Gyurcsány Ferenc a február 21-én alakult Magyar Progresszív Társaság budapesti rendezvényén érdekes dolgokról beszélt. Például bal oldalról és progresszív politikáról, de elhangzottak vicces kijelentések is az ő szájából. - Ma Magyarországon a polgári politikának legkevésbé azok a képviselői, akik útszéli, kocsmai hangot használva akarják megfélemlíteni politikai riválisaikat – mondta a miniszterelnök. Valószínűleg nem magára gondolt, pedig tehette volna, elég csak az elhíresült öszödi beszédére visszaemlékezni, mert azzal bizony nem lehetne a Kazinczy verseny selejtezőjén sem túljutni.

A miniszterelnök beszélt arról is, hogy 2010-ben azok lesznek többségben Magyarországon, akik elismerik a reformok szükségességét. Ezzel Gyurcsány Ferenc el is ismerte, hogy ma neki és pártjának köze sincs a többséghez. A demokrácia pedig a többség diktatúrája... Egyébként a naptár szerint pedig 2006-ot írunk. Volt még érdekes kijelentése a nemrég megválasztott pártelnöknek, például - Tévednek, akik úgy gondolják, hogy az MSZP híján van a bölcsességnek és híján van korábbi baloldali elkötelezettségének. Ezzel az MSZMP-és múltra utalt nyilvánvalóan. Összegezve lehet, hogy összevissza beszélt, vagy csak megint hazudott?

Az angol The Times-nak is adott interjút a miniszterelnök. - Az őszi események óta felerősödött az antiszemitizmus, azt kell mondanom, hogy soha nem volt annyi antiszemita megnyilvánulás mint most – mondta Gyurcsány Ferenc. Az Árpád-sávos zászlóról kifejtette - Az ország demokratikus többsége számára a magyar nemzetiszocialisták szimbóluma. Ez alatt a zászló alatt magyar zsidók ezreit hurcolták el Auschwitzba. Az emberek többségének ez a zászló azt jelenti, hogy a Fidesz érdekközösségben áll a szélsőjobboldali antiszemita erőkkel. Nem akarják elhatárolni magukat tőlük. Azt állítják, hogy nem szélsőjobboldaliak vagy antiszemiták, de nem akarják megkülönböztetni magukat tőlük és nagyon tudatosan elmossák a határvonalat – érvelt a frissen megválasztott pártelnök. Érdekes összefüggés, mert a fentieket figyelembe véve a miniszterelnök szerint, amikor magyar zsidók ezreit hurcolták el Auschwitzba, illetve a 2006. év őszi eseményei közül utóbbi veszélyesebb, mert mint mondta „soha nem volt annyi antiszemita megnyilvánulás most”. Soha, tehát 1944-ben sem? A vészkorszakban sem?

A miniszterelnök megemlíti azt is, hogy a feleségének antiszemita szórólapot nyomtak a kezébe a városban és ez is mutatja a magyarországi soha nem látott antiszemitizmust. Furcsa a konkrét esettel kapcsolatban – amennyiben, ha igaz amit Gyurcsány Ferenc állít -, hogy a felesége miért nem fordult a rendőrséghez, miért nem tett sehol sem feljelentést az antiszemita szórólappal kapcsolatban? Cinkos aki bűnösök között néma. 


A nyilas zászló és az árpád-sávos zászló között nagy a különbség:

(nyilas zászló)                             (árpád-sávos zászló)

... és még "egy pár helyen" megtalálható az árpád-sáv... (A teljesség igénye nélkül) :

                           1.                             2.                                 3.                                     4.       

 

- Gyurcsány Ferenc egy történelmi szimbólumot szándékosan félreértelmez, hiszen a nyilaskeresztes zászlónak a nyilaskereszt volt a lényege, ez fejezi ki az önkényuralmi jelképet. A nyilaskereszttől megszabadított történelmi zászló az Árpád-sávos zászló. Hogy mennyire legális az Árpád-sávos zászló vagy címer használata, azt mutatja, hogy a Nemzetbiztonsági Hivatalnak a címerében is megjelenik – nyilatkozta az Infórádiónak Répássy Róbert, miniszterelnök kijelentéseivel kapcsolatban.

A Times újságírói kérdésre, rendőri túlkapásokkal kapcsolatban a felelősséget a rendőri vezetésre hárította Gyurcsány, de azt nyilatkozta, hogy a rendőröknek az októberi zavargások óta kötelező a ruhájukra vart egyedi azonosítót hordaniuk. De ha kötelező miért nem hordják, vagy ismét hazudott a miniszterelnök? De kiderül, hogy Magyarország 2010-2015 között csatlakozik az euróövezethez. Ez persze nem ígéret, abból úgy is van elég, főleg az euró bevezetésével kapcsolatban.

A miniszterelnök nyilatkozatába amúgy a Times szerkesztőinek kellett a kommunista jelző beszúrnia, hiszen ő erről megfeledkezett. „I was a leader of the youth movement before 1990”.

Gúnyos megjegyzést kapott Orbán Viktor, akit egyszerűen csak egy vidéki Elvis Presley hasonmásnak titulált. Ez erősen színvonaltalan megjegyzés, mert mi köze van Elvisznek Orbán Viktorhoz? Amúgy meg nem kéne a vidéket továbbra sem lenézni, mert egy városi Elvis hasonmás mitől jobb mint egy vidéki?

Kiderül az is az angol lap hasábjai közül, hogy a soha nem látott antiszemitizmus tombolásának közepén a miniszterelnök testőr nélkül jár futni. Kérdés, hogy hova?

Az interjút meglepő módon fejezte be a miniszterelnök. - Sosincs happy endünk. Felemelkedünk, majd elbukunk. Minden sztár elbukik egyszer, ez lesz az én sorsom is. A kérdés csak az, hogy ez mikor következik be – zárta szavait Gyurcsány, aki egyébként mióta sztár?

(ilcsik dávid)

A teljes angol nyelvű interjú:

Gyurcsany interview in full

From Times Online
March 1, 2007
Roger Boyes and Adam LeBor in Budapest

Transcript of the interview with Hungarian prime minister Ferenc Gyurcsany

Q: Prime Minister, you say you want to modernise Hungary, but throughout eastern Europe attempts at reform seem to have stirred trouble: unstable governments, street protests, the rise of the far-right. Is the region becoming ungovernable?

A: I think there are three groups of countries in the European Union. One is the courageous modernisers, such as Finland, Denmark and Great Britain, bringing about a strong transformation of their economies to link into the global economy. Second are countries such as France, Germany and Italy, who know that they need to respond to globalisation, but it is a question of pace and how to do it. These are the uncourageous modernisers. Third are the countries from Poland to the Balkans, which in many regards have a similar social and historical background. But the fundamental question has not been decided yet: of a progressive modernisation policy, or the isolation of radical nationalism. This is the debate that we see happening in all of these countries. Their internal division lines are different, there is a deep cultural and societal division.

Q: Last weekend you took over as Socialist Party chairman. Do you think that now you can be more courageous?

A: I have more opportunities to be successful with governance. I certainly carry more responsibility to organise the party. I could see at the congress that there is this kind of support for modernisation within the Socialist Party, I could see that this progressive national standpoint is opposed to the radical nationalist approach.

Q: But how strong are you really? Was it not a sign of weakness, even blackmail, that you threatened to resign unless you got 75 per cent support?

A: On the contrary, it was encouraging that if there was any kind of minority alternative [to reform], they should have come forward. It would have been sufficient for my opponents to obtain every fourth vote from delegates, then they could have changed both the prime minister and party chairman.

Q: Reformers across Europe tend to centralise power. But your critics say you are over-centralising and you are too arrogant.

A: Can you give me a specific example of this?

Q: No, but critics in the Socialist Party say you do not encourage debate, that there is only one train running and everyone has to be on board.

A: I am a particular kind of politician. I say and write what I think. I write essays, I write books. I know the leadership of the Socialist Party well enough to know that they will not ask for my permission if they have other opinions which they want to publish. I meet twice a week with the inner circle of the party leadership. This congress did not give me any additional rights as chairman. For us it is unimaginable for the party chairman to appoint regional heads, as happens with the largest opposition party. If I cannot convince my own party then how will I be able to convince the majority of voters with those arguments? I don’t need the support of 35,000 party members to implement these changes, but I do need the support of two and a half million Hungarians to win the election.

Q: Why has politics in Hungary become so personalised and nasty? You seem to have become a hate figure for the nationalist right.

A: This personalisation of politics is happening everywhere in Europe… In many respects I represent the archetypal enemy for the right. I was a leader of the [Communist] youth movement before 1990, after 1990, became rich. My wife is the descendant of an old Communist family. I don’t feel ashamed of myself, instead I just get down to work. The opposition concluded that after it lost the last two elections in 2002 and 2006, which it did not expect, I was somehow there in the background personally. I was the campaign manager for [former prime minister] Peter Medgyessy in 2002 and now I am prime minister.

Q: Do you feel personally threatened?

A: Not at all. Every weekend I take my wife and we go shopping. Or we go to the cinema. Yesterday evening I was at Beckett’s [an Irish pub in Budapest], with my wife and another couple of friends. I go jogging three times a week, without bodyguards.

Q: Perhaps it is because you try to project the image of a successful businessman rather than a politician?

A: I don’t have a stylist. I don’t think about how I should appear. My main rival [Fidesz leader Viktor Orban] changed his hairstyle and clothing completely in order to appear more like a simple person. The Hungarians said he was like an Elvis impersonator from the countryside. He did not win the elections. I believe very strongly that we will carry these reforms through. In the end Hungarians will say we had a lot of debate and often we were very critical about what you did, but we did it and it is good that you did not give up. If that is not the way they think at the next elections they can show us the door.

Q: What effect does it have on democracy and the institutions of democracy when Mr Orban and Fidesz politicians walk out of Parliament every time you get up to speak?

A: Our view is that their absence violates the supremacy of the people and of Parliament. This does not only relate to me as prime minister but to the institutions of the republic itself. I pretend not to notice that they are absent and I do my job.

Q: The whole area around Parliament has been sealed off for four months, which distances the Parliament from the people.

A: As far as I remember the German Bundestag, the Austrian and British parliaments are also sealed off if someone wants to demonstrate. There is a fence around the British parliament. The questions of when the Parliament is safe, when there is a risk, are not political issues. The political issue is that these limitations should be proportionate to the threat, with a legal basis.

Q: Does not this fortress atmosphere give the impression that you are on the defensive and not reaching out to the people?

A: There are two possibilities. The first is that I, as prime minister, take responsibility to decide where the fence should be, when to deploy water cannons or whether to do nothing. The other position is that this is why we have a national chief of police and it is his job to decide. The Parliamentary ombudsmen went to the National Security Office last week and they said that the data they got from the secret service [about potential threats] was true and accurate.

Q: There was considerable police brutality during the demonstrations last autumn. How do you intend to keep the police in check at the next anticipated flashpoint, on the national holiday of March 15th.

A: The police officers have been given very clear instructions from the national police chief that they must wear identifying numbers. Internal procedures and regulations have been changed. The police now have a non-tear, sewn on badge.

Q: The Arpad flag, the ancient Hungarian red and white flag, now appears frequently on the streets during protests. To many this flag is a symbol of the Hungarian Arrow Cross Nazis, as it seems similar to their flag in 1944. But Viktor Orban, the opposition leader, says the Arpad flag is not an Arrow Cross symbol. What is your view?

A: A national community is built on respect for each others’ sensibilities. For the democratic majority of the country the Arpad flag is a symbol of Hungarian National Socialists. Under this flag hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews were marched to Auschwitz. The five-pointed [Communist] red star has a completely different meaning here than in Holland, where you can see it on a Heineken beer bottle. For the majority of the people, this flag means that Fidesz shares a community of interest with the extreme right anti-semitic forces. They do not want to distinguish themselves. They say they are not extreme right-wingers or anti-Semitic, but they do not want to differentiate themselves and they very consciously wash away the line of division.

Q: Has there been a resurgence of anti-Semitism since the events of last autumn?

A: I have to say there have never been so many anti-Semitic remarks as now. My wife is a lecturer at the department of law. Last week she left the central building of the university, and she was handed a leaflet the likes of which we have never seen in the last 50 years in Hungary. It is very clear and unambiguous anti-Semitic pamphlet. This does not only outrage me because my wife is of Jewish descent. [Last autumn] in this square a list of 50 allegedly Jewish politicians was read out. An hour later Fidesz politicians went up on the same stage. They did not say, “Please do not do this, that we don’t need your support at this price." There is something horrible happening.

Q: Are you saying that the Socialists are the one party that can protect Hungary against this radical anti-Semitism?

A: No, there are at least three such parties: the Socialists, the liberal Free Democrats and the Hungarian Democratic Forum, a small centre-right democratic party.

Q: Moving on, one test of the strength of your leadership is your policy towards Russia. Hungarians are concerned that a Socialist prime minister might be soft on Moscow. Russians have bought the national airline, Malev, and you are dependent on Russian energy and gas. What are the limits of Russian influence in Hungary and who sets them?

A: Frankly, Great Britain has a much bigger business influence in Hungary than Russia. Russia is not among the top ten investors in Hungary. In the last ten years there were two major deals with Russia, a small bank and the sale of Malev. The Russians bought Malev because nobody else wanted it. I would have absolutely supported British Airways buying Malev but they did not want to buy it. This is not a Russian-Hungarian issue. I don’t think we should try to fight ghosts.

Q: But Russia is trying to expand its strategic influence in Central Europe, its traditional area of influence. There is a perception in the west that the bear is growling, so where is Hungary in this, as a member of both the EU and NATO but also next door to Russia?

A: Hungary is a member of the European Union and wants a common future together with the European Union. In terms of energy our situation is very simple. Hungary is the country in the European Union that is most exposed to Russian gas supplies, more than 80 per cent. I cannot say to Hungarian families that you cannot have heating now because eventually we will have a common European energy policy. If I have a choice and we are part of a joint, safe, common and reliable European energy network, or we go our separate ways and conduct our policy with Russia, there is no question what I would choose in this case. But we need heating. What should I tell people? There is no other choice in terms of pipelines in Hungary.
Q: Does this energy dependence on Russia make you uneasy?

A: This is not a pleasant position. Any prime minister who was happy about it would be a fool. We are running in a sack, while trying to dance to the finest French etiquette.

Q: It seems to be easy to anger Russia at the moment. Moscow is furious about the planned stationing of the US missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Would Hungary agree to accept this system?

A: Probably not. The defence programme of which it is a part has never been seriously discussed here in detail.

Q: When will Hungary join the Euro zone?

A: The Hungarian National Bank has a new governor, Andras Simor, from today. Together we will determine the road map to the euro and how to comply with convergence criteria. Between 2010 and 2014 we will join the euro, but we must decide together.

Q: Tony Blair used to be your model. You are meeting him again in Cardiff in mid-April. What do you feel about his impending retirement from public life?

A: This is the fate of every democratic politician. We never have a happy end, never. You rise and fall. Every star finally falls. It will be my fate as well, the only question is when.
(The Times)

Nem lehetett könnyű dolga a Times újságírójának, mivel a CNN is megszenvedett Gyurcsány Ferenc angoltudásával.

CNN Gyurcsány interjú 1. rész
CNN Gyurcsány interjú 2. rész