 Hello, I'm from the Reuters news agency. Reuters, okay. I just wanted to ask a general question about the past six months. Do you think that the political and diplomatic infrastructure of the European Union has been capable of dealing with the Eurozone debt crisis, or do you think reform is needed before it can be solved? Thank you. I haven't mentioned one of the most interesting short-lived story. Or attempt of the European Union country's prime ministers they have done during the Hungarian presidency independently from the Hungarian presidency. So that was a momentum probably to remember, probably in January and February, when an initiative came up to the service, Germans and French probably as usual, that the Eurozone countries should form something innovative approach and circle of countries to manage the crisis of the Euro. That was a surprise for us anyway, because one of the main point of the Hungarian presidency was to create the six pieces of legislation which generated for all the member states of the European Union a kind of economic governance or coordination of national economic governance. So we provided the framework and we are still fighting for that anyway and we have a good chance to reach a compromise with the European Parliament to pass the six pieces of legislation. So we provided that for all 27 countries. And then the French and the Germans came up to the initiative that something separated from that common governance should be created for only those countries who belong to the Eurozone. That was finally called the Euro plus or something like that. That was a third name anyway, which shows that not everything was clarified when the initiative launched. So the third name, which is the final name is Euro plus. And the original idea was to create a strong group of the Eurozone countries, which are able to attack the problem and the challenges in a tough way, putting aside all the consideration of those countries who are not member of Eurozone. Because I have to admit the presence of those countries who are not member of Eurozone can slow down the defending strategy and procedures and steps of those countries who are already in the Eurozone and would like to defend their own currency. So I thought first it's legitimate. I mean that attempt from the Germans and the French in order to defend their own currency. But then like in political life, it's often happened, they got softer and softer. And then they invited those countries who are not member of the Eurozone. So now it's very difficult to say what the hell is the difference between the Hungary and presidency program of six pieces of legislation, crisis management, economic governance framework and Euro plus initiative. So Hungary basically rejected to join that Euro plus project. The British has done the same as far as I remember. The Swedish and probably Czech Republic also. So very rejected. I decided in that way for two reasons. The first is because I thought seriously the initial target of that new group. So we are not member of Eurozone and we have to accept that to defend the currency which is one of the most difficult political exercise. Sometimes request very tough measures and why should I be a difficulty for those who try to defend their own currency? To make unnecessary burden on their shoulders with my own out of Eurozone considerations. The second reason was that this Euro plus project had a point, a program point which is absolutely against not just our approaches but our philosophical basics on the European Union. And this is the harmonization of the tax, tax harmonization. It's a small step because it's not a, of course it's not a full harmonization of the tax system that was not part of that program. But a small step towards that direction saying that the basis of the corporate taxation should be counted on the same way in all the countries. And we don't like it. Our personal, my personal and the Hungarian government conviction is that we need tax competition inside the European Union. Without having a tax competition inside the European Union those countries who are less developed cannot catch up with plus without having a tax competition inside the European Union the effectiveness and competitiveness of the European economy will be lower. So there is no reason to be part of that group which targets are totally opposed to our political targets and economic convictions. So this is the story. So that's where we are at this moment. So we have an all European approach by the Hungarian presidency and we have a Eurozone based approach how to manage the crisis of the Euro. If there is a leadership, if there is a leadership the Eurozone countries by themselves can manage the defense strategy of the Euro. The question is whether there is a real leadership which is a general question all over in Europe. Plus because the institutional system is very much complicated sometimes we waste some time we waste a lot of energy to clarify whose job belongs to who. Commission, council, parliament so it's very complicated system which is very democratic anyway, good exercise help make sharper your intellectual skills but at the same which is good anyway when we are living in a peaceful time but when we are in war time as we are just now in that kind of structure is rather difficult. So this is the situation. What belongs to the Hungarian presidency is that by any means we have to conclude our attempt to create the six pieces of legislation by the end of the Hungarian presidency and I think we have some chances more than 2,000 amendments arrived from the members of the European Parliament to the six pieces of legislation. So we are involved now in looking for a compromise and I see a chance that middle of June we can reach an agreement with the various caucuses of the European Parliament. I'm deeply involved into that searching for compromise. Thank you Prime Minister Jassna Gnarewicz I'm Ambassador of Croatia here in Ireland and I would like first to thank your government and you personally for all the support and efforts you have given to us in order to finalize our negotiations we are now really at the very end and we really hope that it will be possible during your presidency. You mentioned in your statement that the policy of enlargement is also something which member states have to face and start discussing. There are also a lot of discussion that after creation membership there will be quite a lot of time when the next candidate is going to join union. It's very well known that policy of enlargement is one of the most successful politics of the European Union and a big economic, political and social changes also happen to the candidate countries and countries who aspire to be members and we can see some recent developments as well happening. So I would like to ask you how do you see this policy developing? We know that there are now quite a lot of changes in some member states due to the changes in there after their elections happen in those countries quite a lot of eroscepticism in this film. How do you see this policy going to be developed in the future? Thank you very much. We have a couple of difficulties concerning to that point. The first is that to put it bluntly, the people of European Union or the majority of them are not very much happy to get any news about enlargement. When everything is going well and there is a success story in the European Union economy, it's easy to convince the people who are members of those countries who are already in or people of those countries who are already in that they could enlarge the European Union without having major risk. But when the things are going badly, especially in economy, when we are in a crisis period and the unemployment rate is high and the budget is in terrible shape in many countries. Enlargement which provide jobs for those who are outside the European Union already inside the European Union to give some money for those who would like to join because of the common agriculture policy or structural funds, whatever. So you know, that creates some resistance, political resistance in the societies. And you know, we are politicians and we have to represent the people not to speak about that we need their votes. So therefore, we fit ourselves to the circumstances. So that's the point. So that's one of the major difficulties concerning Croatian enlargement. The second point is that the Balkan region is a difficult region. If I would be a Croat, I would be insulted anyway when somebody speak about Western Balkan speaking about Croatia. But this is the average language inside the European Union which is a national insult anyway on Croatia. Croatia was never part of any Balkan, you know. Croatia is belong to another area, sorry for that. But not to the Balkan, even when you are so kind to say Western Balkan anyway. So I think we have a historical mistake previously done let's say several years ago because Croatia was basically ready to be integrated into the European Union even several years ago. So I think because the whole process was slowed down, now we're suffering because the crisis is there and that kind of all difficulties are in one package now. All in all, there is a strategy for enlargement in the European Union. That's the strategy of the Commission approved by the Commission enlargement strategy which is going ahead, I mean, what is going on is exactly coinciding with the direction defined in that Commission report except Macedonia. So the real problem is not Croatia or other Macedonia because of the discussion of the name and the Greeks are very tough on that issue. But anyway, Croatia, just to conclude my answer, the Croatia is in a very interesting period now because now we have a momentum to conclude the negotiations with Croatia. That's the job of the Hungarian presidency to keep that momentum and to finalize the whole procedure by the end of the Hungarian presidency. The chance is slight now because the timetable is very, very busy but still we have a chance. So I think it will depends on two or three days whether the Hungarians are able to conclude the negotiations or not. The problem is if we are unable to do so, nobody knows when the momentum will come back because the next council meeting of the European Union prime ministers will be held on probably October. And who knows what the hell will happen still October on financial and so on and whether this issue will be as busy one as an important one as it is now or it will be just put aside because we have far more serious engagements on other issues. So I think we should keep the momentum just now otherwise we don't know what will happen. It would be not an honest approach on my side if I would not raise, I can't see conspiracy. Politicians like to speak about conspiracy especially when the press is not present. But the kind of allegation that there are some countries in the European Union which would like to postpone the conclusion of negotiations with the Croats till the moment when the negotiations on membership could start with the Serbs. It's a political calculation. I cannot exclude that kind of conspiracy theory has some real core which would be a huge mistake in my understanding. That kind of approach to Balkan is a serious mistake. But anyway, we live under that condition. So we will see soon because the prime minister summit will happen 24th of June. And we will get the final answer to your question. Thanks very much, prime minister. Take on the breakdown of the Irish Times. You spoke about how you ended cooperation with the IMF and went back to the markets. This is a very hot issue here in Ireland at the moment. Would you like to tell us more about how you achieved this, please? Unfortunately, we cannot compare the situation here in Ireland with the Hungarian situation because the shape of the real economy is totally different here than in Hungary. So the real economy in Ireland is very strong. If you look at the figures of your GDP are far higher than the Hungarian, so I think you are less vulnerable than we are. Probably it's a surprise to you, but this is the point. Plus you have a background, a strong relationship to the United States and business ties, which can help a lot. Hungary is far more vulnerable and fragile than Ireland, so we should not forget about it. The real economy in Hungary is not as developed far, not as developed as it is here. But I had some negotiations with the IMF guys who are very prudent, very intelligent, very polite, and very dangerous people. So they are able to speak about ideas without any emotion which could kill your economy in one day as a proposal on their side. The problem is, to make it in a larger content, that the political management and the economic management or business management is too separatable profession. And that kind of institutions like IMF always like or press you to behave and to have an approach like a business management people. But to manage a country, to lead the country politically is another job. We cannot follow a way that you just simply like a CEO leader say that this is the decision. Everybody must follow it because there is no other way. So that kind of approach kills the credibility of your policy, kills the popular background of your policy, kill the unity what you have to create, and without creating that kind of unity of the people, you cannot be successful in political management. So sometimes international institutions demand a kind of political behavior based on economic management or business management approaches which equal to political suicide. Not just for parties and governments but for people as well. And it's impossible to manage in that way. So when I negotiated with them, which was really very interesting and very educative for all my life, I realized that this is not the way how we can continue. But at the same time, there are situations when you have no choice. When you have to pay tomorrow morning, you have to pay tomorrow morning. And the market is not ready to provide money for you. No new loans. You have to get money from somewhere else, otherwise the country is collapsing. And then IMF is a very good instrument because they give the money. But when you got that money and you are able to come back from the edge of the crisis or collapse, then you have to think about the future. And our strategy was very simple to get back to the financial market as soon as possible. And happily enough, I introduced horrible things in Hungary, bank taxation, some special taxation for various sectors of industry, social expenditures cut back, so horrible things. But there was no other way. But when I was able to manage it, finally I got a chance to provide or to get again room for maneuvering. And then I decided to conclude with IMF and move back to the markets. And now the markets accepted us, which is very important to you. Just the intention to move back to the financial markets is not enough because the financial market should accept you and finance you and accept your program. Sometimes it's tougher than the IMF. But the financial markets let you some room to implement your policies as a political leader based on the rules of political management and not on the base of the principles and rules of the business management. Which is always a precondition on behalf of the IMF. So I, probably the room for maneuvering in financial terms is smaller or more limited when we are on the financial market because we cannot negotiate on political issues with the investors. But the request, how you implement your policy, you know, is you have far more room for maneuvering when you are on the financial market. So that's my experience. So it's very tough. But the risk is if you are not able to reduce the implementation risk of your program and you are not able to manage your program, the financial markets kill you. And then you have to go back to IMF and then they will kill you again. And you can, so there is no other way just to be successful. That's the hunger lesson at this moment. So reduce the implementation risk as much as possible. I would never be there to do that way because that would be too risky for the nation, not for myself but for the nation if the voters would have not been so clever to provide a two-third majority for our party. Because now we have a two-third majority, we can change the constitution, we provided a new constitution for the country anyway already, we can change the two-third majority regulations which are the basic laws in Hungary. So I have the instrument to be successful in my hand. Without having that political precondition, no way to follow the strategy I have done. I don't know what's the situation here in Ireland. So I am not a person who would advise to anybody else because I understand that each country is very much different and each nation must deliver its own decisions and bear the consequences. But strong political unity behind the government, that's the number one precondition to get out, to successful get out of the crisis situation, especially when you are involved with IMF affairs. Okay. I think that's a very important statement. Yes, Kevin. Thank you. Thank you, Brandon. Thank you, Prime Minister. Kevin O'Kelly is my name. I'm a member of the Institute here but I've been doing work on and off for the European Commission in Hungary since 1990, since the changes. You mentioned during your address that you saw, if I could, maybe two related questions. You saw tackling the Roma issue at a European level and maybe, if you could, maybe expand on what you were saying there. And secondly, what is your view of the growth in the ultra-right vote in Hungary but also in other member states, Germany, France, the Netherlands were seeing this growth in ultra-right movements. And do you see this as a challenge to the future of the European Union, unity within the European Union? May I just ask you to explain a little bit the second question? No, no, no. Can I just have a live answer? Yeah, I know in Hungary, there has been growth in the right-wing parties. Also Hungary, you mean Hungary. Well, also that's reflected in other member states. Yeah, yeah, that's okay. Yeah. So Roma issue, may I have a personal remark on that? I went to the political life because we decided to destroy the communists and to get rid of them, together with the Soviet troops and to have freedom, democracy, and so on and so on. You know, we hate it to have an alternative in front of us when we reach our 18s or 20s to be free men and leave the country or to be a slave and stay at home. So that alternative was not very much inspiring. So we decided to destroy the whole thing. So you will never find anybody in the European political arena who would hate more that political system than me. But at the same time, I have to say that on Roma issue, the communists were far more talented than we Democrats are. The integration of Roma community under the communist regime was rather successful. Having job, acceptable living conditions, the difference between the majority of the society and the Roma community was far slower. We were far closer to each other. So you know, the point is that now I have to face with the situation than the communists, at least on one area of life, were more successful than we Democrats are and it's unacceptable. That's my point. So that's the reason, it's personal insight, may I say. So therefore, I'm very much committed to provide evidence that democracy could be more effective than the communist regime was even in that territory. So that's the reason why I insisted on, regardless of how complicated the issue is, to put it forward. The second point I would like to make is that it's cultural a little bit. So looking at the demography tendencies inside the European Union, the challenges, the constant challenges of and temptation, that the labor difficulties could be managed by inviting, especially physical laborers from other culture background part of the world. Immigrants, may I say, economic immigrants. And I don't understand why we do that instead of to mobilize the more than 10 million people living inside the European Union having no labor at all, being unemployed. So instead of mobilize that reserve into the labor market instead of bringing people outside the Christian culture from somewhere else into the European Union territory. So I think it's not a very wise policy. So therefore, we have to mobilize the Roma population and to see it not as a burden, but as a possibility and to create regulations to have them to work. I have an experience from the communist regime they are able to work. I can't say that they are the most competitive labor force, I can't say that, but they are able and ready to work. And the certain professionals, they are excellent. So the communist regime were able to utilize it and be neglected. So that's the reason why Hungary was very strong to put the Roma issue on the European level and I'm very committed at home, Hungary, to do the job. With some limited success, may I say, at the same time. So it's not an easy job. Can you imagine families living on social aid for more than 15 years, generations growing up, having never seen their parents to wake up early morning and go to work? So they have never experienced that. So to change that kind of heritage, that's a real challenge for politicians as we are. So that's the reason why regardless of our commitment, the result is not as good now up to now as it should be. But I'm convinced that if we are able to continue to do it, we could be successful. Far right. Prior to make any comments on the far right, we have to identify ourselves a problem with the European Union. We should not neglect it. We should not hide it. So there is a problem which is the identity. It's very difficult for the people who are not politicians, are not invited Brussels every week but doing their life and job at home. To have a common, in any sense a feeling of common to a political center which is hundreds of kilometers from their nation, having procedures which are not understandable for them. And only getting news about the bad consequences they suffer because of decisions are made over there. So under that conditions, it's very difficult to create a community, a political community behind the European Union institutions. So that kind of cultural identity problem or political identity problem is on the table. And the far right has an answer to that. And if the moderate right as we are, the Christian Democrats are not able to provide the proper answer to that. You know, the far right get an advantage on it. And that's the reason why the European Union issue is politically provide more chances for the far right than for the moderate forces as we are. So we have to change it and we have to speak honestly on that problem and we have to use national rhetoric. I don't know whether in Ireland it's a bad word or not. National rhetoric is bad. No, it's okay. Lucky country. Lucky country. So we have to make clear that Europe cannot be strong without having strong nations as a member of it. So that space of the political arena should belong to us and must be occupied by us, not to the far right. So if you always accept the European liberal approaches, you know, always neglecting national approaches and cultural background issues and emotion as such from politics, you know, if you accept that kind of approach, we have the far right. So that's my analysis on European perspective. The chances of far right. The chances of far right is rather limited in Europe. So they could reach that 15% or something like that, but it's almost impossible to go beyond that. That's my understanding. The issues they provide are very emotionally motivating, but finally, all elections are about the future of our families and future of the next generation. That's the reason why governmental parties must be always very serious, you know, sometimes therefore boring, very middle-oriented because, you know, trust is the most important thing. You could find interesting and inspiring what the far right says, but you can never trust, you can never be sure that the life of your family and your nation could be based on that value successfully. So that's the reason why I think they will be present, they will have a growing impact, but they cannot go beyond a certain limit, which is a good news for us, I think so. Do you think there's a relationship between what you've been talking about now and the anti-enlargement sentiment inside the European Union as a whole? I think so, yes. What can we do to overcome the anti-enlargement sentiment? First, we have to understand that people don't like enlargement and we have to understand that we need economic success to open the gate for the new countries. So I think successful economic policy now is the best recipe for anti-enlargement feelings. On the other side, countries like we are, living at the border of the European Union or Eastern, we have to maintain the issue. Not because I think I will be successful next year, but if the pressure, the anti-enlargement pressure is strong, the pro-enlargement pressure must be at least the same level, otherwise the position will be worse and worse. So therefore, Hungary is always very much committed for enlargement, raise the question again, regardless whether what is the realistic chance for the next morning. So I think that behavior is a mission of country as we are in Central Europe. One last question, which I'm going to ask you. And it's on the record. Be careful. You're in a position better than anybody else to reflect on the relationship between the presidency of the council and the president of the European Council just recently appointed, Van Rompuy. How have you found that relationship? It very much depends on the person, on the personalities. Herman Van Rompuy is a fine gentleman. His background is very, very solid because he was a very successful finance minister. And plus he's a Belgian, if it doesn't make any sense. I'm a central Belgian. Which means that he's born for compromise. So therefore, he is the most skillful man I've ever seen to find the way to reach a compromise for 27 prime ministers. You cannot imagine five hours long meetings, how skillfully he maneuvering the position and finally we got a text. I don't know whether, is there any sense of the text but we got a text and we all agree and we are happy. So that's sometimes it has some sense, of course. So that's the first. The second is the question, what kind of personality of the rotating country prime minister has. That's very important. I'm rather an easygoing guy, may I say. So I am quite tough on certain issues but I like to play open cards or clear cards to say, okay, this is the limits, this is the red line. I cannot retreat more. And I cannot give up certain points. But anyway, if we are inside that room for maneuvering, I have no any prestigious personal points to not to make a compromise. Plus, Hungary is a happy situation because we will have an election next time, three years later on. So I don't have any short-term political interest to just appearing as a serious man and putting aside others and occupying the spaces in front of the microphones or whatever. So therefore now, we were rather lucky at this moment. Speaking about the future, I know the Polish prime minister, Don Atusk. Who is an excellent man anyway? Who is an excellent man? Very fine gentleman. And I think the Polish will be a little bit more difficult country than Hungary because Poland is bigger. Hungary is a middle-sized country. We have an understanding what is our role. But Poland's size is like Spain, you know? Not a real big one, but of course far bigger than Hungary. So to find a proper place for that size of countries is far more complicated than to find a place for a country as we are. But because of the prime minister of Poland is a very appropriate and European-minded person, I think it will go well. But to answer to your question in a nutshell, institutionally, there is no guarantee that that structure works. Please sit down. I want to thank you. Thank you.