people say that the better trend is due to the large immigrant population residing in these countries, but, as a result, Christian families are losing their dominant position in these societies. Is this statement correct?

The situation in France is not as good as it used to be. I think that the relatively higher reproduction rate seen previously in France was partly due to the good family support system. France traditionally has offered an elaborated system of family benefits; tax allowances were available for families, and the principle that families raising children received support regardless of their income situation was introduced. This system, however, was changed; the left-wing government abolished these regulations, and, as a consequence, the willingness to raise children decreased significantly. If we look at the European level, the population of the continent is still growing. However, if we investigate the reasons of the increase in the population, then we see that emigration has been the exclusive source of it in the past couple of years. So, it is not true that the population increase is due to the number of childbirths. This also shows that some people view emigration as an external solution to the problem of demography. However, in my opinion, it will have very serious consequences in the long run. We are talking about the integration or unwillingness to integrate of people who have very distinct cultures and religions from the native European population. The first signs of this challenge are already showing in some Western European countries. All countries will have to cope with the consequences of the solution that they agreed to, or, in my opinion, to the supposed solution that they are trying to apply.

It seems that the societies affected are already aware of these problems and are giving adequate answers, as the results of national elections in Western Europe in the past years have shown. However, the political elite of these countries should make a change. In the meantime, we are showing the viewers a comparison of fertility rates in European countries. I am glad you mentioned the system of family benefits, because we know that the countries we are talking about have very different benefit systems. To what extent do family benefit systems affect fertility rates and the number of childbirths?

If you allow me, I just want to briefly address what you said about the political elite. It is true that the whole issue is partly the problem of political leaders, and the political elite in Western Europe have distanced themselves from the people, and they do not represent what a great proportion of their electorate believes in. However, it is the people that unfortunately will have to suffer the consequences. The decisions that are made now will impact the future of the continent and its population for decades or centuries, and the trends will be very hard to reverse. For this reason, it is very important for us that whenever we make decisions that will be crucial for our future, we have the authorization of the people we represent. This is why we always ask the citizens. In the matter of emigration, we had not only the election results but also a referendum and a national consultation. I think this would be important in other European countries, too. Now back to your question about the correlation of family benefits and childbirths. Not only me, but researchers as well see a correlation between investments and the willingness to have children. So, financial, moral, and emotional support for families do pay off. We are witnessing this in Hungary, since the willingness to have children was not so high over the past 20 years as it was last year. We still have a long road ahead of us, but we started from a very low point. It is difficult because the consequences of the large decrease in the population are palpable: there are fewer and fewer young couples in Hungary, and the few young couples have to have more children.

The difference between the desired number of children and those actually born has been growing, and it is still the case today. If we narrow the picture to the V4 countries, are there significant differences between the countries?

These countries have more or less the same data, and there are no significant differences in the reproduction rate.

The socioeconomic situation is also very similar in these countries.

The only difference is that the level of increase is now outstandingly high in Hungary, while it is minimal in the other three countries. We are experiencing a positive change. The willingness to have children grew by 20% and the number of marriages grew by 1.5% over the last couple of years. It is fair to say that the trend in Hungary is going against the general tendencies. I hope that we will be able to keep up this positive trend.

Let’s examine another aspect of the matter, which is also noteworthy in Hungary: emigration.

Some of the greatest assets of Hungary becoming a member of the EU were the freedom of movement, the freedom to study on Europe, and the freedom to work and stay. I believe it is a great achievement, and this was one of the most attractive prospects of the EU membership. We have to preserve and cherish this. I do not think that the freedom of movement is a bad thing. If you allow me to be personal here, my family lived both in France and Germany before, and those were very exciting and educational periods in our lives. And, then we came home and we are raising our kids here and we are living our lives here. So, the fact that the freedom of movement exists is a natural benefit of the EU and the internal market, and it is important to us. What a challenge and a task for us is, and now I’m speaking on behalf of the Hungarian government, to offer a perspective for the future for young Hungarians, so that if they go abroad it is not out of necessity but out of adventure and excitement.

To some extent, the topic leading up to our conversation relates to the issue of working abroad. The V4, together with Lithuania, Slovenia, and Bulgaria submitted a proposal to the European Commission on the occasion of Austria’s lowering of the family benefits. The lowering would, starting in January, discriminate against non-Austrian workers, among them many Hungarians, and would affect approximately 40,000 Hungarian children. How big of a decrease are we talking about?

Let me provide the viewers with the background regulation of the matter. There is a so-called principle of social security coordination in relation to the freedom of movement, according to which EU nationals are entitled to the social allowances in the country they are working in. For example, a Hungarian citizen who is working and paying taxes and other contributions in Austria is eligible to the same social and family allowances as Austrian nationals. This is one of the outcomes of the freedoms of the European Union. There are, however, many cases where the entire family does not move to the country where one of the parents is working. Indeed, there are 40,000 children in Hungary who are affected because their mother or father is working in Austria. We should add that in many of these cases, the family lives near the border and one of the parents is working and paying taxes in Austria, but the family actually lives in Hungary. The Austrian decision, which will be effective beginning January 1, 2019, affects these families, because they will deny the full family allowance from taxpayers whose children do not live with them in Austria. The benefit for one child now is 172 euros, but as the result of the decision it would go down to 90 euros, which is a 40% decrease. The reasoning of the decision is that according to Austria, the level of benefit should be adjusted to the living standards of the country where the child is living. So, in the future they would only pay as much as is reasonable based on the place of residence’s living standards. However, this decision goes against European Union regulations. And, to be honest, it must hurt the sense of justice of every reasonable person, since these workers pay their taxes in Austria. They contribute to the maintenance of the system and to the budget, and so it is not fair that their children are handled differently than Austrian nationals’ children.

There is not much time before the 1^st of January, and the probe has not started yet, although the proposal is on the European Commission’s table. Do you expect a positive outcome?

I think that what is important is that we, the seven countries, acted together in the matter. The respective political representative from each country—from Hungary, that would be me—signed the letter to the European Commission, and we called the attention of the commissioner to the violation of the EU law. We cannot hope for an actual decision before the 1^st of January, but I encourage everybody who is affected by the decision to ask for legal help individually. We immediately and very firmly reacted once the Austrian decision entered into force, and we will continue to exercise political pressure and will not let the case be forgotten. It does not make our situation easier that the European parliamentary elections will happen in May and that the composition of the European Commission will change. I can only hope that, as in other cases when there is political interest, the EC will accelerate the process in this case as well and that there will be measures as soon as possible. So far we got a reply letter from Madame Commissioner in which she explains that she does not agree with the Austrian decision. I would add that there was an attempt to make it a part of the European law, because, in connection with Brexit, the UK demanded that we introduce the indexation of social allowances. This would have been the UK’s condition for staying in the EU. Later, the UK took the issue off of the agenda; Britain left the EU and the indexation remained, but we were able to prevent it from becoming part of the EU law. It was a huge achievement. Now, the Austrian decision is a unilateral measure, and, therefore, it is very important that we stand against the decision very firmly to prevent it from becoming a precedent and to prevent other European countries from following in Austria’s footsteps. So, we are continuing to stand up against the matter and I hope that there will be a quick and wise decision.

We will certainly monitor the decision making process and will continue to discuss it. Katalin Novák, thank you for coming.

Thank you for your interest.

“The Visegrád countries are working on a project that will support the development of Tunisia’s border protection,” said Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade Péter Szijjártó on Friday in Prague. Our reporter, Zselyke Jambor-Miniska, asked security policy expert József Horváth about the V4’s support program for Northern Africa.

“Europe’s security begins in Africa,” said Péter Szijjártó about the V4’s program that aims to help Tunisia in controlling migration. The Hungarian Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade coordinated with his Tunisian counterpart, Khemaies Jhinaoui ON the phone after having agreed with the V4 Ministers of Foreign Affairs that, following the V4’s support for development in Libya, they will prepare another support program.

“It will be crucial for the next years. Since 2015, the EU lost three years in assisting migrant-sending countries to strengthen their border protection. There were some trial programs in Libya, but a significant part of the money disappeared there. Tunisia is one of the transit countries; therefore, I think that the V4’s initiative could be a good example for other countries.”

By May this year, 1910 Tunisian migrants reached Italy, while last year in the same period only 231 did. Over the past 5 years, more than 600,000 migrants departed from Northern Africa to Europe. Security policy experts believe that such a crowd can only be stopped by an organized and trained coast guard that has modern equipment.

“Obviously, communication technology, boat and guarding equipment, weapons or satellite systems could be useful for coast guards, just as training and preparation. The Tunisian coast guards should learn skills that are necessary for new technologies, and they should know the security technologies that are indispensable to combat illegal migrants, crime, and human trafficking.”

In contrast, the pro-migration majority of the European Parliament considers long-term developments and the support of migrant sending countries as the solution. The so-called humanitarian visa is still on the agenda in Brussels. The humanitarian visa would allow asylum seekers to legally apply for the visa at any EU member state’s embassy or consulate in their home country and secure their entry into the EU without having to go through security checkouts and without the grounds of their claim for asylum being examined. The visa is not the only migration-related issue in which there is disagreement between the V4 and Brussels. The European Parliament issued a statement recently in which it welcomed the adoption of the UN’s global migration pact. Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic have previously withdrawn from the pro-migration plan of the UN.

“We are witnessing the clash of two fundamental value systems and principles. The V4 collectively believes that illegal migration needs to be stopped preferably outside the borders of the EU, while Western European countries and the leaders of the EU for some reason are invested in continuing illegal migration.”

According to analysts, the longer the stream of asylum seekers continues to come to Europe, the harder it will be to reinstate safety and order. Leaders of the V4 trust that their joint action will inspire other countries to join the programs that are necessary stop illegal migration outside the borders of the EU.

With the news of the V4 we will be back in a week. Thank you for your attention and goodbye.

 

 

Good evening. Welcome. According to an Austrian analysis, negative impacts on the V4 countries are expected primarily in the long term and indirectly if the so-called hard Brexit is realized, that is, if the EU and the UK fail to agree on the conditions of the British exit rule by March 29th. Among the countries in the region, the Czech Republic would see the greatest economic output losses, up to 1%. In the meantime, last Thursday thousands of protesters demanded the resignation of Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis in Prague, because they believe it is unacceptable that a person who is being prosecuted by the police for suspected misuse of EU funds is leading the government. By telephone we are now connecting with our Prague-based correspondent, Péter Balla. Hello Péter! According to Andrej Babis, the accusations are unfounded, and there is a political conspiracy behind the demonstrations with the obvious purpose of removing him from politics. What do local analysts say about this? What is really going on behind the scenes?

Hello! The whole “Stork’s Net” case is about Babis allegedly taking two million euros from small business EU subsidies and having the “Stork’s Nest” vacation home put in his child’s name. Last week journalists managed to reach his son, who had raised certain issues, including that he might have been abducted and held in Crimea by his own father. This was the cause of the new wave of demonstrations, resulting in more than 20,000 people protesting in Prague’s Old Town Square, demanding Babis to resign.

Meanwhile, we are showing the viewers pictures of the demonstration. On November 23th, there will be a no-confidence vote for Andrej Babis. What is the most probable scenario in your opinion and in the opinions of other analysts?

The scenario became clearer by Wednesday afternoon. It looks like the whole opposition will cast a pro-Babis vote. Babis has a coalition partner, the Social Democratic Party, and the communists also support him in the background. The communists said on Tuesday that they would support the government, and the Social Democrats would withdraw from parliament during the vote. With this, there will not be enough votes, and the government will survive.

Let’s briefly talk about other news. The Czech Republic can be one of Brexit’s biggest losers in Central Europe. How did Czech politics and the public respond to this notion?

I have to say that the news about Brexit is often published in Czech public media. But, since everybody here is preoccupied with the current government crisis, there are no significant reactions to Brexit, despite the fact that the Czech Republic is an export-oriented country, and everyone understands that Brexit can cause a great deal of damage to the country.

We do not have a clear picture about what the conditions of Brexit will be, if it happens at all. Péter Balla from Prague, thank you very much for the information. We will discuss the question of what will happen with Brexit and the Czech Republic in the future with Dávid Szabó, Research Director of Századvég, and Csaba Szajlai, an economic journalist and Deputy Editor in Chief of Figyelő. Welcome gentlemen, I wish you a good evening. Do you agree that a possible hard Brexit would primarily in the long term and indirectly strike the countries of the region, especially the Czech Republic?

We could say that “one eye is crying and the other is laughing” since what we are talking about means that the Central and Eastern European countries, the V4, are embedded in the economic mechanisms of Western European. In general, the export volumes of the Hungarian, Polish, Czech, and Slovakian manufacturing industries are large. I am going to present a number to the viewers, although it is not of Britain, but of Germany, which has one of the largest economies and is one of the largest export powers in Europe. In Central and Eastern Europe, the volume imported goods is 13.4%. This is a huge amount considering the state of these economies in 1990. But, with regard to Brexit, the Czechs are more embedded in economic relations than the Hungarians. The Czech exposure is greater, but ours is great too. The whole region has more or less the same data. If a hard Brexit prevails, it will first of all be the processing industry that will have a strong impact on the Czech economy. As far as Hungary is concerned, the country in this respect may suffer fewer losses even in the case of a hard Brexit, since roughly 5% of our commodity turnover accounts for our annual export base to the UK. It is probable that this wound could be repaired in the Hungarian economy.

Before hearing the director’s opinion, let us clarify for the viewers what exactly a hard Brexit means. It would mean that after Britain leaves the customs union and the common market, it could only trade with the member states of the European Union according to the WTO rules. This would result in the increase in duties on foreign trade and other costs, and I also read that it would lead to a drastic change in migration policy. What is the correlation?

The correlation is that British migration policy in this case would be forced to look for other resources instead of the highly-skilled, risk-taking, and aspiring Central-Eastern European workers. Britain would be forced to turn back completely to the workforce of the British Commonwealth or former British colonists. From this point of view, it is very interesting that those who were campaigning for Brexit specifically because of the immigration policy eventually could create virtually greater immigration as a result of the process. And, about the other part of the question, the conditions Anett described would actually mean a super hard Brexit, and such hard conditions would make us concerned too. Even in case of a hard Brexit, that is without British membership in the customs union and in the common market, we would like to minimally create a free-trade zone or a similar cooperation between the European Union or European Economic Area and the UK. It is in the interest of all of us. This is also emphasized by the British. Even those in favor of a hard Brexit emphasize the need for a free trade agreement with the European Union, but it is also necessary to establish such agreements with the rest of the world, notably the United States, and also with the successor states of the British colonial empire or with East Asia.

In fact, in the economic and political sense, it is a stalemate. We are member states of the European Union, so it cannot work that the British quit but keep all kinds of advantages. Earlier, there were plans that the British would have an agreement with the European Union based on the Norwegian or Swiss example. This is quite the challenge that they presented to the European Union’s decision makers. I think that the European Union must be firm, as Brexit affects the 27 member states. Keep in mind that Great Britain is in a special status as a net contributor to the European Union’s common budget, but they can reclaim a lot and enjoy special treatment as well, just like Denmark or Sweden.

March 29th is still far away, but we know very well that British domestic politics have been subject to the negotiations of Brexit. Some say that Prime Minister Theresa May’s stability has been wavering. Indeed, the issue is far from being over. Meanwhile, during our conversation we are showing a graph to the viewers. The population of the countries of the Central and Eastern European region is primarily interested, beyond the economic indicators, in what will happen to the workers. Here is the chart. It shows the number of registered workers in Great Britain in 2017. How would the current Brexit terms protect the interests of the region’s workers?

The British say that in fact everything will remain unchanged, as far as labor market conditions and regulation are concerned, but this is still awaiting refinement. The Hungarian national interest ON the other hand, is to have more people come home to Hungary or closer to Hungary from those who are working in Britain. It is natural to be worried about Hungarian workers in the UK, but we need to see that they are contributing to the UK’s GDP. We Hungarians are interested in solving the tight labor market problems in Hungary. It is highly likely that the British interest is to regulate the labor market in a liberal way, since it would mean a huge cut if they applied new rules. But, it is certain that the current EU regulatory system will not work.

Director Szabó said that a regulated exit, both politically and economically, would be in the interest of Hungarians and of the inhabitants of the region. What would that be like?

A regulated exit largely means that regardless of the circumstances under which Britain will leave the EU, the key is to not have a negative impact on the economy, security, and other cooperation between EU member states and the United Kingdom, so some continuity and stability should characterize the further relationship. Referring back to the previous question, this is also in the interest of Hungarian workers in the United Kingdom. I think that our workers can cope with any kind of labor market regulation. The most important thing is that they can plan ahead. The most important thing is that under the present conditions, by the end of 2020, the guarantees of their stay and equal treatment are provided. Later, other rules will probably apply to them, less favorable than the rules now, which are based on free movement. The point is that they can be prepared. And, the interest of the Hungarian economy is to know exactly, preferably years ahead, the exact customs regulations, investment rules, and investment incentives that will be open between the United Kingdom and Hungary.

Another interest of all of us, and here we turn to our next topic, is the EU budget that we can expect after 2020. The European Parliament adopted the negotiating starting points for the post-2020 budget last week. We’ll continue after a short summary.

Based on the proposal of the European Commission, the Visegrád countries will have about 25% less cohesion funding after 2020 than in the 2014–2020 cycle. The committee’s proposal affects the V4 negatively because the Visegrád countries are among the 11 major beneficiaries of EU funding, and these resources cover most of their public investment. Due to the economic needs caused by Brexit and immigration, the Commission revised the system for allocating aid from cohesion funds and put in place criteria in the resource allocation system for efforts in the areas of unemployment, the relocation of immigrants, innovation and, the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. Brussels decision makers also noted that the drop in funding provided for the V4 is to some degree the price of the region’s economic successes. The change in conditions is thus partly a result of the dynamic development of Central Europe, to which the funding received over the last two fiscal cycles contributed greatly.

Does the EU argumentation stand?

Well, to me it seems to be a little bit circumlocutory at first glance. The experts of the European Commission say that the Mediterranean countries need to catch up because since the 2008–2009 global economic crisis, they are still in a lousy situation, as they cannot reach the level of economic output as before 2008. By contrast, the Central European countries, namely us, the Poles, the Slovaks, and the Czechs, can grow quite well. The region is performing astonishingly. At the same time, the argument that the Mediterranean countries need to be supported now is not entirely correct, as the level of development of the Mediterranean countries has not yet produced by the Central and Eastern European region. The best indicator of this is the GDP growth rate. In this respect, perhaps the Czechs are ahead of a Southern European country, namely Portugal, but Hungary could not pass nor catch up to neither Spain nor Italy in this respect. Greece has fallen far back, so they are probably not a point of reference. The essence is that the Central and Eastern European region must be helped in order to catch up. We have not benefited from the funds and income that the Mediterranean countries have. In fact, we now get much less money than these countries received in the 80s to assist them to catch up. So, I see not entirely professional reasons but a kind of political pressure. We all know that there is a Polish case, a Slovak case, and a Hungarian case before the European Commission and the European Parliament. I think that there is sort of a regulation factor in this story. At the same time, we have to keep in mind that the situation is not yet completely final.

Are we being punished?

Well, some would like us to be punished. I believe that the countries of this region have realized their power after more than ten years of European Union membership. They are able to use the European cohesion and structural funds so that they can make a real contribution to the quality of life of those living here and to economic growth, while at the same time the Western European net contributing elite also benefit from cohesion policy. So, this is a success story. To knock over or diminish a success story can be only of interest if there are other political considerations beneath the surface. This is how I interpret the case. These states that came to power and consciousness now do not want to stand behind the globalist future envisioned by Brussels, and, therefore, Brussels is trying to put political pressure on them. We do not have to complain but have to actively get involved in coalition building and fight to defend our interests.

The question is whether the decision will be made before the EP elections. We will come back to the topic. Dávid Szabó, Csaba Szajlai, thank you for the analysis. On the occasion of the centenary of the regained Polish independence, the history book entitled The Bridge Builders: The Portrait of the Hungarian–Polish Relations was published. Our colleagues spoke with the creators of the book on its launch.

Politicians, diplomats, intelligence, scouts, volunteers, writers, historians, university professors, refugees, athletes, soldiers, artists, and translators. Poles and Hungarians, who dedicated their lives to the Polish–Hungarian friendship. The album entitled Bridge Builders tells their stories. The book premiered at the Polish Institute on the 20th of November.

At the event, the editor, Miklós Mitrovics, said, “the creator’s goal was to help readers understand the true nature of the Polish–Hungarian friendship. We present 33 outstanding, extraordinary life stories. The book shows that they are mostly ordinary people. Although there is a politician among them, the majority represents the simple person who many times, as the result of a tragedy, starts a new life and from then on serves the Polish–Hungarian cause. I believe that if Hungarian people read this and see that it is not a fiction but rather the reality, they will better feel and understand that this friendship is ours, that this is not forced from above. Indeed, Polish–Hungarian friendship has never been led by big politics, but by simple people.” The life stories were researched by nine authors, and the editor illustrated the text with nearly 400 photos. One of the 33 special people is József Trojan Marián, an artist who is remembered by his daughters in the album.

“Our dad was such a connecting link between the Hungarians and the Poles. He lived his life accordingly. That meant everything to him.”

“I hope that thanks to this album, more people will get to know his work and his personality. That’s why we tried to write not only professionally, as art historians, but also as human beings, through the eyes of children who could see their father creating and working feverishly. My sister wanted to show this too, so perhaps our writing is the most personal in the book.”

Miklós Mitrovics concluded with the idea that bridge builders are always needed and will always be needed, as without them the “Polish-Hungarian two good friends” phrase would be empty. We want nothing more than to have similar connections in the Hungarian–Polish friendship in the next hundred years.

Dear viewers, with the news of the Visegrád Four, we are counting on seeing you next week. Thank you for being with us and goodbye.

 

According to a recent survey, more and more people are familiar with the V4. The majority of Visegrád 4 country citizens trust the alliance, which is referred to by experts as the economic engine of Europe. We will further elaborate on this in today’s broadcast. I wish you a good evening. Welcome. Meanwhile, at a Berlin-based event on Tuesday, Slovak Minister of Foreign Affairs Miroslav Lajčák announced that if his country does not join the UN’s global migration agreement, he will resign. By phone we connect with our correspondent in Bratislava, Titusz Németh. Hello Titusz!

The minister has justified his decision by claiming that the planned agreement of the UN is only a political statement that lists the possibilities of managing migration but does not oblige the acceding countries. However, the xenophobes are making it look quite different. In the meantime, Robert Fico, President of Smer, also reacted and said that the minister must by all means remain in office. Can we say that Lajčák is blackmailing the government? 

Hello, Anett! After all, this can be the case. Meanwhile, Peter Pellegrini stated in Brussels that Slovakia would not attend the summit in Marrakech if participation itself would result in any obligation for Slovakia. However, the Slovakian party has not yet fully refused to participate in the summit. Pellegrini called on Foreign Minister Lajčák and Secretary Parízek to find out what it would mean to Slovakia if it represented itself on a lower political level at the meeting and if it would voice its comments on the spot. Ultimately, Lajčák found this as an acceptable solution and stated that he does not insist that he take part in the Marrakech meeting.

Another topic that concerns Slovakia is that at the fourth meeting of the Hungarian–Slovak Joint Economic Committee, Levente Magyar, Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, spoke about the fact that Hungary and Slovakia have accomplished several achievements in their bilateral relations in recent years.  Specifically, which areas did Secretary Magyar talk about, in which areas was progress made, and in which areas is a closer cooperation necessary in the future?

First of all, he was talking about transportation cooperation. As we know, in Komárom, there is a plan for a large bridge, but at the same time it is true that, although the Hungarian–Slovakian economic relationship, as well as the foreign policy within the V4, is pretty positive, Slovakia and Hungary still have disagreements that could endanger their relationship. The Slovakian law on citizenship and the Slovak language law are instances of that. Another example could be the “flag law,” which was adopted by the Slovak Parliament with a definite anti-Hungarian sentiment, and it mostly affects sports events.

We have been waiting for an agreement or resolution concerning these issues between the two countries for years. Titusz Németh from Bratislava, thank you very much for the information. Let’s return to the topic that I mentioned in the introduction. The popularity of the Visegrád cooperation is increasing. This is apparent at least from recent research carried out by the Nézőpont Institute. The awareness of the V4 in the four concerned countries is cumulatively high; 86% of the respondents had heard about the alliance before the data was collected. But, let’s see the details.

Most of the adult population in the Visegrád countries know the V4 and think that their country is better able to enforce its interests within the framework of the alliance, according to a telephone survey that was carried out in the four countries by the Nézőpont Institute. The familiarity with the Visegrád cooperation in the four countries is very high cumulatively, as 86% of the respondents had already heard about the alliance prior to data collection. The Czechs and Slovaks are the most aware of the alliance; 91% and 88% of them, respectively, had heard of the cooperation. The research also revealed areas in which the V4 citizens would like to deepen the cooperation between their respective countries. According to the respondents, the V4 countries should cooperate more closely in highway construction and scientific research, and the respondents find the coordination of tax policies the least important. But, tourism, industrial policy, and energy policy are also important points of cooperation. Visegrád citizens are confident about the development of the region. The most optimistic are the Hungarians; 49% of them think that their country will be in a better position within five years, but 34% think that the situation will deteriorate over the next half decade. An optimistic view is shared by 48% of the Czechs and 47% of the Slovaks, while in Poland 42% are optimistic and 39% are pessimistic. The majority of the population in all four states believes their countries can more effectively enforce their interests within the V4 than on their own.

In the studio I welcome today’s guests, a political scientist and the director of Médianéző, Bánk Levente Boros, and Péter Virovácz, the leading analyst at ING Bank. The introductory question is short: is the so-called V4 identity developing or has it already emerged?

In the political sense, it does seem that the V4 people are finding common ground. The “political sense” must, however, be interpreted by keeping in mind that there was government will and intent for finding common ground on the side of all the four countries and to focus on what connects them and not on what divides them. There have been periods when these countries considered the EU and NATO integration as a competition among each other, and, as the reporter said, sometimes other tensions also burdened the bilateral relations. One could also say that the picture of an external enemy is what connects these countries, but I would prefer to approach it as the V4 having a common future in mind. Definitely on the political level, but more and more so on the social level as well, an idea is being formed that we share a common historical past—we can call it the communist past or the experience and heritage deriving from that. And, we have a vision for the future, not only for the V4, but for Europe as well, which is an innovation, as a matter of fact, because nobody else has such a vision or a strategic idea for the development of the EU or European integration. Therefore, this is a lucky situation that has emerged, as we here in Central Europe not only encourage cooperation with one another, we also have a suggestion in what direction Europe should be governed in the future. This debate has reached a certain level where the V4 countries do appear as factors.

Meanwhile, we are showing the viewers, as you can see on the LED wall next to us, the results of the survey in numbers and percentages. Let me return to what we started the conversation with: does a V4 identity exist, and if so, in what form does it exist? And, the most interesting statement might be that it does exist despite the fact that the four countries have completely different political situations and completely different governments. So, let’s clarify what the V4 alliance is really about—to what extent is it an economic cooperation?

I think that economic cooperation is definitely necessary. If we look at the four countries together, they can represent a big power together in the European Union, and it is worth looking at the numbers if we want to see the position of these four countries. I will try to not overwhelm the viewers with the numbers though. The V4 countries make up roughly 13% of employment in the EU, so they do represent a decisive factor in this respect; if these countries cooperate, they can achieve certain things. From the economic perspective we can say that the V4 countries represent one of the driving forces in the EU’s economy, since with their 4–5% economic growth, they are ahead of many member states. Therefore, I think it is desirable for these countries to unite their forces and try to achieve a better bargaining power both in economic and political issues.

Let’s stop here for a moment and have a look at the future. To what extent will this economic cooperation be a Nicolae Robu and Gheorghe Falcă. (photo: Virgil Simonescu)