AfD's Weidel Rules Out Coalition Compromise, Warns CDU Will Perish

选择党领袖魏德尔排除组阁妥协，警告基民盟将走向消亡 德国选择党联合领袖爱丽丝·魏德尔誓言停止对乌援助、恢复与俄罗斯的能源关系并驱逐数百万难民，坚称主流保守派必须采纳其政策纲领，而非要求其做出让步。 爱丽丝·魏德尔阐述了德国选择党的核心纲领，呼吁通过重启核能、广泛减税以及大幅削减公民津贴等社会支出，彻底重组德国经济。在外交政策上，她主张毫不妥协的“德国优先”立场，即立即停止对乌克兰的军事和财政援助，寻求承认俄罗斯安全利益的务实和平谈判，并恢复获取廉价的俄罗斯能源。在移民问题上，她为“再移民”概念辩护，要求驱逐数百万叙利亚、阿富汗和乌克兰难民，认为这些人的受保护身份已失效，同时坚称合法的技术移民正因犯罪问题和沉重税负而望却止步。与此同时，魏德尔驳斥了有关选择党包庇新纳粹分子的指控，拒绝激进的性别政策，并坚称该党绝不会为了打破政治“防火墙”而向主流竞争对手妥协。 德国选择党联合领袖爱丽丝·魏德尔认为，德国正处于由能源转型引发的深重危机中，她指出已有19座核反应堆被关闭，并警告联邦债务利息将在三年内从400亿欧元飙升至800亿欧元以上。 (12:50) 魏德尔主张在明确的“德国优先”政策框架下，立即停止德国对乌克兰的所有财政和军事援助，并要求承认俄罗斯的安全关切以及实现立即停火。 (25:46) 在进一步阐述“再移民”问题时，魏德尔坚称必须有400万至500万人离开德国，其中包括战事已结束的全部叙利亚难民、阿富汗撤离人员，以及战事结束后离开的乌克兰难民。 (33:18) 关于议会策略，魏德尔拒绝为了组建政府而在核心经济、移民或外交政策立场上做出妥协，并认为基民盟必须放弃“防火墙”政策，否则将面临政治灭亡。 (56:59)

Alice Weidel, co-leader of the Alternative for Germany (AfD), argues that Germany is trapped in a multifaceted economic and security crisis driven by reckless energy policies, uncontrolled immigration, and costly foreign commitments. She asserts that restoring national stability requires an uncompromising "Germany first" restructuring of public finances, the immediate end of support for Ukraine, and the departure of millions of migrants. Energy Transition and Fiscal Overhaul (0:00) Weidel diagnoses the German economy as requiring an overhaul from the ground up, blaming industrial distress directly on the Energiewende. Following the closure and demolition of Germany's 19 nuclear reactors, she asserts that over-reliance on intermittent wind and solar triggers power deficits (Dunkelflaute), resulting in the highest electricity prices worldwide, corporate flight, and mounting bankruptcies. Concurrently, Weidel warns that escalating federal debt will cause a sovereign bond crisis, projecting Germany's annual interest obligations will double from approximately €40 billion to over €80 billion within three years. To finance tax relief for workers without increasing borrowing, Weidel outlines steep spending reductions. She calls for ending multi-billion-euro renewable energy subsidies, cutting foreign development aid, and eliminating roughly €50 billion in Bürgergeld welfare outlays, which she claims flow largely to foreigners. For pensions, Weidel rejects spending more state funds, proposing instead to add capital-funded accounts to the pay-as-you-go system while making occupational and private pension contributions fully tax-deductible. Ending Ukraine Aid and Engaging Russia (25:46) Framing foreign policy strictly around domestic economic interest, Weidel demands an immediate end to military and financial aid to Kyiv, characterizing the war as an "already lost" effort that has cost Germany over €100 billion. She contends that Berlin's role as Ukraine's primary European backer leaves the country isolated, depletes domestic munitions, and increases escalation risks. She questions the democratic legitimacy of Volodymyr Zelensky due to suspended presidential elections under martial law, while criticizing Ukrainian drone strikes deep inside Russian territory as reckless provocations against a nuclear power. Weidel argues that lasting peace requires addressing Russian security concerns, citing twenty years of NATO expansion and missile defense deployments near Russian borders. Viewing trade pragmatic rather than moralistic, she urges the resumption of Russian energy imports to lower industrial operating costs. She identifies the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines—infrastructure valued at roughly €30 billion—as a state terror attack against Germany that political leaders deliberately minimize. Defining Remigration and Skilled Labor Policy (33:18) Addressing the AfD's concept of "remigration," Weidel expands the definition well beyond the approximately 260,000 individuals legally obligated to leave Germany. Asserting that original grounds for asylum have expired, she argues that 100% of Syrian refugees must return, along with Afghan evacuees and, ultimately, Ukrainian refugees once hostilities end—estimating the total number required to leave between four and five million people. She blames post-2015 arrivals for rising violent offenses (Rohheitsdelikte) and strongly opposes policies granting citizenship after five years of residence. In contrast, Weidel emphasizes that the AfD welcomes qualified foreigners arriving on work visas, paying taxes, and abiding by the legal order, including gender equality. Acknowledging that roughly 100,000 German doctors are over 60 and that Syrians represent the largest cohort of foreign physicians, she denies seeking to expel productive professionals. However, she argues that excessive marginal taxation, heavy bureaucracy, and deteriorating public and school safety repel foreign talent while accelerating a brain drain of skilled Germans to Switzerland and the United States. Political Extremism and the Brandmauer Firewall (56:59) Weidel rejects accusations that the AfD harbors extremist or neo-Nazi elements, dismissing them as an unfounded political smear tactic. She defends Thuringia party leader Björn Höcke’s use of the forbidden phrase "Alles für Deutschland," claiming it reflects a standard "Germany first" sentiment rather than fascism. Defending state manifestos that prioritize traditional nuclear families, Weidel asserts that her own household—a same-sex relationship with a Sri Lankan-born Swiss partner—is fully tolerated within the party, while she vigorously opposes progressive legislation that allows individuals to legally change their gender once a year. Looking to future elections, Weidel refuses to make programmatic compromises to breach the Brandmauer (the mainstream firewall against governing with the AfD). Highlighting federal polls putting the AfD above 30% and the Chancellor's SPD below 18%, she criticizes the firewall as undemocratic and counterproductive. Weidel maintains that the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) must adapt to the AfD's core agenda or face political irrelevance. The interview outlines the AfD's hardline alternative to Germany's economic, immigration, and foreign policy consensus. It leaves open the question of how the party would resolve the practical friction between deporting millions of residents and addressing severe domestic skilled labor shortages, as well as whether its refusal to compromise will compel the CDU to break the political firewall or cement the AfD's exclusion from governing coalitions.

德国选择党（AfD）联合领导人Alice Weidel在接受《经济学人》专访时主张彻底重组德国经济与安全战略，呼吁终结绿色能源转型、实施大规模驱逐出境并停止对乌克兰的军事支持，以推行“德国优先”路线。 重构能源体系与财政纪律 (0:00) Weidel抨击自默克尔时期延续至今的“能源转型”（Energiewende）政策是德国工业竞争力的最大破坏者。她指出，德国彻底关停19座现代核反应堆后过度依赖风能与太阳能，在遭遇无风无光的阴霾天气（Dunkelflaute）时被迫高价进口电力，使企业与家庭背负了全球最高的能源成本。在财政方面，她警告德国公债的利息账单将在三年内从目前的约400亿欧元激增至800亿至82亿欧元，引发主权债券危机。为此，AfD主张废除气候补贴、削减对外援助，并整顿约500亿欧元的公民津贴（Bürgergeld）以腾出预算资金，用于实施广泛的工薪阶层减税和企业养老金免税改革。 欧盟改组主张与主权货币争议 (4:20) 尽管AfD党纲提出退出欧元的选项，但Weidel在访谈中澄清该党首选方案并非立即脱欧，而是要求对欧盟进行根本性的结构性收缩。她批评欧盟委员会运作模式类似苏联式计划经济，并主张依据辅助性原则将权力下放，使欧盟回归为主权民族国家构成的松散自由贸易区。针对欧元区，她援引经济学家罗伯特·蒙代尔的最优货币区理论，认为成员国在财政与结构上严重不对称，德国民众在欧元诞生之初“无需为他国债务兜底”的承诺已被打破。她同时对法国极右翼领导人玛丽娜·勒庞通过扩张欧洲央行资产负债表为基建融资的构想提出异议，坚持必须对央行资产扩张设定严格规则限制。 对乌政策转变与对俄关系正常化 (18:05) 围绕乌克兰局势，Weidel要求柏林全面停止单方面军事援助与财政输送，将德国国防开支严格限制于本土防御而非外国代理人冲突。她强调德国已为乌克兰战争支出超过100亿欧元，而在乌克兰无法击败俄罗斯的现实下，继续资助战争只会耗尽本国弹药储备并推高欧洲安全风险。Weidel将德国外交利益置于首位，主张与俄罗斯实现关系正常化以获取廉价油气，并指出北约20年来的东扩政策以及在罗马尼亚等国部署宙斯盾反导系统忽视了莫斯科的安全诉求。她淡化了俄罗斯在德国实施混合战行动的指控，转而将造成近300亿欧元损失的“北溪”管道爆炸事件定性为对德国关键基础设施的国家级恐怖袭击。 “再移民”方案与社会文化界线 (33:18) 在移民问题上，Weidel将AfD倡导的“再移民”概念扩展至约400万至500万人，要求在战争结束后全面遣返所有叙利亚、阿富汗和乌克兰难民，并对非法入境者与外籍罪犯执行强硬驱逐。面对德国医疗系统约10万名医生面临退休且叙利亚籍医师占据外籍主力的人力缺口，她辩称技术移民应与庇护系统严格区分，声称高税负与治安恶化正是阻碍全球顶尖人才并导致本土精英流向瑞士或美国的根源。此外，Weidel为萨克森-安哈尔特州党纲中反对“文化异质技术工人”的措辞辩护，将其归结为维护男女平等等核心规范的必要手段，同时为传统核心家庭价值辩护，并强烈抨击现行联合政府允许每年更换法定性别的相关立法。 否认极端主义标签与逼宫基民盟 (53:15) 针对党内图林根州领导人Björn Höcke因使用纳粹禁语“一切为了德国”被罚款等极右翼争议，Weidel坚决否认该党窝藏新纳粹或极右翼势力，指责外界将AfD与第三帝国挂钩是政治对手恶意制造的声誉污蔑。谈及未来的执政前景，Weidel将主流政党针对AfD设立的“防火墙”（Brandmauer）定性为违背选民意愿且保护左翼低迷支持率的非民主屏障。她声称AfD在全国民调中已跨越30%大关，明确表态该党在经济、移民和外交政策的核心诉求上绝不妥协，并向基民盟（CDU）发出最后通牒，宣称如果基民盟不尽快主动打破防火墙向AfD妥协，就将面临彻底走向政治消亡的下场。 该访谈突显了AfD依托选民挫败感力图打破德国主流政治围堵的强硬姿态；然而，其主张在不加剧赤字的前提下推行大规模减税、驱逐数百万外籍人口是否符合宪政与劳动力现实，以及其对俄立场的转变对欧洲地缘秩序的冲击，仍是外界质疑的关键焦点。

[46:57] Alice Weidel: Why is it far right, hard right, extremist right to be an advocate for secure borders against illegal migration, being against the destruction of our energy infrastructure? [43:13] Alice Weidel: What counts is merit: we need to have a merit-based system and not a quota and anti-discrimination quota.

[0:00] Alice Vital, thank you for joining me on [0:01] the insider. [0:02] >> Thank you for having me. [0:04] >> So the party you co-lead, the [0:05] alternative for Germany is riding high. [0:08] You came top in two recent state [0:10] elections, Saxon Anhart and Meckllinburg [0:13] for Pomon. You're the biggest opposition [0:16] group in the Bundesag and you come [0:18] consistently absolutely at the top of [0:20] the polls nationally. And I think your [0:23] success, your rise is reflecting a deep [0:25] frustration amongst many Germans with [0:28] the status quo. and you're very good at [0:30] articulating that frustration, but I [0:32] think people have less idea of exactly [0:35] what the AFD would and would not do. And [0:38] that's what I wanted to focus this [0:40] conversation on today to help me and to [0:42] help our viewers understand what kind of [0:45] a Germany you would like to create. So I [0:47] wanted to start with the economy. You [0:49] are an economist. Um if you were to [0:53] let's imagine the German economy is a [0:55] car. Um, is it in need of a few repairs [1:00] or is it does it need a whole new [1:02] economic model? How big is the challenge [1:04] for the German economy? [1:06] >> Actually to to be in your picture [1:11] um you need to restructure and rebuild [1:14] the entire car because uh the car parts [1:18] are also broken. And I am going to [1:21] explain you why that is the case in [1:24] Germany. [1:26] Um I think Germany um just looking at [1:30] the data at the economic data is in a [1:34] deep crisis and this crisis is uh [1:39] multifaceted. [1:41] Um firstly um one major cause is the [1:47] destroying of our energy infrastructure [1:50] by the so-called vendor. So, inagi [1:53] vendor um is the energy transition um [1:57] policy that was self-inflicted [2:01] and introduced firstly by the Miracle uh [2:05] government and then um has been [2:09] continued by the following governments [2:12] until now. And these energy policies [2:16] comprise the um the um um destruction of [2:22] our infrastructure just like destroying [2:25] our nuclear power plants. You have to [2:28] imagine Germany in the past had 19 power [2:32] plants power plants most most modern [2:36] ones. So they were just switched off and [2:39] some uh got some explosive so that they [2:43] uh that they are basically destroyed, [2:45] right? Um and now Germany has zero um [2:50] nuclear power plants. So um I think um [2:54] Germany has the stupidest and most [2:57] dumbest or dumbest um energy policy [3:00] worldwide and it continues. We have the [3:03] energy transition basing our energy [3:06] supply solely on wind power and solar [3:10] power. So when the wind doesn't blow and [3:13] the sun doesn't shine, we have the [3:15] so-called don I don't know the English [3:18] word. So it is like when you have no [3:20] power supply basically then we are [3:23] dependent um on our neighbors importing [3:28] um energy um for um actually like for [3:33] tremendously high prices and um all of [3:37] this leading to the situation in which [3:41] the energy cost for our companies for [3:44] the German companies and also for the [3:47] Germans s are too high. They're the [3:49] highest in the world. So therefore, we [3:51] are not competitive in the uh anymore in [3:54] the world market and um we face right [3:58] now skyrocketing [4:00] bankruptcy rates by uh German companies. [4:04] Either they go bankrupt [4:06] or they go abroad. And this is and this [4:10] is basically the situation here. And I [4:13] haven't mentioned yet the high [4:16] bureaucracy burden by the companies and [4:19] um and uh [4:20] >> so it's interesting that you mentioned [4:21] both of both of those I think you have [4:24] some very good points. Germany does have [4:26] incredibly high energy costs. I think [4:27] with hindsight many people in the [4:30] government might agree that shutting [4:31] down the nuclear reactors did not make [4:33] sense. Um and you are also and your [4:35] manifesto last year made very clear you [4:37] want to cut red tape. both progrowth [4:40] sensible policies. But your manifesto [4:42] last year also said that you should that [4:45] Germany should leave the euro. And this [4:47] is a policy that really has me [4:50] scratching my head because most [4:52] economists would agree that for Germany [4:54] allowed to leave the euro would be [4:56] catastrophic for its growth. Now in the [4:58] last few days there have been some [5:00] reports that your party may be [5:03] rethinking its policy towards the euro. [5:05] So I wonder if you could just state [5:06] quite clearly should Germany leave the [5:09] euro. [5:10] >> Thank you very much for the question and [5:12] giving me the opportunity to clarify [5:15] something. Um there is this myth in the [5:19] um also um stemming from the framing of [5:23] our party that uh we want to leave the [5:27] EU and that we want to leave the euro. [5:30] It's wrong. Our program states that we [5:33] would like to reform firstly the [5:36] European Union. We think that the [5:38] European Union should be a community of [5:41] sovereign states [5:44] um with a free trade area. This is where [5:48] we came from. What we don't want is a EU [5:53] European Union bureaucratic commission [5:56] with a lot of bureaucrats like a Soviet [5:58] Union like uh something that um that [6:02] interferes into your privacy into um [6:07] into companies telling them what to [6:10] produce having notches um I would say [6:15] like um like laws um um bureaucr [6:18] democracy and also telling the consumers [6:22] what to buy or what to install. We think [6:25] that this is very harmful to to a free [6:29] uh free economy and to a free market [6:32] system. We also see a um a democratic [6:37] deficit like the check and balances. So [6:40] we know all from the political [6:42] philosophies that we need to have the [6:44] system of checks and balances on one [6:46] hand or horizontally but also [6:49] vertically. So decision should be made [6:52] by the lowest level of decision making [6:55] because there you can have control. You [6:58] can you can um you can make things [7:01] better uh because you have u the [7:05] knowledge of decision but not a planned [7:08] economy like commission that is not [7:11] elected and the people have no idea how [7:13] free market system work. You're watching [7:16] an interview from the economist. To get [7:18] early access to our upcoming interviews [7:20] and watch others from our archive, [7:23] subscribe to The Economist by clicking [7:24] the link above. Now, back to the [7:26] interview. Is your goal to reform the [7:30] European Union, to reform the [7:32] commission, to reform the whole [7:34] structure from within or is your goal to [7:37] threaten to leave or to leave? [7:39] >> Well, um I think Cameron did it. So, he [7:42] said like Cameron did it once. So he [7:45] said like look um we need to have these [7:47] reforms like one two three uh otherwise [7:50] we're going to leave the country so uh [7:53] then you got the Brexit uh decision in [7:56] Great Britain. [7:57] >> Not so clear that was such a great thing [7:58] for us. [8:00] >> Well well [8:01] this is open for this uh discussion. I [8:04] think Great Britain has different [8:06] problems now. But let's stay um um at [8:10] Germany because we are in the European [8:12] Union and we are the main financer [8:15] financer right f financeier um of the [8:19] European Union. We think we need to [8:22] build back the European Union and um [8:26] have the competencies in the sovereign [8:28] nation states while having a free trade [8:32] area. Therefore um this would guarantee [8:36] actually the welfare of all nation [8:39] states which we had in the past. We [8:41] think the development we had also after [8:45] the introduction of the euro um has been [8:48] quite harmful for the European Union [8:50] because [8:52] um through the uh or by the means of [8:55] introducing the euro and the for [8:57] instance the German people were promised [9:01] that Germany would never take the debt [9:03] of other countries. There was a promise [9:06] to the Germans. The Germans were never [9:09] asked of introducing the euro. [9:12] >> I want to get to the sort of bottom line [9:13] of this which is we are where we are. [9:16] >> Given where we are now, should Germany [9:19] leave or should it not the euro? We [9:22] believe that the euro [9:25] the euro area is not or the euro is not [9:29] a stable currency unfortunately because [9:33] a lot of mistakes have been made due to [9:35] the fact that the nation states are not [9:38] a so-called optimal currency area and [9:42] the policy maker should have known that [9:44] right from the beginning. So therefore [9:47] wait it is very important because we [9:50] have a highly inflated currency. We are [9:53] we are we are coming from a German [9:55] Deutsche mark world. Uh we we always had [10:00] a relatively stable currency and for the [10:04] German economy it is quite something [10:07] like the introduction of the euro. We [10:09] need to go back to a stable currency and [10:12] this is what we propose that we need to [10:14] stick these institution that have been [10:17] implemented um above the national uh [10:20] currencies they have to stick to the [10:23] rules it should be a rulesbased what [10:25] they do and shouldn't inflate the the [10:28] balance sheet an interview has come out [10:30] with Marine Le Pen and she is arguing [10:33] for more ECB financing of infrastructure [10:37] >> of course [10:37] >> projects and so forth and So cheap for [10:39] France. [10:40] >> You have she is likely she is leading in [10:43] the polls too. She may well become [10:45] president of France. What is a Europe [10:47] going to look like if you're leading it [10:50] with your views and Marine Le Pen is [10:52] leading it with her views? Well, the [10:55] explanation is very simple. [10:58] Germany is the main financeier of the EU [11:02] and France receives the money as well as [11:05] other countries. Of course, she wants to [11:08] from her perspective, I would do the [11:10] same thing. She she wants to do the best [11:13] thing for a country. She wants to have [11:15] free debt financing even though um [11:19] France is already in a huge uh um debt [11:22] crisis like with skyrocketing interest [11:25] rates. I don't know what they're going [11:26] to do at the capital markets, right? But [11:29] Germany already is in the same [11:31] situation, almost in the same situation. [11:34] Our state debt is skyrocketing. You [11:36] describe very very clearly the different [11:38] perspectives that you and Marine Le Pen [11:40] have. Isn't there a risk that as [11:43] financial markets digest what you're [11:45] saying and what she's saying that Europe [11:47] really does have a bond market crisis? [11:49] Oh, certainly certainly we're going to [11:52] have a bond market crisis. So with such [11:55] a high state debt and it's not only [11:57] France, it's also Italy, Spain, Portugal [12:00] and it's also Germany. So with these uh [12:03] new uh debt program um of Germany, we [12:08] already have rising interest rates at [12:11] the capital market and um we are also a [12:15] indebted country and with this high debt [12:20] over the next three years of this [12:23] Friat's government [12:26] um we are I think we [12:30] um we are at 80 we climb up to 82 [12:35] billion. So I'm a number person. So [12:38] sorry for bothering you with all these [12:41] stuff. [12:41] >> I'm a number person too. It's okay [12:43] numbers. [12:44] >> We pay the um Germany pays right now [12:48] interest rates the capital market [12:50] roughly um 40 billion 40 billion. We [12:54] climb up the interest bill the interest [12:57] bill. Yes. the [12:59] >> rates are of course amongst the lowest [13:01] in Europe. Your interest rate. [13:02] >> Yes. But uh with the risk prime that [13:05] will certainly come um we have exploding [13:09] um um interest rate burden which we have [13:11] to handle from today um 40 billion up to [13:16] in three years time up to over 80 [13:19] billion. And this is this is a number [13:22] this is not bearable anymore. And this [13:25] has been um self-inflicted by stupid [13:28] policies like throwing out the taxpayers [13:30] money like with uh for ridiculous [13:33] projects like the climate transition um [13:36] and I could sum out so many things right [13:39] now but um but um Germany and this is my [13:43] point is also in a deep financial crisis [13:46] and we need to go back um to financial [13:50] um resilience and um um seriousness. [13:54] business stability [13:55] >> that you you make that point very [13:57] powerfully. Um but when I look at your [13:59] manifesto of last year, you proposed [14:03] increased pension spending and you pro [14:05] proposed a considerable number of tax [14:07] cuts, both of which would add to the [14:10] deficit. So when I and I read your [14:13] program carefully, it really didn't seem [14:16] to me like a particularly fiscally [14:18] frugal program. Well, the numbers add up [14:20] um if you uh set careful priorities. So, [14:25] for instance, um we have Bergate and FA [14:28] um like [14:29] >> social money. So, yeah, the the payments [14:32] for social welfare. [14:32] >> Yes. Social welfare um um mainly for [14:36] foreigners adding up to 50 billion. And [14:39] then um we have development aid like in [14:42] billions. And then we have the cost for [14:46] climate so-called climate and energy [14:48] transition. This is really important [14:52] because cutting the um the transition [14:54] cost for the energy. So this implies [14:58] cutting subsidies. There are also [15:01] billions of subsidies um of a energy [15:04] transition plan that doesn't work for a [15:08] um for a industrial c uh uh country such [15:11] as Germany. So um and mentioning the [15:15] pension plan for us um a a proper [15:21] pension system should be vested in three [15:25] pillars like uh one is um um umlaga fun [15:30] like the redistribution scheme and then [15:32] the second pillar is u the company's um [15:36] pension uh pension plan and then the [15:38] third pillar is a private pension plans [15:41] by every indiv individual and uh we [15:44] calculated it through because right now [15:47] the second and the third pillar they're [15:49] not sustainable and um and um also the [15:54] first pillar we should add individual [15:56] accounts like of capital financed um um [16:00] um devices which is not existent right [16:03] now. And if you diversify the pension [16:06] system like this, like our reform [16:08] agenda, you can reach complete different [16:12] numbers of um um pension what is it? [16:16] Replacement rate. [16:16] >> So just to be clear, you would not spend [16:19] more public money on pensions. [16:22] >> What do you mean [16:23] >> state money? The state pension would not [16:25] become more costly under the AFD or [16:28] >> No, absolutely not. Because because we [16:31] would we would lift and especially for [16:34] the second and for the third pillar for [16:37] the private pension scheme we would lift [16:39] the taxes so it's taxfree so it's tax [16:42] deductible that's add to the deficit [16:45] right that makes it more costly I I'm [16:47] trying to work out the fiscal nose no [16:50] because we have the highest taxes we [16:52] have the highest taxes and social [16:55] security ex um expenditures and this and [16:58] this is all um um on the disadvantage of [17:03] the individual worker. So therefore we [17:05] need to lower the taxes but also on the [17:08] other hand we need to cut these huge [17:12] expenditures by our state and also like [17:16] I would like to talk about the huge cost [17:19] of a illegal outofcontrol mass migration [17:22] in our country. We still have open [17:24] borders and this is very costly and not [17:28] having mentioned um the disturbances for [17:31] our public order. You're watching an [17:34] interview from the economist. If you [17:36] want to watch our other interviews, [17:37] including with Mark Carney and Dario [17:39] Amade, subscribe to The Economist by [17:42] clicking the link above. Now, back to [17:44] the interview. I think people have [17:46] trouble when they look at your plans [17:49] working out how the numbers add up. Um, [17:51] and I think that will be something and [17:53] you've you've explained the logic, but [17:56] it is hard to see how lower taxes, [18:00] higher pension spending equals a smaller [18:03] debt and deficit. But but let's leave [18:05] that um and let's just talk about [18:07] defense because one of the reasons we [18:08] have and you I love the phrase you use. [18:10] As you say, Chancellor Math has an orgy [18:12] of debt, but one of the reasons [18:15] Germany's debt break was lifted was to [18:17] enable a big increase in defense [18:19] spending, which is the country has just [18:21] started. Do you support that increase? [18:24] And specifically, do you support Germany [18:26] reaching the target, the NATO target of [18:28] three and a half% of GDP on hard defense [18:31] by 2029, which is what the MZ government [18:33] has said it will do. Well, Germany [18:37] hasn't spent um even 2%age to the um [18:42] NATO uh budget in the past. So, we have [18:45] been lacking quite behind I think at 1% [18:48] or something 1.2. So therefore um we [18:52] need to spend more um um but I think um [18:57] military spending um and defense [19:00] spending as the word says it should be [19:03] um vested um in our own uh defense [19:08] capacities. And now I'm coming to this [19:10] topic that Germany is in the position [19:12] right now to be the main financeier [19:17] um and also um giving away our munition [19:20] and everything to the Ukraine. So we are [19:24] the h finance main uh main finance of [19:27] the Ukraine right now. Um the other [19:29] European states are pulling back. Uh [19:32] Trump is out already. So therefore our [19:35] government in our point of view forces a [19:40] policy which is not only harmful for [19:43] Germany because it um it um it touches [19:49] our national security interest um but [19:53] also um the other European nation [19:57] states. We think and this is our um our [20:01] our opinion that this policy being [20:05] undertaking uh undertaken by the German [20:08] government right now is very harmful for [20:11] the national security of Germany and [20:14] also for the other European states. [20:16] therefore proposing that we need to go [20:19] immediately that we need to force um [20:22] peace talks to end this terrible war in [20:25] the Ukraine. [20:27] >> I think everyone would like the war in [20:30] Ukraine to end. Let's unpack what you're [20:32] saying here. Firstly, [20:33] >> not our government actually. [20:34] >> Well, let's unpack this. One of the main [20:37] reasons for the increase in NATO [20:39] spending and for Germany's is that many [20:43] countries in Europe and many people in [20:44] this country see Russia as a threat. Do [20:47] you see Russia as a threat beyond [20:50] Ukraine? Do you think it is a threat to [20:52] European countries to NATO members? [20:55] >> I think it's not a question about threat [20:57] or not being a threat. I think German [21:01] foreign or Germany's foreign policy [21:04] should be um evaluated by um by the [21:08] criterion if it serves our national [21:10] interest or not and um being um or [21:16] acting like this as our government uh [21:19] currently [21:21] um it leads to a situation that is very [21:23] harmful um for us. Um I haven't [21:27] mentioned the sanctions. Well, while we [21:30] impose like one sanctioned package after [21:33] the other, Donald Trump talks with uh [21:36] Vladimir Putin about um the uh delivery [21:41] of further diesel and also about um um [21:45] um oil and gas, right? Well, we would [21:50] like to have the same thing for Germany [21:52] because we need to lower our energy [21:54] cost. So therefore we are very [21:56] pragmatic. We would like to have a peace [22:00] um that also serves the uh interest of [22:04] the Ukrainians [22:05] and also the uh security interest of [22:09] Russia. But it is and this is our [22:12] stance. It is not our war and it's very [22:15] dangerous and it's very costly [22:17] especially for us. Germany has spent you [22:19] have to uh um um um imagine this number. [22:23] Germany has been spent over hundred [22:26] billion of euros for the war in Ukraine [22:31] and this is quite dangerous and also [22:34] endangers um Germany as a state because [22:38] right now um we could be already a [22:40] target. [22:42] >> So therefore [22:42] >> there was there was a a foiled luckily [22:46] attack on Leipzig airport from the [22:47] Russians. Well, to be honest, I'm not so [22:52] I'm not a eyewitness of that and I'm not [22:54] an advocate for for pro- Ukrainian or [22:59] pro-Russian policy. For me, it is [23:02] relevant. What evidences do we have? [23:04] >> Well, let's for the No, no, because now [23:07] it is very important like with this uh [23:10] so-called drone or attempted drone [23:13] attack. Well, we haven't seen any [23:15] evidence in the parliament. I was just [23:17] said, but what we have in the um in the [23:21] um um um in the sea is we have destroyed [23:26] Nordstream pipelines and that was a [23:30] state terror attack on the German [23:34] infrastructure being very harmful for [23:36] Germany for us like destroying like like [23:39] an energy infrastructure being being [23:43] like worth like I don't know like over [23:45] like almost 30 billion euros and um like [23:50] cutting off the entire Europe um cutting [23:53] off um Europe and especially Germany [23:57] from Russian uh gas and uh gas [24:00] especially. And I think like we need to [24:04] we need to follow the facts and we see [24:08] that um the um um that the facts like [24:13] with a terror attacks on [24:16] uh north stream they are ignored by our [24:20] politicians [24:22] and yes please [24:24] >> and the other one there is evidence [24:26] missing. So we ask for evidence and [24:28] there's no evidence. C can we just step [24:29] back? I agree with you the importance of [24:31] following the facts and the facts are [24:34] that in February 2022, Russia attacked [24:37] Ukraine and Russia has since then been [24:40] attacking Ukraine. And you say that you [24:42] want a peace that is good for Ukraine. I [24:44] think many people want a piece that is [24:46] good for Ukraine. Ukraine is under [24:48] constant bombardment. I was in Kiev just [24:50] a few weeks ago. I was there for a week [24:51] in Ukraine. I have witnessed it myself. [24:53] the constant bombardment from Russian [24:56] drone shads, from Russian ballistic [24:57] missiles. Ukraine is trying to defend [25:00] itself against an aggressor. Do you not [25:03] think it is appropriate for Germany and [25:06] for other West European countries to [25:08] support a country that is a democratic [25:10] country trying to defend itself against [25:12] this outright aggression? [25:14] >> Well, um it's as democratic um um as it [25:18] is. Um they have no elections anymore of [25:22] a new president. That's the reason why [25:24] the American president he claims uh new [25:28] elections to uh to um for the um [25:32] president because he thinks that [25:34] Silinski is not the right uh person at [25:37] the right time. Um and um so like the [25:43] frame [25:43] >> they don't have elections right now [25:45] because it's in the war and there's [25:46] >> but it's still but it's still when we [25:49] talk about um a aggressor and someone [25:54] not being a aggressor. We also [25:56] criticized the Russian attack on Ukraine [26:00] because Ukraine is a sovereign country. [26:03] Full stop. There's no discussion about [26:05] it. But now as you said before we are in [26:09] the state status quo right now and the [26:12] status quo is terrible not only for the [26:16] people dying and for the families losing [26:19] their sons and the damaging of [26:22] infrastructures [26:23] refineries with skyrocketing uh uh [26:27] diesel prices um and um incredibly high [26:32] security risk for all countries [26:35] especially especially European [26:36] countries. So therefore, we need to put [26:39] this to an end. And this is in this is [26:42] in our because I'm a German politician. [26:44] I have to judge every foreign policy of [26:48] Germany. Is it in our national interest [26:50] or is it not? The prolongation and the [26:54] measures being taken by the German [26:57] governments right now impose a huge risk [27:00] on our country and we think I think it [27:04] is wrong to continue with a prolongation [27:07] of a financing of a already lost war. [27:10] The Ukraine unfortunately [27:13] you can say really like the Ukraine is [27:16] too small. The Ukraine cannot win [27:19] against Russia. [27:21] It is impossible. So when you say what [27:23] are we doing already lost war? Yes. [27:26] >> Does that mean that you would be [27:28] comfortable with Ukraine ceasing to [27:30] exist as an independent country? Of [27:32] course. So if you if Ukraine should [27:36] exist as an independent country, it will [27:38] need support to do that. [27:40] >> Do you agree with that? [27:41] >> Well, um you cannot you you cannot come [27:44] to a peace agreement if you if you um if [27:49] you prolong this war. But but Vladimir [27:51] Putin has no interest in peace. The [27:54] Ukrainians say they would have a [27:55] ceasefire. He refuses to have a cease. [27:59] >> Can you give me one piece of evidence [28:01] that he is interested in peace? [28:03] >> Can you give me one piece of evidence [28:05] that Silinski is interested in peace? [28:06] >> He's constant. He's offered a an energy [28:09] ceasefire. Now they are they were in um [28:12] Florida talking about peace deals. The [28:13] Ukrainians are absolutely willing to [28:15] start talking about peace. It is [28:16] Vladimir Putin who is not interested in [28:18] the peace deal because he thinks that he [28:20] can pulverize Ukrainian cities over the [28:22] winter as he is now doing. And it seems [28:24] to me that what you are suggesting and I [28:27] just want to make sure I've understood [28:28] this. You are suggesting stopping all [28:31] German financial and military support, [28:34] all European support. Is that right? Is [28:36] that your preferred policy? We already [28:38] spent over 100 billion. No other country [28:41] spent that much and we are highly [28:43] indebted. Yeah. I have the interests of [28:46] my country first. It's Germany first. [28:49] And this war is not in our interest. And [28:52] it's very it's very dangerous for our [28:56] national security. And I am repeating [28:58] myself. If diplomacy sits at the table, [29:02] there's always history sitting at the [29:05] table as well. So we need to view the [29:09] development not only on the single event [29:12] of February um 2022 and this is not a [29:17] justification [29:18] of u the attack um on the Ukraine. It is [29:23] not a justification. [29:25] What I'm trying to say is that there's [29:27] history about the encroachment of NATO [29:31] to the Russian border. Russia um uh [29:35] emphasis this problem like several [29:38] times. So why nobody listened to the [29:42] Russian concerns [29:44] uh when there were like rocket system [29:47] being put at the borders especially at [29:49] Romania and then um um like um being [29:53] able to to carry nuclear um um devices [29:57] such as the AGIS u rocket system um I [30:01] don't know the English word um but um [30:04] there there what I'm trying to to say is [30:09] that there's a lot of history I [30:12] >> in order to have a peace in the Ukraine [30:16] we need to take not only Ukraine [30:20] security interest into account but also [30:22] Russia security interest into account [30:25] and this was in the past and this is and [30:28] this has been the major mistake like the [30:31] 20 years before to not acknowledging the [30:36] security concerns of Russia Russia. I [30:39] agree that Ukraine and Russia's security [30:42] and concerns need to be taken into [30:44] account, but I would argue that if, as [30:46] you are suggesting, you cut off military [30:49] and financial support to Ukraine, it [30:52] will be impossible for Ukraine to [30:53] survive. But more importantly, I agree [30:56] with you that history matters, but the [30:59] history and Vladimir Putin is a big [31:01] student of history and and Vladimir [31:04] Putin has shown no signs of [31:07] acknowledging Ukraine's right to exist. [31:09] And more broadly, he would like to [31:10] recreate the former Soviet Union. And so [31:13] I think the real threat that you you you [31:16] seem to gloss over is that there is a [31:18] threat beyond Ukraine, a threat to the [31:21] Baltics, a threat to countries inside [31:24] NATO. Do you are you absolutely [31:26] confident that there is no risk of that? [31:30] Well, prolonging the war and shooting [31:34] drones like into the hinterland of [31:37] Russia, destroying refineries, [31:40] destroying also um um housings and [31:44] buildings near Moscow. It is a huge [31:47] provocation and this goes look look no [31:53] >> every night it's risky and and ballistic [31:56] missiles drained down rain down on [31:58] >> very risky the strategy and we have been [32:01] criticizing this strategy we want to end [32:05] this war and it doesn't help if a [32:08] country um um goes for drone attacks um [32:13] um against a a country that have nuclear [32:18] weapons. It doesn't make sense. I'm [32:21] sorry to say and it's very risky and [32:23] it's very stupid and I I just I keep [32:28] repeating myself. We need to end this [32:31] and we need to actually [32:34] put pressure on the Ukrainian president [32:38] to have the willingness to end the dying [32:42] and this very risky strategy for entire [32:45] Europe. Like the US for instance, they [32:47] have the Atlantic in between. It's not [32:51] so so it's not in their security [32:54] interest. Not at all. we are affected as [32:57] Europeans and therefore we should have [33:01] um we should have the major interest to [33:04] end this war. [33:06] You've made your position very clear. I [33:08] understand it now. I I think as you can [33:09] tell I don't agree with it but that [33:10] doesn't matter. I I completely [33:12] understand it. Let me let me turn to [33:13] another subject that you mentioned [33:15] briefly earlier where I think people are [33:17] trying to understand exactly what your [33:19] party stands for. You mentioned what you [33:21] call mass migration and you increasingly [33:24] use this word remigration. You say you [33:28] are in favor of remigration. [33:30] Can you explain to me exactly what [33:32] remigration means? [33:35] Yes, absolutely. [33:37] Remigration [33:39] for us [33:41] um is the consequent implementation and [33:46] execution of existing law. Therefore, [33:50] illegal people who crossed our borders [33:55] illegally [33:57] um having [34:00] no right to stay in our country [34:04] um whose asylum um um seeking has been [34:08] rejected. People who um commit crime. [34:13] These people [34:15] they are um um obliged to leave our [34:18] country [34:19] and we only want this law enforcement [34:23] which is already in place but there is [34:25] no execution by the existing government. [34:28] >> That's very clear. This is yes and uh [34:31] this is our definition of remigration. [34:33] >> That's very clear and just [34:34] >> nothing more nothing less. So that is [34:35] along the order of 260,000 people who a [34:39] size but it is not because there aren't [34:40] people in your party who talk about [34:43] millions of people being migrated [34:45] million and mus millions of people do [34:48] you disavow that because they must [34:50] include foreignb born naturalized [34:52] Germans they must include people who are [34:54] hit can you categorically say because I [34:57] think there are many people of foreign [34:59] background who are very frightened by [35:00] the AFD in this country so it would be [35:02] helpful I think for you to be very clear [35:04] on [35:05] people who are here legally, whether [35:07] they are Syrian or Afghani or whatever, [35:10] they can and are w they can stay here [35:12] and they are welcome by you. Well, to be [35:15] honest, our law states, our asylum law [35:19] states that um in the case that the [35:24] reason [35:25] um for coming to our country like [35:28] especially for the Syrians uh let's stay [35:31] at that example because you mentioned [35:33] that um that the reason is gone, right? [35:38] um for being here because they are [35:41] refugees, asylum seekers, they need [35:43] shelter here. They get tons of money uh [35:46] from the state. Um but it doesn't matter [35:48] right now. Um they have to go back to [35:52] their country. They have to leave our [35:54] country. What is our government doing? [35:58] the government's doing nothing to uh [36:02] send this people Syrians back to Syria [36:07] because the Syrian I think foreign [36:09] minister he already said like look of [36:12] course we are not taking back our Syrian [36:15] citizens because they are a strategic [36:19] asset in Germany so and this says [36:23] everything right our chancellor he just [36:26] talks and doesn't do anything, no [36:29] reform, nothing. He said like, "Oh, we [36:31] need to send back 80% of the Syrians. [36:33] It's Chancellor Frizz. No one has been [36:36] sent back because the strategic asset [36:39] has to stay here. Therefore, the law [36:42] enforcement is very clear in Germany. [36:44] 100% of the Syrians because the war [36:48] ended in Syria, 100% of the Syrian [36:51] citizens have to go back to their [36:54] country as well as the Afghans which our [36:57] government decided to actually fly into [37:01] our country. I don't know like how you [37:04] uh would uh possibly come to this uh [37:07] obnoxious policy to fly in Afghans out [37:10] of Afghanistan because our crime rate [37:14] has been skyrocketing since 2015 since [37:18] the border opening and the main group of [37:22] the of the worst crimes like raping like [37:27] killing people Rohites dea it's called [37:30] Rohites dea [37:32] Um so uh the main category are Syrians [37:36] and Afghans. So we need to send these [37:40] people back and we need to detain [37:45] um um criminals and also um religious um [37:50] extremist leaders. We don't want a [37:54] khalifhat in our country. So um and of [37:58] course the um the Syrian president for [38:01] instance um he maybe wants to have that [38:04] otherwise his foreign minister wouldn't [38:06] talk about a um a foreign um asset like [38:11] a strategic asset in Germany like [38:13] keeping the people here. So therefore we [38:17] we are having severe problems of [38:21] integrating these people and I haven't [38:23] mentioned um the Ukrainians also the [38:27] Ukrainians have to leave our country um [38:31] when this war um um will be ended. So, [38:36] and this is this is a sum of millions of [38:39] people because it adds up to four to [38:41] five million four roughly and they have [38:45] to leave our country. But our government [38:47] does the opposite. They throw away our [38:49] German passport after five years of [38:52] staying in our country. You get our [38:53] passport automatically. Why? You need to [38:57] Everyone with a um migration background. [39:01] Every foreigner is welcome in Germany. [39:04] We embrace uh people, professionals who [39:09] want to work here, um who make their [39:13] contribution to our welfare system, to [39:15] our society, being nice, not committing [39:18] uh crimes. Everyone is welcome. I love [39:20] it. Everyone loves it in my party. And [39:23] uh we would like to to really to um to [39:28] send these people back and uh and um [39:33] execute existing law that have [39:35] >> Can I just play two of those back? [39:37] You've said that you want to send all [39:39] Syrians back, all Afghans back, all [39:41] Ukrainians as soon as the war is over, [39:42] which you want you you've told me you [39:44] want to finish very soon. Uh you've also [39:46] said everybody who is skilled is welcome [39:49] here. Um, you just said, uh, Syrians are [39:52] the biggest group of foreignb born [39:54] doctors in Germany. There are, I think, [39:57] a 100,000 German doctors over the age of [40:00] 60. It's about a quarter of the total. [40:02] They're going to retire very soon. You [40:04] have a huge shortage of doctors coming. [40:07] You already have one. Are you really [40:09] saying it is a sensible policy to throw [40:11] out Syrian doctors and send them back [40:14] given the shortage? I use that as a [40:15] concrete example, but it's true across [40:17] many aspects of Germany because you have [40:19] a rapidly aging population and a serious [40:22] shortage of workers. [40:24] I think in this discussion, which is [40:26] very important, we shouldn't mix up um [40:28] the asylum system on one hand and then [40:32] our um um um and then uh people coming [40:37] to Germany with a working visa, with a [40:41] qualification, being a professional, [40:43] paying taxes. these people are welcome [40:45] so therefore we shouldn't mix it up. I [40:47] talked about people that are still [40:51] unrightful here because law is not [40:53] implemented. I didn't talk about the [40:56] professionals like the professional [40:58] Syrian for instance or uh other [41:01] qualified foreigners. I didn't talk [41:03] about them. We need them of course [41:06] because because we have disadvantages [41:10] um um demographics like other countries [41:13] as well. So therefore we need to attract [41:15] professionals but we cannot attract [41:19] professionals if we leave criminals [41:23] um who actually foreign criminals who [41:27] distort our public order who distort our [41:30] welfare system um leaving um our borders [41:34] open. uh we cannot attract these people [41:37] anymore because they say like look um [41:39] it's very dangerous being on German [41:41] streets right and the taxes are very [41:44] high and the bureaucracy is ridiculous [41:47] these professionals we are not able to [41:50] attract anymore the people don't want to [41:53] come to Germany to work and also we have [41:57] a different effect [41:59] thousands of qualified Germans they [42:02] leave our country now we have we have a [42:05] huge brain drain because the reason is [42:08] always the same. They say like look the [42:11] taxes are too high. We cannot finance um [42:14] our family. We cannot finance to buy a [42:17] house. Um and then we don't know if we [42:20] are secure in our public transportation [42:22] system. What's about the educational [42:24] system for our children? Are they safe [42:27] like coming like being safe in school? [42:29] because we have a lot of violence in [42:32] schools being imposed by I'm very sorry [42:34] to say but we have to talk about it by [42:37] children of um of um u Muslim descent um [42:42] like beating up our children in school. [42:45] So therefore the people are very afraid [42:47] and they say like look we have to leave [42:49] our country because uh something um went [42:53] into disorder and uh they they rather [42:56] work in the US or in Switzerland or [42:59] somewhere else but not in Germany [43:01] anymore and we need to be attractive. So [43:02] I just to make sure I understand you you [43:04] want those who are here illegally and [43:07] those who who have failed asylum [43:09] applications need to go and and you but [43:12] you welcome [43:13] >> professional skilled support. But then [43:15] your colleagues in the state of Saxony [43:18] Anhad in their recent manifesto wrote [43:21] that Germany should not rely on quote [43:24] culturally alien skilled workers. [43:30] That was a bad idea. They said that [43:33] phrase which is really a dog whistle for [43:37] Muslim doctors for skilled workers from [43:39] Muslim countries is one that I think is [43:42] very very scary for many people. It is [43:45] an extreme phrase. Do you disavow that [43:48] phrase or do you also agree that Germany [43:51] should not have culturally alien skilled [43:54] workers? [43:56] >> Good question. Thank you very much for [43:57] asking me. Um and I would like to [44:00] clarify the sentence which is not that [44:03] um scary to me. Um we have indeed [44:09] um examples [44:12] that um for instance um in a [44:15] professional work women are not [44:17] accepted. So um we have here in Berlin, [44:21] huh wonderful Berlin um in the police um [44:27] um of Berlin um we had like a couple of [44:30] years ago the case that um policemen [44:35] um of Muslim descent. [44:38] They didn't shake uh uh the hands of [44:42] their female co-workers. They didn't do [44:45] practices in the swimming pool, swimming [44:47] practices because women were uh in the [44:51] water before. Um then um we have [44:54] language difficulties. Um um it is it is [44:58] very important that a doctor understands [45:01] the patient right and also shakes a [45:04] hands and doesn't think that um a woman [45:08] is inferior to a man. And I think uh um [45:12] this is what my colleagues meant by this [45:14] and this is common sense. It cannot be [45:17] um a case in a freedom loving society in [45:21] which uh men and women should be equal. [45:23] Right. [45:24] >> Does that mean then you think Germany [45:25] should have fewer people of Muslim [45:27] descent? [45:30] >> No, I'm not saying that. I I just named [45:34] some examples [45:35] uh where it doesn't work, right? Um and [45:39] um I wouldn't put a quot because there [45:42] are there are many Muslims [45:45] um who suffer um um um under this [45:50] situation or uh suffer in this situation [45:53] and there are well integrated [45:56] um people who work in our country um who [46:02] also think that something went wrong in [46:05] our um integration policy. Y because [46:08] there are unfortunately too many people [46:11] um and this country is not able to [46:13] integrate all of them unfortunately. [46:15] >> So it's a question of integration and [46:17] behavior not of faith skin color. It's [46:20] it's you are happy for people who are [46:22] integrated. You are concerned about [46:25] people who are not. Is is that right? [46:28] >> Thank you for mentioning the skin color. [46:30] um the skin color um it doesn't matter [46:34] and it shouldn't be because otherwise [46:36] there is a racist argument about it [46:38] right for us it we don't care I don't [46:41] care if somebody is dark colored um like [46:44] my wife um or uh white colored um what [46:50] what counts is merit we need to have a [46:52] merit-based system and not a quot and [46:55] anti-discrimination [46:57] quarter [46:57] >> when you speak and in our conversation [46:59] you you've You've described yourself as [47:01] a libertarian conservative and I [47:02] sometimes scratch my head about what a [47:04] libertarian conservative is, but I I but [47:06] you you focus on personal freedom, but [47:09] when I read and I read the I think it's [47:11] all 252 pages of the manifesto of your [47:14] colleagues in Saxonhut, and I understand [47:16] it's a state manifesto. It's not the [47:18] formal party's federal manifesto, but [47:21] there are a number of things in there [47:23] that do not sound very libertarian to me [47:26] that sound really very extreme. And I'm [47:28] asking this because as you know many [47:30] people worry that you are an extreme [47:33] hardright far-right party. I know you [47:35] deny it but that is what and when when I [47:38] read this manifesto I thought I can [47:40] understand why people worry about it. [47:42] The manifesto calls for removing the [47:45] children of refugees and disabled [47:46] children from school classrooms. It [47:49] calls for Himat Kunda a study of you [47:52] know the the country's history. It wants [47:54] more Bismar less Hitler in the [47:56] curriculum. a punishment for offending [47:58] the German state. It seems to me that [48:01] this is a manifesto for a party that [48:03] wants to actively use the state to [48:06] create a particular kind of Germany. [48:08] That's not libertarian. That's much more [48:10] like what most people call the far [48:12] right. [48:12] >> Well, for us, we [48:16] actually some examples um I like like [48:19] for instance Himat Kund and more Bismar [48:21] and G and Chilla and lesser. [48:25] Yeah. would be good. Yeah. Um um because [48:28] uh people forget our history, our long [48:31] history and um but I don't want to talk [48:35] about that. Um I just want to explain uh [48:38] the position of my colleagues in Zaxon [48:40] Anal who won actually 45% of the votes [48:43] there. Um that they want to have um a [48:48] Germany that is an order. We have a [48:51] positive vision of Germany. We want to [48:53] have secure borders. We want to have [48:56] families [48:58] um who are able to uh afford a house, [49:02] who are able to afford a family and [49:05] having sec secure streets, secure [49:08] schools. And uh I think it's common [49:11] sense and I'm very sorry. Um this entire [49:15] framing of being hard, right, far right [49:18] um um it's not true. Why should it be [49:21] the case? Why is it far right, hard [49:24] right, extremist right to uh to to be a [49:29] advocate for secure borders against [49:33] illegal migration being um against the [49:36] um the destruction of our energy [49:39] infrastructure. It is from my [49:41] perspective common sense and therefore [49:44] we would like to preserve the positive [49:46] values of our countries and extrapolated [49:49] in the future. And we want a country [49:52] that is normal and in order and being uh [49:56] on a level playing field with our [49:58] European partners um and also uh um [50:03] being a partner um to uh to Great [50:06] Britain, to the US, to Russia and um I [50:09] think um we are on a wrong path but not [50:13] only in Germany, also in Great Britain [50:15] um and in our uh and in other countries. [50:18] We talked about it and I think what uh [50:21] we are lacking is normal policies for [50:24] the people and that is the reason um why [50:28] why we advocate for common sense policy [50:31] and I wouldn't call it far or far right [50:34] or extremist. [50:36] >> So let me just [50:36] >> it's very normal actually. Let me just [50:38] quote you one more one which says quote [50:40] an intact family consisting of mother, [50:42] father and children is proven to be the [50:45] best prerequisite for good and healthy [50:47] child development. That is what it says [50:49] in the manifesto. You mentioned your [50:52] wife. You and your wife are raising two [50:54] children in Switzerland. She is Sri [50:55] Lankan born. You clearly do not follow [50:59] this uh description. Well, I don't need [51:03] to. Well, I don't need to because [51:05] because uh actually my wife is Swiss. [51:07] That's the reason why and it's u always [51:10] um a fun fact. But anyway, I can [51:14] advocate for a family comprising [51:18] um of a man of a woman and children [51:23] because this is a model in which over [51:27] over 90% of the children grow up. I can [51:31] I can I can be for this model and I also [51:35] signed this um and the party for [51:38] instance completely tolerates a model [51:42] like me um and um it but it may be also [51:47] the fact I'm I'm very liberal um about [51:51] lifestyles. I think I think e everyone [51:54] should live his own life. Um and the [51:58] state should not interfere in every [52:00] aspect of life. And I'm completely [52:03] opposing the queer um um policy and [52:07] gender stuff. I think this really [52:10] distorts people especially when they are [52:12] young. For instance, in Germany, they [52:14] got this law in the last government that [52:18] young people um can change their uh not [52:22] on young people but starting at the [52:24] young age that people can change their [52:26] gender once a year. I'm sorry. And this [52:30] is ve this is this is ridiculous and [52:33] very disturbing and irritating [52:36] especially for young people for [52:38] teenagers. And we need to go back to a [52:40] normal policy and not uh uh having [52:43] constructions like uh social genders and [52:47] not having biological genders. I think [52:50] uh it is a wrong way and really distorts [52:53] uh especially young people. I understand [52:55] that. But just to be clear, you're [52:57] confident that your party would respect [52:59] the rights and freedoms of families like [53:01] yours. [53:02] >> Absolutely. You're watching an interview [53:04] from The Economist. If you want to watch [53:06] our other interviews, including with [53:08] Mark Carney and Dario Amade, subscribe [53:11] to The Economist by clicking the link [53:12] above. Now, back to the interview. You [53:15] describe yourself as a as a libertarian, [53:18] and I actually I'm pretty sure you are, [53:20] but there are in your party very clearly [53:23] small, but clear, frankly, neo-Nazi [53:27] elements. There are no [53:29] >> I mean completely unfunded [53:32] >> twice guilt found guilty and fined for [53:34] using Nazi slogans just recently these [53:36] reports about four advisers in your [53:38] Saxon to your leader in Saxon an unhut [53:41] they were part of the banned new [53:43] neo-Nazi youth movement are you denying [53:46] that there are there is you're saying [53:48] there's nobody in the AFD with any [53:51] protofascist tendency [53:53] >> oh my goodness this interview has been [53:55] going very well I will it's important [53:57] Yes. Yes. It's really important. [53:59] >> But it's uh but it's completely these [54:01] accusations are completely unfunded. [54:03] >> Okay. Then then categorically tell me [54:05] that that is not the case and and if [54:06] there were, you would throw them out. [54:08] >> Well, absolutely. This is not the case. [54:11] The accusations are unfunded. [54:13] >> So, Bjon Hooker, he has been found [54:16] guilty and fined for using Nazi slogans. [54:19] >> Everything for Germany is a Nazi slogan. [54:21] It's ridiculous. [54:23] >> Okay. [54:23] >> Germany first. This is what he said. Do [54:26] you think it's a Nazi slogan? I don't [54:27] think so. And [54:28] >> so you don't think there is anybody in [54:31] you know the party in Saxon Anhard in [54:33] Turing who has any Nazi protonazi [54:37] tendencies? [54:39] >> The framing is very uh severe and uh we [54:43] have nothing to do with that. And um why [54:46] are you asking me this question? [54:47] >> I'm asking you because it is honestly [54:49] probably the single most important [54:51] question that people ask about the AFD. [54:53] They say the AFD is an extreme right [54:56] party and they worry understandably [54:58] given Germany's history that there are [55:01] people in your party who have sort of [55:04] echoes of the 1930s. I don't think you [55:06] know you know my mother is German. I'm I [55:08] am you know I grew up spend part of my [55:10] time here. I am not at all surprised [55:12] that people are really worried about [55:14] this. [55:15] >> Well we had that before that the framing [55:18] of farright extremist um um is unfunded. [55:23] I think that we stand for a common sense [55:26] policy um that I laid out in this [55:29] interview um and um that the framing of [55:34] the horrible time of the third r um [55:38] because you've been mentioning this now [55:40] several times that the framing and [55:43] putting the alter alternative deand in a [55:48] continuation of these horrible terrible [55:50] times of the third rife. [55:53] um it's just used against us um to uh to [55:58] harm our reputation and uh nothing can [56:02] be more untrue to be honest. [56:04] >> Okay, that's interesting. But do you [56:06] agree that there are many people people [56:09] who take part in demonstrations against [56:11] you who worry about the extreme elements [56:14] in your party and what could you do as [56:16] you you know you are continuing to grow [56:18] in popularity. Do you think it's a [56:21] priority to reassure those people that [56:24] they have nothing to worry about? [56:25] >> Well, you know, we don't have extremists [56:28] in our party. We are not an extreme [56:30] party. It's a uh unserious framing to be [56:34] very harmful to our reputation. It [56:37] doesn't work anymore. We reached as I [56:39] mentioned right at the beginning we [56:40] reached over 30% on a federal level [56:45] putting the chancellor's party at below [56:48] 18% already having a delta of 12 to 13% [56:52] already and uh the people also the [56:55] German voters they don't believe this [56:57] anymore. [56:59] you you I think you said last year that [57:01] your your goal is to get over 40%. Um uh [57:04] which would be an impressive but still [57:06] not enough to govern by yourselves and [57:08] right now as you know Germany has the [57:10] firewall the brunt mau no one will deal [57:12] with you but do you think first of all [57:14] that that will go and secondly do you [57:18] think you are prepared to make some [57:21] compromises to work with others in order [57:23] to be in power? Um you know I think um [57:27] the brand mau the firewall um is very [57:31] harmful for the chancellor's party um [57:33] that um slipped below uh 20% now at 17% [57:39] you have to imagine this chancellor's [57:40] party um and um it's very harmful for [57:44] them and it's also very harmful for our [57:46] country because the voters keep voting [57:48] for uh for a coalition of um CDU and AFD [57:54] or AFD right now and CDU because we are [57:57] the we are we are much stronger right [57:59] now. how we overtook the CDU and um I [58:02] think our country deserves it um to have [58:05] common sense uh um good policies for our [58:08] country and um yeah having a [58:12] undemocratic tool such as um such as a [58:16] firewall it manifests um the the hard [58:22] left [58:23] parties like imposing um um very um [58:28] severe as you can see here in Berlin uh [58:31] we may have a a leftish government uh [58:34] and making them stronger. So therefore [58:36] the entire strategy of a firewall like [58:38] strengthens [58:40] um the leftish block parties and [58:42] imposing such as high taxes and also and [58:48] um and um yeah let's let's see what's [58:51] going on. [58:51] >> But if it were to go would you make [58:53] compromises to work with others? [58:56] >> Why should we? because politics is often [58:58] about compromise. I think on our main [59:02] points that I've laid out in our [59:04] interview, there are no compromises to [59:06] be made because our country and our [59:09] people, they deserve it. And I think the [59:12] CDU has to move first and if the CDU [59:17] doesn't move very quickly, they perish [59:20] very soon. [59:22] That is a very strong note on which to [59:24] end. Alice Vital, thank you very much [59:26] for joining me. Thank you very much for [59:28] having me.