Brussels and the Tisza Party would put Hungary’s energy security at risk – the national government will not allow this.
Brussels has decided: by 2027 it would cut Hungary off from cheap Russian energy. The price of this decision is clear: utility bills could triple, fuel could reach 1,000 forints per liter, factories could close, and tens of thousands of jobs could be lost.
All of this could still have been prevented through a vote of no confidence against the European Commission – but the Tisza Party sided with Brussels. When the choice had to be made between Hungarian interests and Ursula von der Leyen, the party of Péter Magyar chose Brussels.
The national government, however, will not back down: it will challenge the decision before the European Court of Justice and will pursue the case to the end.
The Tisza Party would abolish utility cost cuts – we will defend them.
The stakes are clear: low utility bills for Hungarian families, or Brussels diktats and triple-sized bills.
There is no compromise on this.
Fidesz is the safe choice!
Last week in Brussels, a completely unlawful decision was made to require member states to phase out cheap Russian energy by 2027. For Hungary, this would mean 1,000-forint fuel prices, utility costs rising up to threefold, and the closure of many factories – leading to thousands or even tens of thousands of Hungarians losing their jobs.
The Hungarian government has decided not to let this go unanswered, which is why it will turn to the European Court of Justice. And if we remain in government – rather than those who wish to be humble servants of Brussels – it is possible that we will successfully carry this lawsuit through to the end.
We will not allow Hungarian people’s jobs, security, and livelihoods to be put at risk in Brussels for their own calculated financial interests.
We know that the Tisza Party is not on this side, as can be seen from their newly recruited candidates. They have brought in new faces who are not interested in Russian gas, but in disconnecting from it. One example is István Kapitány, a former Shell executive, who has argued for increasing capacity by 4–5% annually until 2030. And where did they recruit their new foreign policy candidate, Anita Orbán? From a former London-based company that was also involved in energy business.
I believe this clearly shows which side they are on.
One thing is certain: as long as we are in government, Hungarian people are safe, and we will not allow Hungary’s future to be put at risk.
1️⃣ Invented doomsday + a specific date → manufactured panic
“Hungary will be cut off by 2027.”
This is not a fact, but a threatening timeline.
❌ There is no:
- specific EU legislation,
- adopted implementation plan,
- unanimous decision by member states.
✔️ What is there:
- a fixed date,
- catastrophic consequences (triple utility bills, €2.50 fuel, factory closures).
👉 Function:
“Now is the time to be afraid. Now is the time to decide.”
2️⃣ “Brussels” as a faceless enemy
Here, “Brussels” is not an institution — it’s a bogeyman.
❌ What is missing:
- which body,
- which decision,
- who voted for it and when.
✔️ What it does:
- collapses the entire decision-making structure of the European Union into a single word,
- then frames it as the source of all problems.
3️⃣ False dilemma (black-and-white trap)
“Low utility prices or a Brussels diktat.”
This is logical coercion.
🔴 Omitted alternatives:
- transitional solutions,
- diversification,
- market adaptation,
- gradual transition.
👉 Message:
“If you’re not with us, you’re against us — and you’ll starve.”
4️⃣ Political scapegoating: Tisza = traitor
The Tisza Party is not treated as a political opponent, but as:
- “Brussels’ accomplice,”
- “a submissive servant,”
- “a betrayer of Hungarian interests.”
❌ There is no:
- voting record,
- concrete motion,
- actual decision presented.
✔️ There is:
- moral judgment without evidence.
5️⃣ Personalization = character assassination
Names are dropped (István Kapitány, Anita Orbán) without actions.
👉 Classic trick:
- “former multinational,”
- “London-based company,”
- “energy = enemy.”
This is not proof — it’s guilt by association.
6️⃣ Rule-of-law stage prop: “We’ll challenge it at the European Court”
Mentioning the European Court is reassurance, not a solution.
❗ What remains unsaid:
- what exactly is being challenged,
- on what legal basis,
- with what chances,
- within what timeframe.
👉 Function:
“Don’t worry — we’ll take care of it.”
7️⃣ Final emotional closure: “As long as we are in government…”
This is not a statement — it’s a promise combined with fear management.
✔️ Security = staying in power
❌ Debate = danger
🧠 In summary — what does this text do?
- It does not inform.
- It does not prove.
- It does not debate.
👉 It manufactures fear,
👉 assigns enemies,
👉 triggers reflexes.
This is not energy policy.
This is electoral psychology.