November 16, 2024 – Translated from German via Google and OFP
The shock after the traffic light break only lasted a short time: FDP parliamentary group leader Christian Dürr wants to see his party in the next government – and supply Taurus cruise missiles to Ukraine.
More than a week after the collapse of the traffic light coalition, FDP parliamentary group leader Christian Dürr has already arrived: in the opposition. In an interview, he contradicts former party colleague Volker Wissing and says what he thinks the Bundestag could still decide on now.
The interview with Christian Dürr:
Mr. Dürr, do you feel as liberated after the traffic light collapse as Christian Lindner?
It is good that there is now clarity on the matter. We have been advocating for weeks that a decision on the direction of economic and financial policy is needed. Our coalition partners did not have the courage or the strength to make it. Now it is clear that the voters will make it.
Is the FDP still fundamentally capable of governing? The desired black-yellow coalition ended in 2013 with them being thrown out of the Bundestag. In 2017 they did not want a Jamaica coalition. They also provoked the traffic light breakdown now…
We have shown over the last three years that we are capable of governing. We have repeatedly sought compromises and focused on the issue. We have achieved a lot, such as accelerating planning. In 2017, the Jamaica coalition failed because Mrs Merkel wanted to pursue green policies. The FDP was not available for that. There was less green politics in the traffic light coalition than in Mrs Merkel’s time.
Your former party colleague Volker Wissing warns that the political centre will hollow itself out if both traffic light and Jamaica coalitions are no longer conceivable. Doesn’t he have a point?
I see it differently. We now have the historic opportunity to make a decision on the direction of economic policy. In the end, economic policy was also the substantive reason why the traffic light coalition collapsed. We wanted economic reforms instead of new debt, the Chancellor wanted the opposite . I believe that there will be much more clarity about the positions in this federal election than in 2021.
But isn’t Olaf Scholz right when he upholds compromise and speaks out against an either-or policy?
Compromises are important, but they must not lead to the country standing still. And that is what is happening right now. We have made some progress in reducing bureaucracy and easing the burden on citizens, but this coalition has not been enough to create real economic dynamism. Thousands of jobs are now under threat in Germany. I believe there are now middle-class majorities for a different economic policy. Under Friedrich Merz, the CDU has moved closer to the FDP and has adopted a more market-oriented course. This is what the people of Germany now expect.
The debt brake, which ultimately caused the coalition to collapse, is not sacrosanct for the Union either. Who would want to govern with you if you are not prepared to compromise on this issue?
The debt brake may not be popular with some parties – but the vast majority of citizens support it. And it is precisely this that proves its flexibility. It is always made out as if it prevents investment, but it leaves a lot of room for maneuver. We had planned to significantly increase investment in roads, rail and digitalization in 2025. 20 percent of the federal budget – while complying with the debt brake – that is a record. The debt brake has got us through the last three years well. It has helped to reduce inflation. The debt brake puts a stop to one thing above all: nonsense spending!
Is aid for Ukraine a waste of time?
No, on the contrary. The Chancellor is spreading legends about the evening of the coalition breakdown. He wanted an additional three billion euros for Ukraine, which I promised him. In a budget of 488 billion, that would have been absolutely feasible. But not the 15 billion that Scholz wanted, so that the remaining 12 billion could be used to implement SPD projects. Moreover, if the situation in Ukraine is dramatic, then money is not the first thing that is needed. We have proposed finally delivering Taurus cruise missiles to them .
You must have known that this is a red line for the Chancellor. And he is not alone in this. But if you really want to, couldn’t you put Taurus deliveries to a vote in the Bundestag now?
That would be a possibility. And when I look at the statements made by the CDU/CSU and the Greens, I can certainly imagine that such a proposal could be successful.
Deep rift: Chancellor Olaf Scholz and his former finance minister Christian Lindner. Photo: Bernd von Jutrczenka/dpa
Close
Since then, Mr Scholz and Mr Lindner have been making accusations against each other. What is your self-criticism?
I would rather say that Olaf Scholz clearly chose the wrong tone. I admit: after the Federal Constitutional Court’s ruling , when we suddenly found ourselves short 60 billion euros, we should have talked to each other about which dream projects could still be implemented and which could not. We spared our coalition partners, and that was a mistake, because our ideas about financial policy are very different.
The SPD parliamentary group leader, Rolf Mützenich, has admitted that there is grumbling about Scholz. Is there no grumbling at all about Christian Lindner in the FDP?
On the contrary. Christian Lindner demonstrated courage and straightforwardness in the Chancellery on November 6. He placed the importance of the debt brake and combating the economic crisis above his own office. This is recognized not only by the FDP, but also by the population.
Olaf Scholz has mentioned the compensation for bracket creep, which is very important to your party, the increase in child benefit and child allowance, and the growth initiatives, which had already been agreed upon in the coalition, as projects that still need to be decided. Who will understand if you don’t vote for them now?
If, as with the compensation for bracket creep, it is about easing the burden on the hard-working middle class, the FDP will never say no. If the vote is held in isolation, i.e. only on the relief or measures for growth, we are in. But if the Social Democrats and the Greens link the vote to new subsidies or other projects, then that will not work for us. We are looking into it. The FDP will not give the remaining traffic light coalition a blank check.
Friedrich Merz rails against wind turbines, you want to postpone the 2045 climate target. Would climate protection be dealt with in a bourgeois coalition, as you envisage with the Union?
So far, Germany has gone it alone at national level, which has done little for the climate. It would be an opportunity to create realistic climate policy and to Europeanize it . We don’t need more ambitious climate targets than others. That would only mean that Germany’s economy would be hit particularly hard and others who only become climate neutral later would be rewarded. We won’t save the climate that way.
The Germans are bickering about money while a vicious, brutal, criminal enemy is hacking up a not-so-far-away neighbor. It was okay for Mr. Lindner to demand Taurus missiles be sent to Ukraine instead of the money that Scholz wanted to. However, there are better ways to handle this. The Germans have an option out of their monetary dilemma by declaring a fiscal emergency due to the war in Ukraine. This would offer them an opportunity to put the constraints to increased debts, which is law, on hold, so they could increase the budget for Ukraine aid, and, with a better leader, send those Taurus to Ukraine.
Like the lend-lease program in the US, I’m not sure why some in Germany’s government aren’t willing to implement the available tools to help Ukraine’s epic struggle. There still is lots of blindness as to the very dire consequences of a lost war, or a war frozen with mafia land having control of conquered land.
The West is in desperate need for a leader who is willing to do what is right while there still is time. After a certain point, we will find ourselves in hell’s kitchen.
I’m also confused. I don’t understand parliamentary legislative protocol but I’d so many of the legislators want some change why can’t it change. Confusing
It’s because the chancellor of Germany has more powers within the governmental structures of the country than the POTUS within the United States’ government.
At least for us…thank God