 So, first of all, a very good afternoon to Mr. Brown and ladies and gentlemen, everybody who is here in this room. First of all, of course, I'd like to express my gratitude to the Institute for creating this opportunity for me to address you. Although five years ago, when Hungary was running the presidency of the council, I was a Foreign Ministry official, previously a political director in the Foreign Ministry dealing with security policy, foreign policy, CFSPC, SDP. I was dealing with the Arab world, Asia as well, bilaterally, and now I'm doing EU. When I was transferred to this portfolio, I told my wife that now peace will come to our family. Two years ago, I never thought that this would be one of the most terrible and hectic areas of international politics, at least here in Europe. But certainly 2011 was a difficult year and the subsequent years have not been less difficult. But things started not only in 2011 but around 2008, 2009 when the financial and economic crisis started to hit Europe and resulted in a series of political, economic, social impacts and developments. But I came to Ireland for many reasons. I could have come for many reasons. Ireland is a wonderful country, a very attractive country with a very attractive and nice people. Long time friend with Hungary that dates back not only decades but I would say centuries as well. And certainly we all live in a magic of numbers, anniversaries, which is rightly so. And I could say that it was 40 years ago in 1976 when Hungary and Ireland established diplomatic relationships. And it was 25 years ago that Hungary opened a permanent mission, an embassy here in Dublin and 20 years ago that Ireland opened one in Budapest in our capital. And it's 100 years that you are celebrating a major event in your history and it's 60 years that we are commemorating an event which was similarly very impactful on Hungarian and I believe European history and integration. But I also came to Dublin to meet my colleagues, officials from the Irish government and try to exchange views on how we see most recent developments in Europe. And also try to explain the essence and the motivation behind Hungarian positions on different European Union dossiers. The Prime Minister of Hungary a couple of days ago issued an article in one of the German newspapers, Frankfurt, the Argument Zeitung, the FATZ, and if I may also use quotations from that. Because I think this is the most legitimate source of Hungarian position that was expressed by the leader of the country. So in my speech I will reflect on that as well. But back to Hungarian-Irish relationship, as I told you, dates back to centuries, 12th century or even earlier. And very iconic figures of our history, of our nations, clearly expressed the closeness and the similarities of Irish life-thinking and Hungarian thinking, William Butler Yeats once said about his own nation that the Irish are the Hungarians of the West. Because there are these two long-suffering yet surviving nations have more in common than anybody would think. And the greatness of our nations have always been reflected in the national resistance against foreign conquerors and the fight for our homelands over the centuries. Freedom and independence stand very close in the minds of our peoples and are interpreted in a very similar manner. Orthogryphus, the first president of the Irish Free State, also drew the attention to these similarities in a 1904 political pamphlet entitled The Resurrection of Hungary, A Parallel for Ireland. Now the question is that do these similarities still exist in our 21st century international and global environment? If you don't mind, I will read out my presentation and afterwards I will have to talk without paper anyway. So I believe that our common virtues and similarities are still valid today as our continent is going through fundamental changes that urge us to become swift and smart again. We can rely on our own skills, the good recognition of capabilities and the proper evaluation of circumstances coming from our inventiveness. And we can always rely on the sympathy between the Irish and the Hungarian peoples. Starting off from the stems of great empires, both countries joined the European Union with great expectations and confidence. However the EU of today, we believe, is no longer what it used to be. So the question arises, why is the EU now in such an unstable, insecure condition? For decades peace has reigned and prosperity, even though not uniform, has made Europe the most desirable part of the world. Why do people feel such great doubt though in many member states today? First of all I am convinced that we have to come to a common understanding that there are problems and we have to come to an agreement that we have to debate it. Because debate we believe is not negative, on the contrary debate is also a European value. Starting from a former communist country, let me share you with an anecdote in the former German Democratic Republic or East Germany, when if someone even discreetly tried to talk about obvious problems, the doubter was confronted with a single stupid but apparently conclusive argument. And they told him that Comrade, are you opposed to peace? We still remember that period in Hungary. So a crisis prone EU cannot shut down debate on some fundamental issues by saying that people who doubt the great project should visit Europe's military cemeteries. The recognition of historical truths will not be enough to assure the survival of the European Union, we believe. For many years Europe's construction project was making headway, it was not always smooth but overall there was a degree of consistency. The waves of closer integration and enlargement interlocked like the teeth of a zip fastener. The most uplifting moments in this process was the German unification in 1990 and European unification in 2004. By the way the time when Hungary also joined was during an Irish presidency of the Council. And then in 2005 something went wrong. The citizens of the two founding states, France and the Netherlands, rejected the treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. And in contrast to Danish and Irish referenda on European matters, there was no question of holding a second vote after minor adjustments. The momentum towards European integration came to a halt. By the time changes were made with the Treaty of Lisbon's entry into force, global crisis was upon us. We managed to conceal the recession for a year or two. But in 2008 the European elite which had drawn its legitimacy from economic achievements suffered a defeat. The aftermath of the economic and financial crisis spelled the end of an illusion that the EU could guarantee continuing prosperity, let alone increasing prosperity for all of its citizens. In a number of member states the crisis of the elite has escalated into a crisis of democracy. This came to a head in the geopolitical crisis in Ukraine in 2014 and the migration crisis barely a year later. Fears and concerns have multiplied while the number of solutions and effective answers has reduced. This is how we arrived at the British referendum. This is a turning point because for the first time since its foundation of the EU it is losing a member state which is a substantive move towards disintegration. In the early hours of the 24th of June when the last results came in from the British voting areas it became clear that this great project had lost the support of the majority of citizens in a large member state. On the 24th of June the sun rose as always but one chapter in the history of European integration had come to an end and a new one had begun. Do we have sufficient courage and honesty to understand this situation and give the soonest possible responses based on respect for great predecessors and in the interest of our citizens, our nations, our community? We obviously have to respect the decision of the British citizens and adapt to the new situation now. During the process of withdrawing from the EU under article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union reaching a fair and appropriate agreement with the United Kingdom is more important for us than its timing. We Hungarian think that the events of the past weeks confirm that Brussels must listen to member states. The lesson to be learned from Brexit is that people perceive the proposals of European institutions as being far away from their everyday expectations. More than 17 million citizens voting against the EU shall not be disregarded and this is the main message from which consequences must be drawn. Brexit puts Hungary and Ireland into a difficult position because we both have lost an important partner. The UK is the eighth most important commercial partner for Hungary and the first one for Ireland. Most people today believe that the United Kingdom will suffer as it withdraws from the EU. This is assured as every rebirth involves suffering. Nevertheless, we are not worried for the British people. As we are talking about Europe's oldest democracy, a nuclear military power of inescapable importance, a member of the United Nations Security Council and the world's fifth largest economy, they will find their new place in the world faster than we might think. Instead, we should worry about ourselves. First of all, we should make clear to ourselves and our citizens that there are still 27 member states and a community with a population of 444 million people. This continues to be an entity of enormous power and potential. But can only be successful if we take the people with us into the struggle that seeks to address our challenges and crisis. We need every individual, every nation, every member state. Institutions cannot act in their stead. The institutions are there to assist and coordinate the member states, but not to marginalize them. The institutions are there for the member states, not the other way around. We need a rational and decisive shift. We must put an end to the move away from the nations of Europe and the process of turning the European project into an ideology. And we must discard the false perception that we have of ourselves. The European Union as a whole and its individual member states no longer have the power and the influence they had once, years or decades ago. We have a big heart, but our opportunities are limited. This is why we must use them very well. We must recognize that the experiments which sought to create direct democratic legitimacy for the institutions of the European Union by circumventing the member states have in fact produced an opposite result. For example, the President of the Commission used to be selected through consensus between the member states. But now we have been split into a majority and a minority. And we believe that this led to a conspicuous disregard for the British people, which itself also contributed to the majority of the people in the UK becoming fed up with the European Union. The essence of Hungarian thinking is simple. The European Union is rich, but weak and vulnerable. This is the worst possible combination of qualities. At the same time, we must avoid unproductive ideological debates on whether we need more Europe or less Europe. Where we need more, there should be more. Where we need less, there should be less. Recent events have shown that an increasing number of people are beginning to have doubts about the European project and are turning against it. We must also acknowledge that there are diverging views about the challenges and proposed solutions, not only among politicians and political parties, but also among the people themselves. There are likewise diverging views regarding the options for further action. There are some people who prefer a Europe of nations, while others would even ban national flags from sports stadiums. There are some who would systematically import labour to Europe from afar, while others would like to provide jobs for the large number of young unemployed people. There are some who would take in millions of people in order to address their demographic problems, while others say that people's sense of security must be restored as soon as possible. There are some who would integrate the Western Balkan countries, while others recoillet the very mention of further enlargement. There are some who would plan the future at the expense of others, while there are many who reject excessive debt at the expense of other member states' taxpayers, and particularly at the expense of future generations. And there are European citizens behind each and every one of these views and opinions. Where and how can we restore order in this European chaos? Because even in democracy, there must be order. The answer is not too complicated if we commit ourselves to the principle of unity in diversity. We must observe the rules that we ourselves have created. We must return to the consistent application of European law. This also means that we must use the same standards for all of us. And it also means that we must not make yellow card procedures meaningless. We must respect the role of national parliaments, and we must not attempt to exclude them from the ratification of important international agreements of utmost significance as it has been the case with CETA or TTIP. The main reason for the crisis and uncertainty is that by disregarding the rules, we put at risk two principal achievements, the common currency and the single internal market protected by its external borders. In other words, our way of life and our economic model. The long-term systematic violation of the stability and growth pact, the Schengen agreement and the Dublin regulations has become standard practice furthermore with the tacit approval of the anointed protectors of the treaties. The concept of a political commission is in itself difficult to countenance as a treaty clearly lays down the responsibilities and powers of this body. Our community is both one of values and of shared responsibilities. Good examples of these are our budgetary framework and the system for the protection of our external borders. In neither case does the responsibility begin in Brussels but in the member states. And if a given member state finds itself under great pressure through no fault of its own, the community, the other member states come to its aid. It was in this spirit that Hungary protected its external Schengen borders. 97% of the funding for which has been provided by the country itself. There is no doubt that in addition to observing the correct rules, there is a need or demand to create new ones. But this need or demand should not be approached on an ideological basis. The protection of the external borders, digitalisation or industrial policy are all areas where common sense dictates the strengthening of European cooperation. These areas include common foreign and security policy and defence and development policy. But where there is a dispute on how to proceed, there is a single European instrument for the settlement of disputes. This is once again the treaty itself. The euro and Schengen prove that flexible integration is a reality. Moving forward within more limited boundaries is not a new invention either and the rules for strength and cooperation have been sufficiently developed. It is unnecessary indeed it's dangerous to envision an EU which gradually decays by stepping outside the framework of its regulations and by calling its boundaries into question. We must not be naive of course, there have been and continue be disciples of covered treaty changed by stealth. Examples of these are the Spitz and candidates method of nominating the president of the commission or the commission's proposers of the permanent and mandatory redistribution of refugees. But I would also cite the European Parliament's latest decision to triggering article 50. The other fundamental task is the restoration of people's sense of security. The uncontrolled influx of hundreds of thousands of people and the collapse of systems which people had believed were functioning, particularly those for protection of Europe external borders cannot be separated from the failure of integration. The recent horrendous series of attacks leaves no room for any further uncertainty or inaction. The same is true of the European economy and labour market. Yes, we are passive witnesses of globalization but if we believe, if we feel strong enough we shall not resign ourselves to the situation but we shall join the competition. The external borders which were once believed to be indefensible are gradually becoming protected. The Spanish model and the Spanish method which proves the defensibility of the blue border and the Hungarian method which proves the defensibility of the green border show that we can protect our citizens and our great European achievements. In addition to mass population movement, other phenomena of globalization, particularly the everyday social and economic effects of digitalization and pre-demonstrate where the risks and the opportunities lie. Today more than ever we need member states, small and large, old and new, eurozone and non-eurozone, eastern and western, southern and northern to combine their efforts. In 1989 we wrote European history together. In 2015 we found ourselves at the centre of a European debate together once again. Only we can explain this to ourselves and our European partners and yet again together. Hungary is not a large member state. But God has put us in a place on the map where history sometimes arrives in transit. In the summer of 2015, with complete disregard for European rules, more than 10,000 migrants a day were arriving at the Hungarian-Serbian border. These people have already been in the territory of another member state, in the territory of both the EU and the Schengen area. As it is the responsibility of a country of the Schengen area's external border to ensure that the crossing of that external border is controlled, Hungary had no choice but to erect a physical barrier. In 1989 we dismantled the fence which divided the peoples of Europe. In the early autumn of 2015 we erected a fence on the external green border of the European Union and the Schengen area. This was to protect the European Union's greatest achievement, free movement within the common area of the internal market. This free movement is protected by the Schengen agreement. In accordance with jointly agreed European regulations ratified many years ago. As a result we have been protecting the European people's way of life and economic model, at least on the section of Europe's external border for which we are responsible. And no less crucially we have been protecting their security. We did this as good, low abiding Europeans. The protection of the external border is not a thing of beauty. It is not a matter of aesthetics either and it cannot be done with flowers and cuddly toys. The external borders of central member states are in fact many hundreds of kilometers from their territories. These countries have placed their face and confidence in the member states on the external borders, trusting they will perform their duty. And Hungary has done this. Hungary has protected and continues to protect the Germans, the Swedes, the Dutch and all other European partners. When some people hear comments such as these, they automatically react with the accusation of populism. As Shakespeare would put it, however, populists are people who call a spade a spade. We Hungarians call things by their names. This is part of our nature. We do not want to distribute the migration burdens falling on Europe, but we want to eliminate them to put an end to them. We have now reached a stage at which the protection of the external borders enjoys a broad consensus. And our views have also converged on a number of other matters. These include the need for action against the causes of migration, as part of which Hungarian soldiers are serving together with others in operations in several critical regions. We have agreed that those in need should be given help and support as near to their homes as possible. Cooperation with partner countries, be those countries of origin or of transit, is becoming ever more important. We have increased humanitarian and financial aid as far as our capacity and means permit. Hungary has not let anyone down. Our European partners, least of all. In addition to defence, there is another word which should be discussed. That word is voluntary. The Brussels institutions believed and continue to believe that there is a single means with which to manage and resolve the entire migration crisis. This is the mandatory relocation quota. Hungary was the first to firmly express its opposition to this idea. We clearly rejected its impolitical debate. We shall go to the European courts in Luxembourg and we shall also consult the Hungarian people in the referendum in October. So why this firm tough opposition? On the one hand, until we regain the ability to control the situation on our external borders, and until we decide who may enter our territory, any kind of distribution scheme is just an invitation. On the other hand, mandatory distributions is not possible if the smuggler or the migrant in question is the one who decides on their ultimate destination. Thirdly, this is the message which has encouraged and still encourages millions of economic migrants to set out. A better life cannot be seen as a fundamental right. Much though, we would like to be able to grant it. And last but not least, in European law, there is no consistent rule for mass immigration. So this is what we return to. If there is no jointly agreed rule about something, we can only provide for it on a voluntary basis, at least until the adoption of a new rule. True refugees and genuine refugees must be helped in the most effective way possible. There are general rules for legal migration, but the numbers themselves fall within national competence. And this is how it should be. As the institutions or the situations of the member states certainly vary greatly. In Hungary, we must integrate hundreds of thousands of our Roma compatriots into the labor market. While elsewhere, young unemployed graduates number in hundreds of thousands. And as regards demography, the EU has no competence of any kind. We also have a demographic problem. And while there is no guarantee that our response, the strengthening of family policy, will be successful, we wish to decide ourselves within national competence how we envisage our own society, how we wish to live and who with. In Hungary, for centuries, we have lived together with compatriots originating from every corner of Europe. In the Hungarian parliament, there are representatives from 13 national minorities. In Budapest, the Catholic basilica is only a short fork from the city's astonishing synagogue. Generations have grown up in this cultural environment. Their social wisdom and vision of a shared future together has been based on their decisions, not the instructions of a remote faceless institution. We can no longer delay debate at the highest level on strategic partners as well. We should not shrink from the allowing the heads of state and government rather than EU officials to debate on international relationship, whether between the EU and Russia, or between the EU and the United States. If we lose political control, important projects, such as TTIP, may end up in a blind alley. And last but not least, we must also mention the EU's competitiveness as boosts a problem and an opportunity. The economy is the most important indicator of the EU's decline. The population is shrinking, and the economic output is declining. And this contrasts with disproportionately high social expenditure. And while we have been under the pressure of the migration waves, we have lost valuable months. And digitalization has kicked the door in on us. Not only may certain sectors or businesses now find themselves in trouble, but we will be forced to fundamentally change the life of society and the economy, the community and the individual, as we know it today, or perhaps they will change of their own accord. Millions are worried about their jobs. Digitalization, industrial policy, related innovation, training and infrastructure, development are good examples of the issues ordering us to cast aside the ideological precepts of more Europe or less Europe and using real life as a starting point. We must pragmatically identify the areas in which we can and must develop the process of European integration. We need a positive agenda. We need security and growth. Hungary does not use the euro yet as its currency. But the extent to which we succeed in placing the eurozone on a stable path of growth is key for the Hungarian economy. In a new European growth program, Hungary will be a reliable partner, together with the whole of central Europe. This is also true for security in a broader sense. The EU has been getting from crisis to crisis and only reacted to the events instead of avoiding them. The so-called extremist parties have become more powerful due to the mismanagement of the crisis, which is one of the greatest challenges today. We would be mistaken to think that the mere slogan of more Europe is sufficient and appropriate to address the current situation. We believe that Europe needs fundamental reforms and has to face new realities focusing on the will of the people, whereas combating its legitimacy crisis. Whichever direction the European integration may take, the unity of the single market, maintaining the four freedoms, the common policies, and the common budget, as well as strengthening the role of national parliaments must be key elements of future cooperation. We believe that in order to restore trust, the genuine concerns of our citizens need to be better reflected. And the union should make the best use of its key instruments, cohesion, boosting investments, supporting innovation, completing the digital and energy single market, promoting free trade and free movement, and strengthening a resilient labor market, bringing sustainable jobs. The rebirth of the European ideal is possible. Hungary, together with its partners in central Europe and beyond, with our longstanding partners such as Ireland, feels determined, strong, and committed enough to play a proportionate role in this new future. So let me close with the question I already put again. Do the similarities between Ireland and Hungary proceed 100 years ago? Still exists in our 21st century international global environment? I strongly hope, and believe in it, as I keep in believing the words of William Butler Yeats, who said that we too have seen our bravest and our best to prison's goal and mostly ruin rest, where homes once flattened, veil and mountain crest, therefore all nation of the bleeding breast libations of the Hungary of the West. Thank you very much for listening to me.