Jobbik – Fidesz needs to make a choice: Rogán’s dirty money or Hungary’s security?

Talking in his press conference on Wednesday, Fidesz’ Parliamentary faction leader Lajos Kósa said if Gábor Vona’s party refuses to vote for the anti-quota constitutional amendment, it will amount to high treason. Jobbik’s spokesman Ádám Mirkóczki responded that Mr. Kósa either had no idea what he was talking about or he was lying and Fidesz would need to decide which was more important for them: “Rogán’s dirty money or Hungary’s security.

In Mr. Kósa’s view, Mr. Vona’s request for a guarantee that the residency bond business would no longer ensure a gateway for “rich migrants”, is just as if he asked them to buy a Wartburg half shaft in return for his signature.

As we reported earlier, Jobbik’s president announced in his press conference held after his one-on-one meeting with Viktor Orbán that he had wanted to clarify an interpretation problem with the Prime Minister, but he could not reach his goal. The meeting revealed that Mr. Orbán was not willing to provide a guarantee that the planned constitutional amendment would not only put an end to the influx of “poor migrants” but also the residency bond business, a project related to cabinet minister Antal Rogán.

Jobbik’s president’s view is that “Jobbik can only support a constitutional amendment as long as it rejects all forms of migration and migrant settlement. We want neither poor nor rich migrants to be settled in Hungary. We want neither poor nor rich terrorists to come to Hungary. We want neither Mr. Juncker nor Mr. Rogán to be able to settle migrants in Hungary. Neither for free, nor for money. Neither across the border fence, nor by residency bonds.”

In his press conference, Mr. Kósa stated that while the residency bond system was not perfect, you must still distinguish between burglars and lodgers as there is a difference between those breaking into the country and those buying residency permits for money. Answering Alfahir’s question as to whether the faction leader would let such people enter his house who had contracted him through offshore companies, thus putting his family’s security at risk, he said the analogy was wrong.

In his view, the identities of residency bond buyers can be verified and the controlling mechanisms function properly. Responding to our next question about the Russian businessman who slipped through control and others who use various ploys, e.g. counterfeit documents, to circumvent the system, he said “there is no perfect system, the possibility of error is always there”, adding that if we know of any persons posing a national security risk, we should report them to the authorities. Our next question was how we could possibly do so since the data of residency bond buyers were not disclosed to the public. He answered that we should turn to the competent authorities and, as long as we observe “the relevant data management rules” we can ask for “relevant data” at the “relevant place”. Well, we will surely look into that.