- Do you agree with your fellow representative who said after Viktor Orbán's European Parliamentary speech that it was good to be a Hungarian in Strasbourg?

- I do agree. A lot of our colleagues came up to congratulate me and said that it had been an exceptional moment in the European Parliament. 

- Why?

- Many people said that the EP has become a real Parliament. Not too long ago a committee was formed in the European Parliament charged with the task of working out how the plenary sessions could be made more appealing as it is boring and few people pay any attention to it. After the Strasbourg session a lot of committee members said that the body was no longer necessary because the Hungarians are here and they can make a real parliament out of the EP.

- Is that all? Should we be proud of this? 

- And of the fact that we have a government that in addition to representing the values of the EU, decisively represents those of Hungary too. In the last few years we have been accustomed to Hungarian governments listening to real or presumed instructions from abroad with their heads bowed.

- Something stinks in Hungary, we're a dark stain on the map of Europe and a dictatorship is being put together here - goes the criticism of the media law. Do you think Orbán's speech changed this image?

- Thus far Hungary has not been included in the process. It was like in a trial when the plaintiff's standpoint turns into a verdict and the defendant is not given the chance to speak. This reminds me of the old days like when in the Hungarian film, The Witness, the confession is handed to Comrade Pelikán and he says: excuse me Comrade Virág, but this is the verdict. Our accusers are accusing us of ignoring European values, while at the same time they are not willing to observe even the most fundamental rules. At least, contrary opinions should be heard in Strasbourg. In any case, EU representatives have clearly said that in the Hungarian elections the party that lost launched a campaign against the government.  

- Do the four MSZP representatives who got elected to the EP in 2009 wield such power?

- They are not the ones who have a lot of power. It's a result of misunderstood solidarity within the European socialist ‘party family'. People have made summary judgements about a law that they have not even read and there was no opportunity to express any opposite views. When motives appear in a debate that are only relevant in a domestic battle of words, then you can see through it all. 

- Why is it in the interests of European socialist politicians to stand by a party that has lost society's support?

- The EU representatives are mostly occupied with the affairs of their own countries. They only interfere in our controversial issues in order to help their fellow socialist parties. I think such a biased attitude is a mistake. The socialists lost their majority in the EP over ten years ago. If they would like more socialist representatives to get into the EP from Hungary, they shouldn't just slavishly parrot what they hear from MSZP. For example, they could have warned Ferenc Gyurcsány when they saw how brutally he was treating his own citizens in 2006 but they defended him instead.   

- Are the left and the right in the European Parliament so vigorously opposed to each other as in Hungary?

- Yes. Things are pretty much the same in the European Parliament as in Hungarian politics in the sense that decisions are made on the basis of political interest. The application of double standards is common practice in the EU. It frequently happens that an attack is launched by the left upon a right-wing politician, but if a socialist politician does the same thing his motion is rejected. This can also be perceived in the criticisms made in regard to Hungary too.  

- For example?

- The deputy-fraction leader of the Austrian socialists - echoing the words of the Hungarian socialists - called upon Fidesz not to bring people out onto the streets, while in Vienna the socialists demonstrate every Wednesday without permission. The question of why after the governmental change in Hungary so many people were replaced in the public administration was raised. When a socialist representative asked this in the European Parliament I, in turn, asked: where were you in 2002? At that time there was more cleansing in the public administration when the government changed than anyone had ever seen before. In any case, here are various practices. Some countries replace the staff in their public administrations to a greater degree and others to a lesser extent. The most absurd thing was years ago when the Austrian socialist speaker of the house came to Hungary  and criticised the Hungarian parliament for only sitting three times per week when the Austrian parliament held only half as many sessions. The gentlemen and comrades affected did not come up with these questions because they were important to them but because their Hungarian colleagues asked them to. The same thing happened with the Hungarian media law. 

- Then it's even more difficult to understand why the government wasn't prepared for this scandal.

- It wasn't possible to prepare for it. They were not able to anticipate such a concerted and severe assault because there was no precedent for such a thing.

- But you must have known that the issue of press freedom is a delicate one everywhere.

- A few years ago the socialists wanted to amend the media law too, but there was no indignation then. The media law that was passed 15 years ago also makes a reference to a balanced system but at that time Daniel Cohn-Bendit didn't shout out his objections across Europe. We didn't even hear any objections when there were no Fidesz curators in Hungarian Television. This kind of sensitivity or interest was missing then, which means that these ladies and gentlemen see things in quite a selective way. In other words, the problem is not that we were unprepared for this but rather that for a long time we didn't even have the opportunity to react to the slanderous attacks against us because the foreign journalists one-sidedly reported the criticism.

- Is it because the media in Western Europe is also in the hands of the liberal left?

- Absolutely, and in certain respects more so than in the rest of Europe. This is also thanks to the fact that in ideological mudslinging the European left wing is far more adept than the right wing.

- It should be remembered, however, that the media law was criticised by domestic, conservative journalists too, including those of Heti Válasz.

- Nobody is saying that this media law is perfect but we expect proper debate from Europe. If it is a problem for somebody that the scope of the law extends to services stretching beyond the borders and this clashes with EU law, then we will discuss this. If others find objectionable that the punitive measures are far too broad, then we are willing to discuss this too. But we won't deal with claims that a dictatorship is being put together in Hungary. When we joined the EU in 2004 we accepted the EU's rules of the game, but we reserve the right to settle disputed issues according to the usual procedure in the EU.  

- There are some who think that at least as big a storm can be expected in regard to the constitution that is under preparation as the media law has attracted. Can you sense any premonitory signs of this in the European Parliament?

- What kind of constitution Hungary creates is our business as long as it is in accordance with EU principles. But the criticism has already started. The most brutal accusation was that Fidesz will introduce a presidential system, when at the same time such a system operates in at least ten of the 27 countries of the EU. Some also said that Hungary would become a kingdom, when several EU countries are monarchies. This just shows that the criticism in the EU originates from Hungary.  

- You participate in the work of the constitutional preparatory committee. Just as you also sat at the round table that changed the political system which formulated the present Constitution and indeed you worked in the committee for constitutional affairs for 14 years. Why the ‘constitutional urge' now? 

- It's shameful that we are the only country in Europe that has a provisional Constitution. A Constitution has to be created that citizens can rely on in the long term and which they can feel their own. This is about the Hungarian nation's most important legal document which in its present form is a sloppy, confusing, misnumbered text teeming with grammatical errors, in which there is no foundation that would make anyone feel attached to it. Of course we have to draw up a new one. 

- Have you received constitutional drafts from enthusiastic citizens?

- An amazing national debate has unfolded. A great many people have sought me out and I have received lots of comments, a significant number of which can be built into the Constitution and the laws that are its cornerstones. I have also started a blog in which people can give their opinions on seven themes. A constitutional consciousness is historically strong in Hungary. The national consultation on this issue is just about to start now but numerous comments have already arrived. 

- As you said this is only the stage of consultation, since Fidesz has not yet formulated a clear standpoint on all the constitutional issues. Will the president of the republic have a weak or strong status? Could you tell us what you think about the most important constitutional issues?

- I would keep the present national symbols and I wouldn't put the flag onto the Hungarian coat-of-arms. There is no need for a two-chamber parliament as it wouldn't have an independent function anyway and we have just decreased the number of representatives to two hundred. I wouldn't increase the president of the republic's scope of authority because it would divide power at the top, and I would take away a lot of technical affairs from the president's range of responsibilities.

- Has it been suggested that the people elect the president?

- This has been coming up for twenty years. I still believe that an election through parliament is the right course but the majority of Hungarian citizens do not share my view. When in 1990 we decided what kind of coat-of-arms the country would have I voted for the Kossuth coat-of-arms in the first round. After that I consulted with the citizens of Sopron and it turned out that they wanted the one with the crown. In the end the latter got a two-third majority and I voted for it too.

- And what would you vote for now in regard to the constitutional court's scope of authority? Should it be a strong or a weak body?

- Every constitution is only worth as much as we protect it. The final Constitution that is now being drafted will need just as much protection as the present, provisional one, but the kind of construction we will use to protect it will be the subject of a future debate. My answer is therefore this: the protection of the Constitution is paramount.

- As this interview is being conducted there is a second demonstration taking place in Kossuth Square against the media law. What message would you send to the protesters from Brussels?

- That they should practise their human rights, it's perfectly safe for them to do so. I disagree with much of what they are expressing but as someone who established The Freedom Circle I will always protect people's right to express their views peacefully and publicly at any time. In Hungary everybody is free to express their political opinion. I would like to point out that this fact in itself contradicts the accusations that the protestors are making.