FDP leader Dürr in an interview: "Merz has fully sided with the SPD"

The federal government has approved up to 850 billion euros in new debt by 2029. A nightmare for the FDP. In an interview with ntv.de, party leader Dürr warns of rapidly rising interest rates and attacks Chancellor Merz – and not just because of the budget.

ntv.de: Mr. Dürr, the Bundestag has just had a turbulent week, culminating in uproar over the election of a constitutional judge. Was it right to cancel the election?

Christian Dürr: The election of constitutional judges is designed in the Basic Law to guarantee a two-thirds majority, thus ensuring the broadest possible, cross-party majority. The CDU/CSU and SPD have apparently acted completely haphazardly. I am annoyed that they have caused great damage and damaged confidence in the judicial election process.

If the Bundestag approves 850 billion euros in new debt until 2029 on Wednesday, what does that do to an FDP leader who has to watch from the outside?

This isn't about me, but about making the right decision for our country. This debt will have consequences. The interest burden will double, from 30 to 60 billion euros over the next four years. My concern is that the Merz government will forget this.

60 billion would be more than Germany spends on defense in its regular budget.

This money is then no longer available for education, internal security, or defense. It places a real burden on those who work hard.

Did you exchange angry text messages with Christian Lindner?

No, in the end, you accept that a party like the CDU operates differently. During the election campaign, Merz said that people's money had to be handled carefully. Now he has fully sided with the SPD. I would like to present alternatives. The item in the budget that is growing the most is social spending. The proportion of funds being invested is actually decreasing compared to last year. It would make more sense the other way around.

But isn't there good and bad debt? For example, investing debt in defense and infrastructure? Aren't those sensible areas?

Yes. If the money were actually flowing into real infrastructure and our defense capabilities, then I would be very satisfied. But it's the social budget that's growing the most. Ultimately, the money is being used to sit out reforms to the welfare state. That's a real problem. In a few years, we'll have high debts and interest rates, and we'll find that the infrastructure still hasn't been repaired and the welfare state still hasn't improved. That will make people angry. And everyone who works hard will have to pay back the debts and interest—not Lars Klingbeil or Friedrich Merz.

Accurate, of course, for the FDP that always means cuts.

Targeted means providing targeted support to people. Simply pouring more money into existing structures is wrong. A good example is the pension package that governs the Christian Democratic Union (CDU/CSU) coalition. The need for reform is being passed on to future generations instead of boldly tackling change. Targeted could also mean a different migration policy. Immigration into the labor market instead of the welfare state. And when people's burdens are eased, the economy grows. Then more taxes are paid, and the budget is relieved. Sometimes I get the feeling that these fundamentals of the market economy are being forgotten. I think that leaves people perplexed. Many people are having to tighten their belts more and more because of rising prices. But the government is doing the opposite and is ruining our future.

Every government has to set priorities. What would you have done differently?

I would have hoped that the already very limited but promised relief would actually come. For example, the reduction in electricity tax. The government promised that, but instead of relief, new burdens are coming, for example, when social spending increases financed by debt. Consumers could have used the money. So could the skilled trades.

When it comes to electricity tax, we're talking about amounts like three to eight euros per month for a family, depending on consumption. Is that really so important that it would cause a five billion euro budget deficit?

It's actually only a small relief. But not even that is coming; instead, new burdens are coming. The government is taking on more debt, spending more on social welfare, more on administration, and interest rates are rising. That's why we need bold reforms to the major budget items so that, in the end, greater relief for people than the electricity tax is possible.

This could mean a pension cut. The tax subsidy for pensions is one of the largest single items in the budget. However, the government wants to stabilize the pension level at 48 percent.

I must strongly disagree. So far, this is just a government promise that hasn't been backed up. It's financed solely with debt. After a long working life, retirees can only hope that this promise can be kept. We need to make the pension system fit for future generations. For example, with a statutory share-based pension. Unfortunately, the traffic light coalition didn't implement this. But in this government, there's no talk of it at all. That worries me.

Heidi Reichinnek of the Left Party said during the budget debate that the traffic light budget already represents redistribution from the bottom to the top. Do you want more of that?

The electricity tax cut would have provided relief to all consumers, regardless of income. At the same time, we already have historically high corporate taxes in Germany. The left-wing and Green opposition tends to forget this. This discourages corporate investment, and therefore no more jobs are being created here. Only when we have good jobs in Germany will wages rise. Employees benefit the most from this.

But that also means: You have to praise the Black-Red coalition for the new depreciation options and the planned reduction in corporate tax?

These are the right measures. But in terms of scope, they're unfortunately just a drop in the ocean. Nowhere in Europe are investments currently as unattractive as in Germany. Depreciation is of little use when non-wage labor costs are exploding. These burden companies and employees alike. Instead, the government is buying time with debt and foregoing reforms. That is my main criticism.

A difficult issue is the citizen's income. About half goes to non-Germans. Without Ukrainians, it would be about a third. How can this be resolved?

We need to turn the system upside down. It must be easier to come to Germany to work than to come to Germany not to work. The new government won't do anything about that. The focus must be: Anyone who comes to Germany must work.

But what does this mean for asylum seekers? Does the FDP continue to support individual asylum rights and subsidiary protection for war refugees?

Only a small percentage of people receive individual asylum anyway; that's not the main problem. The problem is irregular migration. People who travel through Europe and come to Germany. Border controls are only a false solution. We need to turn off the magnet. The clear message must be: People can no longer simply immigrate into the welfare system. They must be provided with accommodation for the duration of their stay, but no cash benefits.

What do you, as a party for the rule of law, say about the rejection of asylum seekers at the German border?

Ultimately, the courts will have to decide. But we're only talking about a very small number anyway. Symbolism won't turn the system upside down. I think a real change of course is important. It sometimes takes months or years for a business owner to bring in an employee from abroad. It's made difficult for someone who wants to achieve something, to grind on, to work hard. That's the problem.

The AfD criticized on Wednesday that many Syrians are being naturalized. But is that bad news?

At the time, the FDP (Free Democratic Party of Germany) enforced the requirement that one could only obtain a German passport if one had a job and could support oneself, if one spoke good German, was well integrated, and had not exhibited anti-Semitic behavior. During the last government, we reformed citizenship law so that only those who met these requirements were welcome as German citizens. Before, it was enough to simply have lived in Germany long enough, even if one was living on the welfare state.

In the general debate on Wednesday, everyone in the opposition agreed on how terrible the first two months of the CDU/CSU coalition with Chancellor Merz had been. What would you have said?

There was a lot of grumbling from the opposition in the Bundestag, but where are the counterproposals? Where is the Green Party's concept for a future-proof pension? Or the Left Party? Or the AfD? Where are the concepts for a policy that will make energy affordable again? The left and the right, like the government, have no plan for how to do things better.

The Bundestag has also called for a Corona Enquete Commission. Why didn't you do this during the traffic light era? How do you assess Health Minister Spahn's mask procurement? Do you consider a committee of inquiry appropriate?

The FDP already advocated for an investigation in 2021. The SPD and the Greens then opposed an investigation into the coronavirus pandemic and an honest and collaborative process of coming to terms with it in the coalition. The mask procurement under Jens Spahn must be ruthlessly investigated – just like the excessive restrictions on freedom and fundamental rights. This has caused lasting, significant damage to society, especially when we consider the children, families, or people in nursing homes during this time. The commission of inquiry that is now to be established is inadequate because it lacks the legal means – such as access to files or the summons of witnesses. Therefore, a committee of inquiry is necessary.

How did it feel for you to only be able to listen during this week in the Bundestag and not be able to say anything yourself?

That motivates me. If the opposition had presented the points I had in mind, I would have thought: There are still some who can see straight. But nothing came of it.

Have you already started reading the FDP’s new policy program?

Yes, we collect suggestions in a digital system so we can involve many members and external experts. We also want to use artificial intelligence to evaluate the ideas and identify connections. It's great to see how creative FDP members are. We also want to make this suggestion tool publicly available to non-members.

How great is the temptation to simply type into Chat-GPT: Write a new policy program for the FDP?

It's not a big one. Artificial intelligence is based on information from the past. For new ideas, I still need the natural intelligence of the FDP members.

How is your party’s rescue mission going?

No other party is saying the state should focus on its core tasks. We want a strong state, but it shouldn't get bogged down in the way it has under the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Social Democrat (SPD) coalition. The circumstances aren't easy, of course. But it's fun, and I'm happy to be involved.

Volker Petersen spoke with Christian Dürr