PANEL DISCUSSION 2025

Tomáš TARABA:
COMMON SENSE SEPARATES CENTRAL EUROPE FROM THE WEST

First of all, I would like to express my gratitude for the invitation to this conference, held under the auspices of the Archbishop, to whom we wish good health and whom we hold in the highest regard in Slovakia.

Second, I would like to say that, since this is not an economic forum, I will not focus primarily on how the European Union is failing economically, as I believe that is perfectly clear to everyone. Economically, the European Union is a sinking ship. However, when you, Mr. Moderator, began your introductory remarks about what the West is and whether we belong to it, I must say that we still remember very clearly how the Slovak Republic became a topic in the Czech elections, with the main narrative being: "Do not vote for Babiš, because he will lead you to the East, like the Slovaks are in the East." We in Slovakia never understood that, since we even have the euro. We are, in fact, more pro-Western than the Czech Republic. We assumed, however, that Mr. Fiala and his entire camp were trying to convey something by that statement, something we chose not to comment on. We made a clear decision that, for two years, we would not respond to these attacks suggesting that we belong to the East. Geographically, we do, and we have no problem with that – but the intended message was presumably that, in some respect, we are different. And so I can proudly declare that I come here from a state that last month adopted a constitutional amendment, which states that in our legal system we recognize only two sexes, namely male and female.

And if you want to know in the Czech Republic whether you are considered part of the West or the East, adopting such a change will reveal the degree of criticism coming from the West. I believe this marks the dividing line between where common sense still prevails and where it ceases to prevail. All of this then carries over into the broader legal system, because this one change – truly a constitutional amendment – has also divided Slovak society into two camps. I presume that in every country represented here today, be it Poland, Romania, or Hungary, the society is similarly divided. The society is simply split. But in Slovakia, we managed to secure a constitutional majority, and we did not achieve this solely through political horse-trading or similar tactics; rather, the people of Slovakia genuinely still believe in something as natural as recognizing only male and female. It is an issue that the public truly wanted to address.

This debate arose around the extent to which the state may promote sexual education in schools. Even within our governing coalition, there was a more liberal current questioning where the boundary lies. At what point parents have the right to tell a state educational institution that they do not wish something for their children. When we discussed whether this should perhaps be anchored in values of a religious nature, we could not reach any agreement at all, because it could also happen that someone declares their religious belief is that the Earth is flat and therefore says, for example: "My children will not attend physics classes." Or someone else might say: "I truly believe the world was created in seven days, and if you teach otherwise, I will not send my children to school at all." That is why we concluded that the key for us is to preserve our own identity.

And at this point, I really do not concern myself with labels such as where the West is or who belongs to the East. After all, Christian culture entered the Roman Empire largely from the East, I believe, relative to Rome; Jerusalem itself lies to the East of Rome, of the Roman Empire. So we do not wish to frame our discussion in terms of East versus West, or in terms of whether the European Union is good or bad, or whether we should make an exit. I believe that each of us should be confident in one fundamental point: every one of us is responsible for protecting our own identity, and every state should do that. All politicians should do that and in Slovakia we translate all our policies into the preservation of our identity, which is rooted in the Christian tradition – because that is what our people want. This, in turn, shapes our positions on migration, family and social policies. It also, of course, means that following the constitutional amendment, it is now impossible to receive funding from the state budget, for example, for NGOs which claim that there are more than two sexes. We will not finance educational curricula that suggest otherwise. In other words, this is the roof which, once it rests on a solid foundation, creates the conditions that allow us to cooperate effectively.

I believe that if anything still divides us in Central Europe, it is the use of common sense in this issue. These are the shared principles that distinguish us from those political elites who readily describe themselves as Western. I feel just as Western as they do, but it is precisely this point that now sets us apart from them. At the same time, I think this is exactly the basis on which we can cooperate. It is genuinely in the interest of the Slovak Republic that we work together within the Visegrad Four. Former prime ministers whom I meet still tell me that not so long ago, things worked in such a way that, before a meeting of the European Council, Germany first had to reach agreement with France, and immediately afterwards, as a second step, it had to negotiate with the Visegrad Four. If you add up the populations of Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Poland, it represented a force without which no major decision could be taken.

So yes, from our point of view, the weakening of the Visegrad Four – in which, unfortunately, the government of the Slovak Republic under Mr Matovič also played a part – is a problem. We will do everything we can, and we trust that hopefully the future government led by Mr Babiš will strengthen Visegrad cooperation in this respect. I am also here to state, on behalf of the Slovak Republic, that we are not only ready for very close cooperation with the new Czech government, but we will do everything possible to ensure that the Visegrad Four functions effectively and is able to define our priorities in Brussels very clearly.

Secondly, I believe that yes, the economic dimension is important, but there are many families that are wealthy and still fall apart. That is why the economic aspect is not the only thing that holds us together in Europe. I am convinced that even if we were standing here today and the European Union was enjoying enormous economic growth and low unemployment – perhaps even outperforming China and the US – we still would not be able to say that the European Union is entirely in good shape, because we are going through a kind of identity crisis. You understand this best when, for example, you visit African states, where a natural common sense still prevails about what a family is and what it is not. In conversations with politicians there, you can see that today the European continent is in no way attractive to them, either ideologically or economically.

What we started doing some ten years ago – the kind of European Union policy that says: "You want a trade agreement with the European Union? Fine, here is a list of laws on value-related issues you must adopt; otherwise we will not talk to you" – has led to the EU setting itself apart and effectively pushing these states away, so that they turn to cooperation with China and other countries instead. That is why I believe this international dimension is also a major mirror of where the European Union stands today. We live in a bubble. We think that the whole world looks up to us, but unfortunately the world is moving with such speed and in such a direction that the European Union as a whole is becoming less and less attractive – not only to the people living here, but also to those around us.

And yet I believe that if we were now to start claiming that the solution lies in the breakup of the European Union and making an exit, we would choose the much easier path. I reject, for example, the narrative by which we are divided: that anyone who does not look up to Brussels has only one option, namely that the European Union must fall apart. After all, we know very well that the Roman Empire, up until Constantine, had a completely different nature and in the end became a valued entity built on Christian values. In my view, we should not now be on the defensive, as if our only response to everything that is happening were: "Let's destroy the European Union." I see no reason whatsoever why the officials and the deep state that exists in Brussels today should feel entitled to dictate the rules of the game, because in reality they do not – and for them to understand this, it is essential that someone tells them so, and that they own it.

I will give you an example. When, in March this year, we raised the issue of emissions allowances for households, which will increase the cost of living for everyone, it was only Slovakia, Hungary and, I believe, Italy at that time. Later, the Czech environment minister joined us and said: "Let us put it on the table." Still in March 2025, the European Commission, at the Council of Ministers, responded: "Nothing will be done about it; you should accept it. It has been adopted. You have approved it. It will apply from 2027." Now, however, nineteen member states have already signed a request to the European Commission for changes to be made, and two days ago, the Commission sent the first five draft amendments, which are, of course, not sufficient. But what I want to underline is that their autonomy is not unlimited. They need to feel that there is an organised group of states that can say "no" to them, and that they will not be the ones setting the rules indefinitely – but for that, you need strength. The European Union is constructed in such a way that the arithmetic is inexorable: it depends on how many member states, with what population, are pushing for something. That is why the Visegrad Four is the absolute cornerstone of this cooperation. And I must say openly that if this had not happened, or if it does not happen, the fragmentation in Central Europe that we see today suits precisely those who call themselves the West and label us the East.

From this point of view, I am optimistic, because we have a room full of people like you. There are many people, not only out on the streets, who can tell and feel that something is not working, but above all who are able to translate this into concrete political decisions and steps. The fact that most of you here are probably representatives of what we might call the intellectual circles of society is a very good sign: it shows that each of us is aware of this and wants to lend a hand to the work. Otherwise, you and I would not be sitting here today, on Saturday. The very fact that we are here means that we want to say with one voice that we are present. We are here in Central Europe. We are bound together by a common identity. In our case, that common identity has a Christian background – whether in the Hungarian nation, with its whole tradition reaching back to Saint Stephen, or in Slovakia, with the tradition of Saints Cyril and Methodius, or of Saint Adalbert. We must be fully able to lay claim to these elements and define them as part of our identity. Then, regardless of whether we pass through economically good times or bad times, as long as we share a common identity, we can walk this road together. We do not need to divide ourselves into who is more West and who is more East, because that identity will bind us all together.

Thank you very much.