The Tisza Party has been working for a year and a half to ensure that no EU funds arrive in Hungary. They say that the worse things are for Hungarians, the better it is for them. Outrageous!
What a last, cynical bunch this Tisza is. There are enormous EU funds available for railway development. They put forward their North Pest candidate to talk about what railway development would look like if EU money were to come, while at the same time they themselves have been working in Brussels for a year and a half to make sure Hungary doesn’t receive a single euro cent—because they claim that the worse things are for Hungarians, the better it is for Tisza.
Tisza claims it would bring these funds home. First of all, they should be ashamed of themselves. Second, everyone should remember this well: if Tisza were to come to power, it would mean that the last obstacle to Ukraine joining the European Union would be removed. Because right now, the Orbán government is that obstacle. And if Ukraine joins, then all EU money will go to Ukraine. No money will come here to Hungary. There will be no funds for railway development, or for anything else.
1️⃣ Unsubstantiated attribution of intent (“they are working to make things worse”)
“For a year and a half they have been working to ensure that no EU funds reach Hungary.”
“The worse it is for Hungarians, the better it is for them.”
🔴 Problem:
This is not a factual claim, but a moral accusation.
There is no:
- specific vote,
- document,
- decision,
- date,
- quotation.
👉 Classic propaganda technique:
morally demonizing a political opponent instead of engaging with them in debate.
2️⃣ Double talk: “there is money – but they are blocking it”
“There are plenty of resources available for railway development.”
“If EU funds were to arrive…”
🔴 Logical contradiction:
If “plenty of resources are available,” then:
- where are they?
- why aren’t they arriving?
If they are not arriving, then:
- who is blocking them?
- through which legal mechanism?
👉 The speech provides no answers—only emotional fog.
3️⃣ Role-reversal trick: the government presents itself as the victim
“while they are working in Brussels to make sure not a single euro cent comes”
🔴 Reality:
The withholding of EU funds is linked to:
- rule-of-law conditions,
- corruption concerns,
- institutional compliance requirements.
These are handled not by opposition parties, but by the mechanisms of:
- the European Commission,
- the European Council,
- the European Parliament.
👉 The speech shifts responsibility:
“we didn’t fail → they are harming you”
4️⃣ “They should be ashamed” – humiliation instead of argument
“First of all, they should be ashamed of themselves.”
🔴 This is not a political argument, but:
- moral condemnation,
- a gesture of superiority,
- emotional aggression.
👉 Its function:
- to shut down thinking,
- to enforce loyalty,
- to provoke anger.
5️⃣ The grand fear construction: Ukraine as a money-draining bogeyman
“If Tisza came to power… Ukraine would join.”
“All EU money would go to Ukraine.”
“No money would come to Hungary.”
🔴 This part is especially extreme, because:
❌ Ukraine is not a member state; accession requires:
- many years,
- unanimous member-state decisions,
- chapter-by-chapter negotiations.
❌ “All money goes to Ukraine”:
- no such mechanism exists,
- this is not how the EU budget works.
👉 This is an apocalyptic vision, not reality.
6️⃣ False causal chain (“if they come → catastrophe follows”)
The logic of the speech:
Tisza comes →
Orbán as an obstacle disappears →
Ukraine joins →
all money disappears →
Hungary collapses
🔴 This is a classic fear domino, where:
- every “→” is an assumption,
- not a single step is proven.
🧠 Overall picture: what is this, communication-wise?
This text:
❌ does not inform
❌ does not debate
❌ does not prove
✔️ instead it:
- manufactures enemies,
- plays on emotions,
- paints an external threat,
- demonizes internal opponents,
- and absolves the government of all responsibility.
👉 This is pure mobilizing propaganda, not political analysis.
🎯 What can be concluded?
1️⃣ Government communication no longer explains—it intimidates.
2️⃣ Real EU disputes are replaced with simplified fear narratives.
3️⃣ Voters are treated not as partners, but as emotionally manageable subjects.