Bespoke translation by yours truly. Televised on RTL and n-tv on 8:15 PM German local time on February 16. Actually the first ever televised debate round of four frontrunners. Because this was not by taxpayer-funded public broadcasting, it's actually interesting.
Again, this is a bespoke translation and transcription by yours truly. I try to localize terms for the benefit of international audiences. Screencaps are inserted where appropriate. Interjections are denoted with indentation, and it was my editorial liberty of what to count as a heckling interjection or a speaker change. If you are wondering why Habeck's speech is so weird, it's not just because it's late at night for me, it's also because the man is not very intelligent and just rambles on. And thus....
"Olaf Scholz, Federal Chancellor, SPD [Social Democratic Party of Germany]. Born 66 years ago in Osnabrück. The politician is married to Britta Ernst, the love of his life, he says. The two don't have children. Scholz studied law."
"Friedrich Merz, chairman of the CDU [Christian Democratic Union]. At 69 years, the oldest candidate of the current round. Married to his wife Charlotte for 44 years. The two have 2 daughters and 1 son. He studied law and political science."
"Alice Weidel, chairwoman of the AfD [Alternative for Germany]. She is the only woman and, at 46 years old, also the youngest in the Quadrell [portmanteau of duel and quadruple]. Weidel is married to Sarah Bossard, they have 2 sons and live in Switzerland as a family. Weidel studied economics and business administration in Bayreuth."
"Robert Habeck, Vice Chancellor, Green Party. Born 55 years ago in Lübeck. His wife is the author Andrea Paluch. Together, the two have 4 sons. Habeck studied philosophy, German studies, and philology."
All of that is important. The reduction of irregular migration, the tough approach, the strict approach regarding deportation, so that we protect all of those who have an immigration background in this country, who come from a family in which they themselves, a parent, or a grandparent came from another country once - almost a third of our population, who are all diligently pitching in and must not be discriminated against here, but they belong and they need to be able to rely on the fact that we all see it that way.
We are giving 300 million euros of foreign aid to Afghanistan, why are we doing that without talking to the Taliban about that. Ms. Baerbock refuses to hold these talks. Of course, if you act like that, if you use Green-adjacent non-governmental organizations to constantly get more refugees from Afghanistan and not talk to the Taliban on why they don't take back the ones in Germany, then this is the result which we have been seeing in Germany for some time now. There is a lack of political will, and partially, parts of this coalition even undermine what the federal chancellor correctly said at the end of 2023, but he is failing in his own administration.
The people no longer want to have this loss of control in our country. We have got an erosion of domestic security. And what we want, what I also personally want for the German population, is the restoration of statute and law in this country.
And if you are bringing up the topic of the firewall. It may be, but that's not my terminology. I want the fire behind the wall to not become a wildfire in Germany. And I told that J. D. Vance in the talk I had with him in Munich on Saturday in no uncertain manner, on Friday in no uncertain manner. That is out of the question and I refuse to put up with such meddling with the German general election and also the formation of government afterwards. The Americans have nothing to contribute to that.
And I am also in favor of saying very clearly, there must be no cooperation with (gestures towards Weidel) the extreme right wing, and that is why I am still incredibly dejected about the fact that the CDU passed a resolution motion with the AfD and tried to pass a law with the AfD, which then failed, that is a genuine problem in my point of view.
What can you trust in if you say in advance you're not going to do it, and then it happens anyway. What can we as citizens trust in after the election?
Look, you can insult me here tonight as much as you like. In doing so, you are insulting millions of voters. It does not hit me at all. I am merely representing these voices. You would do well to remember that.
Mr. Merz, would you go as far- would you go as far as to say that the AfD is a Nazi party? That's what he said.
Look. First I have to say, Mr. Federal Chancellor. What you are saying here for the umpteenth time, on the second-to-last, the second-to-last week is a bugbear of course, you know that as well. And you know exactly, and you know me well enough personally, that we have nothing in common with this party and these people.
And now to you, Mrs. Weidel. You just need to read the interview that you gave in Bild am Sonntag today. In there, you are knighting Mr. Höcke as a potential member of the administration.
I am replying to it-
I am replying to it very concretely, Mrs. Atalay. This interview, and your statements on Mr. Höcke - whom every man and every woman in Germany is legally free to call a Nazi - whom you are knighting and whom you want to have in your cabinet, show what you are made of. You are a far right party, to a large part right-wing extremist, and you are free to refer to your voters as much as you like. The truth is that you are standing outside of what this Federal Republic of Germany fundamentally needs, in economic policy as well as migration policy, and that is why I am saying it again in no uncertain terms. With this party, there will be no. Working. To. Gether.
Do you know what I am missing in this discussion?
We are getting to substance, Mrs. Weidel, therefore the concrete question to you. You say you want to secure the borders. I would like to know how that works in practice, we are speaking of roughly 4000 km [2500 mi] of border. That would actually need to be done day and night, federal police working shifts, uh. The European neighbors would need to allow that, how is that supposed to go in practice?
Ask the federal police. I am a politician. I am telling you, where there is a political way, there is always a solution. If you want to secure the borders, and they need to be secured as a bulwark against illegal migration and illegal crime imported into our country. I want-
Just let me finish speaking. I simply want to get rid of this situation in our country, and for that, you need to secure our borders and resolutely deport the people who are in this country illegally and committing crimes. We are going to do that, we are going to do that on day one.
The main problem that we have is the dysfunctional current European refugee and asylum system. At its core, it says that the countries at the outer [EU] borders have the sole burden for all refugees. That they don't want to understand that they have no interest in keeping them there is relatively logical. That is why the solution is a European change of this system, which has now been agreed on. Namely control, register, quickly push back those who have no prospect of staying, at the outer borders-
Secondly, the security question, but you need to- You need to discuss it with the security aspects, and the third point that I want to make, and that is always being neglected, is integration. Integration. Because you are right, there are many people here. And the ones who are here should have a chance to get into the labor market, to work here, go out of the asylum seeker welfare laws and then participate here in society - language classes, school education - there, there is where the municipalities are complaining, that the bottleneck is there, the bottleneck is there, and until the traffic lights [coalition government] changed that, it was prohibited for the refugees- or made as hard as possible, to go out of welfare and into work. I find that completely counterproductive, that has been changed now, but. This entire debate is very one-sided, it suffers from the people simply being here now, and the ones who are here should be able to get integrated as good as possible.
I would like to start with you, Mr. Scholz. Smartphone ban at schools - yes or no.
Yes, exactly, I see it the same way.
So you are a stocks guy, not a savings account guy.
You can reply to something like that in a serious discussion. [said matter-of-factly, but it is obvious that it's more of a fun question]
The economy has shrunk in the past two years. And that will probably continue in 2025 too. But how does the third largest economic nation worldwide get up again? Bridges are crumbling, the rail network is dilapidated, and there is a jam of reforms in digitalization.
There is a lot to do. Who has the best concept?
How are we doing that better now. Indeed, we must get out of-
The entire topic of bureaucracy, tax burden in Germany, social insurance contributions, labor costs, energy supply. Right in the middle of the biggest energy crisis of our country, this coalition shuts off three well-working nuclear power plants. Gas supply. A gas field in the North Sea has been developed, approved, for mining. The minister of the environment of the state of Lower Saxony refuses to connect the drilling platform to the energy grid. Even though the Netherlanders urgently want to do it together with us, and it is approved. Also Mr. Habeck explains: we don't need that.
If we keep going like that, constantly explaining all of the things we do not want, get out of everything, then this country is not going to get up again. We need to get into things again instead of constantly getting out.
We urgently need to stop that, and that is why we in a government- we will be doing two things, namely: We are going to repeal the EEG [Renewable Energy Sources Act]. And we will abolish the carbon tax, which by the way got introduced by the CDU. It makes everything more expensive, especially for the consumers, you have just seen that in the video. Heating, then at the gas pumps, the carbon tax, the increase of which is going to hit hard in the year 2027, and what is going to happen; we are going to have a gas price increase of up to 1 euro per liter [4 dollars per gallon]. Just to simply describe here what is coming for the consumers. Heating and gas bills will not be affordable anymore.
And we are absolutely against all prohibitionist politics. Everybody shall decide freely-
(just rudely cutting off Weidel)
Mhm. Mr. Habeck, in your election campaign posters, you are primarily talking about confidence. How do you want to achieve that the people are genuinely confident again, that things are going to be better with you, if the Greens are in an administration.
-Do you want to let yourself get brought down by the problems or are we straightening up our backs first; let's not always put the blame with others, but start working; that is, stop whining and develop your own strength again. Confidence is working on hope, you can't put it like that to me, but that is the- the political answer for that we... Always have this whining "everything is going downhill, I don't know either, and should I move away from here", that's not how it'll be fixed, we must want to win. That is the attitude that we want to put on our posters.
Then the SPD- Then Mr. Scholz with his posters did everything right, because they say "More for you". The people do have the impression that it's less for everyone, but of course everybody finds it great, "more for you", everybody thinks: "I see. If I vote for Scholz, I get more dosh in every case." The question is just: Where is all that money, if... basically everybody gets more, who vote for SPD, where is that supposed to come from, and also a few others too.
What is now coming with "more for you"? Very clear statement, first of all growth. I have a very concrete proposal for this that can start now with the situation that we have, the Made in Germany bonus. That is a tax premium [that term makes no logical sense to me, but that's what he said, "Steuerprämie"] that is being paid when companies invest in Germany. That is better than the blanket tax decrease suggested by AfD and CDU for people who earn even more than the federal chancellor and who, in a certain way, get a relief there; I think it's better that the ones getting a relief are the ones who really invest, in our country: I want a Germany fund to be used to ensure that we can steer public and private capital towards our community, to create growth, and then it's about the citizens of course. A higher minimum wage. A tax relief for 95% of citizens. And I am happy to admit that, people like I and Mr. Merz and Mr. Habeck and Mrs. Weidel are going to pay more, and that is just. And I believe, other than that, it's about doing something so that the food prices are looked at a bit, that's why there's my proposal on what to do with the value-added tax for foodstuffs.
We are here relatively similar, which is good, so... Indeed, with a difference of around a minute or so, we can continue in this way.
I have to be very careful here, it's from the [museum] House of German History. I have been told I am not allowed to touch the coaster itself, because it's a museum piece. With this coaster- (Merz and Habeck laugh)
-you have suggested a simple and transparent system with 3 tax rates over 20 years ago. Although, were you... How many pils [beer] did you have in your system when you-
Precisely that is our plan, but again, that is going to need to be handled separately for income tax and with corporate tax and commercial tax. And I want to say that explicitly, as long as many companies in Germany must pay income tax. And that is something which Mr. Scholz regularly does not comment on. These companies will be massively burdened by the SPD's plans, of course. Then comes inheritance tax on top, then comes wealth tax, all of you are planning that. Again on top of that, and if you do that to the 1% up there. Then that are many business partnerships. Then that are many handcraft businesses. Then that are many self-employed people. And if you reduce their burden, down on the ladder, then you would need a top tax bracket of 60%-
[Scholz keeps talking over Merz, can't make out what he's saying until Merz stops]
I'm saying... The AfD and the Union actually actually want to - I know you are going to object, but please hold it in for now - they want to primarily relieve those who have more. And Green and SPD, let's say, prefer relieving those who have less, that's how you can describe it in broad terms, depending on- Mrs. Weidel is already shaking her head and is free to argue that in a moment- I'll come again with the point that the little man would be happy if we aren't talking EEG and energy, we have done that already. Low income earners are not really taken care of with you, if I look at that. Right? Are they in good hands with you?
The second point, you need to let me say that.
That's a genuine election decision that Germany has, that is, politics for those who are already "haves", and the ones who- or politics for those who need it more urgently, that is discussed to death, and you can make an impression, you can calculate that and put your vote at the right place. But there is a problem, which both have, they don't know how to finance it. Namely neither the corporate tax decrease or with the tax decrease for investment, nor the tax decrease, the volume that is not financed - and that is without defense, maybe we will talk about that later - consists of 100 billion euros annually with the Union. And you get that-
We are coming to that point soon, Mr. Habeck, where we briefly talk about that. But we are currently throwing numbers around the viewers' ears that nobody can remember-
Mrs. Weidel, you still didn't get it. You, I mean you don't have an intellectual problem because you would submit to Putin. You would have no problem saying the Ukraine shouldn't whine like that, a bit of oppression in your own country, you can stand that-
You didn't get it, did you? Energy has become more expensive because the gas was lacking, the gas was lacking, and the gas-
Again, Mrs. Weidel, we have to be very clear. You have-
That is your concept, by the way, you have put even more on your plate than Mr. Merz and the FDP did - who are at 100 billion in expenditures that are not being financed - you are almost at the size of the entire budget, perhaps you make do without any tax income and everything works by itself. But I'm saying it again, it is a question of justice that those who have quite a lot more in a time in which we are lacking money on all fronts have a contribution. Because of security, but not only because of that. And I wanted to say that because of the energy prices-
It is about us supporting economic growth and that we act justly and that means-
(Habeck makes gestures as if he was saying "I've told you so, thanks for pointing it out to the class")
The Social Democrats have the most affordable program-
(Multiple people start laughing here, can't make out who exactly)
Shouldn't it be precisely the other way around? Shouldn't those here go and justify, the ones who do not want that, why they don't want that? That is a weird debate.
Others in the European Union have been even more dependent on gas imports. Like Spain. Like France. Like Greece.
These countries are long out of recession-
And you two are saying-
No.
I am constantly being interrupted by those two.
Mr. Scholz, we had that point earlier.
We had that point earlier. Mrs. Weidel-
Of course, yes, but of course; in sum that's 135 billion, 140 billion. That is roughly 30, 35% of the federal budget. I hope that Mr. Habeck knows the numbers too, because he always wants to speak on principle, you must know the numbers, you know that your energy revolution is extremely expensive, and again, I still have yet to hear any solution... from the remaining three of you, on how you want to go down with energy prices; German companies are no longer competitive and are moving abroad or going broke. That is where the problem lies. The deindustrialization in our country is moving full steam ahead, and I am not seeing a single suggestion here on how that is supposed to be stopped. I have just made the suggestions.
Really?
Yes. Down with energy prices!
[unintelligible because Atalay, Weidel, and Habeck are talking on top of each other]
(loudly talking over Weidel)
Going down with energy prices, Mrs. Weidel, means: You want to pay the energy bills of all companies from the tax budget, that is what you are suggesting. We buy gas on the government expense, you suggest. We buy coal on the government expense, you suggest. We buy oil from government expenses, now that is what I call a concept! And then we give that away to the people. Great concept! Brilliantly conceived! Very great!
You have betrayed your own voters. You have-
(Weidel chuckles a bit)
Then let's take the Cum-Ex investigation committee-
Now we want to look at Germany and the world. Especially if we are looking at the past weekend, somehow there was a disturbance at the world stage, you could say. The US Vice President Vance has essentially explained to Europe, and thus Germany too, that we are supposed to play a smaller, or no role at all in big questions of global politics. He says there is a new sheriff in town. And that is particularly striking in the Ukraine War, and we briefly look at it together.
In his visit at the Munich Security Conference, US-Vice J. D. Vance made it clear whom the Trump administration sees as the biggest threat. Not Russia or China - but Europe's democracies, who allegedly suppress freedom of speech. Afterwards, Vance met Friedrich Merz for a personal talk. AfD chairwoman Weidel also got an appointment. Only the ruling chancellor was left empty-handed.
And what all these people have in common is precisely this desire, "I've got the biggest armies I'll just grab a country", "I'm the richest man, I want to get even richer", "I've got the strongest market, I'll ignore all market order now", that is why the Europeans have to stand together now, Germany, the next federal government, no matter who has it, must be in the service of European strength, so that we stand strong, it is about defending what has been built up in the past 10 years, and I can only hope that America - because they are making a big gamble - Trump would need to win that first, also win economically, understands again that we are stronger when we work together, but we must never throw that in the dust, in the face of these statements, or else we are giving up what makes us strong and what defines us.
There will be no guarantees of safety that we did not develop and accept for ourselves. And that is why, I believe, it is about making it clear that it would not be accepted if deals are made there above their heads, especially the Ukraine. And, by the way, I am also quite confident that this will happen. Because I have also heard a few statements with my talk with Mr. Trump coming from him, and they are also said by the government there. Namely, that they will not stop support for the Ukraine. Because they also suspect that Putin will make no concessions whatsoever, and I hope they stick with this stance. At least we will support that together.
But maybe we first have to sort out and figure out where we are in this war. And Mrs. Weidel, what you have just said here is precisely what you have been saying for a long time. And to this day you vehemently refuse to call out the cause of this war. Even if you are being asked repeatedly, you refuse to say that Russia started this war. And that only Russia started this war, and that there has been no reason or even justification whatsoever. You are fidgeting and dodging because you want to play a role here that you don't deserve, and that Germany does not deserve either. This war is an invasive war against international law by Russia - not just against the Ukraine, but against the entire political order that we built up together after 1990. And that is why I take the threads that he has made for a long time... can be read, can be heard, very very seriously. It is not just the Ukraine, it is Greater Russia that he dreams of restoring; these are parts of Poland, parts of the Baltic, and if we give in to him now-
But I want to make one point right now, because many who listen are wondering right now, one thing is the money, the other, Mr. Merz, needs to be prepared, that German soldiers are being sent to Ukraine for peace troops.
Tomorrow, the federal chancellor drives to Paris to discuss concretely what needs to be done in these days. Two weeks ago, the federal parliament has passed a resolution, first the budget committee, then the plenary of the German federal parliament, that, of course, an extraordinary expenditure of 3 billion euros for additional Ukraine aid is possible. You are blocking that, Mr. Federal Chancellor, namely you as a person, against the members of your administration, to this day. The Ukraine urgently needs air-defense systems now that need to be replaced. Germany could finance them with an extraordinary expenditure, the budget committee has demanded you make a corresponding request to the parliament, to this day you have not done it, instead you are talking about the debt brake here. The most urgent thing is first to help the Ukraine, so it has a chance to continue defending against this invasive war, and then talk about all other topics, if you-
But I want to say very explicitly, because that is an important question which you just talked about. First of all: I agree with Mr. Merz when he says that the question of what happens after a peace treaty can only be discussed if the Ukraine has settled for itself at what conditions it is ready to do that, or else we would be talking over their heads. Secondly, for me it is clear already: The Ukraine will need to have an army that is very strong. So that they don't get attacked, that will be a group effort, of the Europeans-
In the current budget, we are lacking 25 billion euros because we spend 12 to 15 billion for UKraine, and even if all kinds of things are also being spent, what has been planned, then it is precisely these amounts. And if we want to keep supporting the Ukraine, we will only be able to do that by saying that we need special financing for that. If we want to spend 2% of the economic performance on defense, then we need to honestly tell the citizens that it won't fly without a reform of the debt brake, that is way too much for that. And if we say we want to do even more and, for instance, together with our European allies and the USA and other international friends of Ukraine, ensure that they have a strong army, then we need to have the wiggle room for that. And whoever passes over the fact that this question is being decided in the general election is organizing that there is going to be a very big wake-up call afterwards, in which everyone will says "Why did nobody tell us that it's about such dimensions", that is what I am convinced of.
It is a provocation, in every case, for Russia.
You have- no, you- you have really messed this up. You have messed up this opportunity. And finally, I can't help but emphasize that again, a US-American president stands there and demands what the AfD has been demanding for three years-
Now Mr. Habeck may reply to that. Last word to that, then we-
I want to add one point, Mrs. Atalay. Look at the pictures. Mrs. Weidel. And look at the people in Ukraine, you have just said a very telltale sentence here: "We are no longer being perceived as neutral by Russia." No, Mrs. Weidel.
(starts speaking very emphatically)
We are not neutral. We are not standing in between. We are on the side of Ukraine and together with Ukraine we are defending the political order that we have here, and your words which you have just spoken, they are an affirmation for me, that I will do everything in order to prevent you from ever getting your hands on political responsibility in this country. These are the people behind whom we are standing, and nobody else, and we are not neutral.
We are making a cut. We are making a cut here, uhm. Actually, in terms of topic, it almost goes in that direction, because you have just spoken about fear, and also uncertainty, it needs to be said, for many people. Because, in total, everyday life has become more difficult, and especially if young people are looking toward the future, it has become harder for them too, there used to be a promise of improvement, it has been said, man, you can somehow afford a car, and you can buy an apartment, you can take holidays, and you're doing well, all of that is for earlier generations, but for young people, this is almost completely unattainable, right, Mr. Habeck? What has changed there?
And I think that, with the measures we have so far, we won't be able to cope, we must start a big offensive there - for building infrastructure - with an investment volume of roughly 50 bil- 55 billion - we are suggesting to support the schools from a fund so that at least the buildings are in some way attractive. Then we still don't have enough teachers, we are about to face a giant gap of 100,000 lacking teachers, and if we don't even manage to prepare the young people for professional life with a reasonable education, then we must not be surprised that this is a social, but also a justice problem in the making. But that is not going to happen, Mr. Jauch, with the political demands and measures that we have made in the past, this reparation project for the schools, refurbishing all schools and daycares in the next 4, 6 years, but especially the increase of teachers will mean effort put in by the federation - which, according to the federal order, is to keep its hands off there, that cannot be sustainable.
I think the crucial issue is that we build too expensively in this country. We are too complicated. Have too high demands also for quality. And we don't build serially and we don't build in a more standardized way. I will simply tell you a number, the study has been made 2, 3 weeks ago, has been published. In Austria, the costs for bureaucracy and levies are at 6 or 7 percent, in Germany they are 36. In the German-speaking area, same land, what difference is there? We are simply too expensive. The requirements are, and by the way, Mr. Habeck, you are not exactly innocent here, also regarding all these topics of heat insulation and energy-saving houses. It is too expensive. And if you continue making it so expensive like you did in the recent years, that has little, a bit, but little to do with energy price developments, it has a lot to do with standards, a big lot to do with the restrictions.
The designation of building plots, look here to Berlin. We have got a huge area around the old Tempelhof airport, there had been a citizens' vote and it has been rejected to build on this area. Yes, sure, if the citizens refuse, politics must be ready to also say against the declared will of the neighborhood: We are designating that as building plots now and we will build there.
[Scholz and Merz talking over each other a bit]
Honestly, I don't care at all if there is party-political for or against here, the decisive point is that we build, and that we get down with the costs, that we maybe build smaller houses, that we- just look at the standards that have been built on this glorious point in time that you have just described, the way my parents built in the 60s, probably nobody would build today anymore. But we lived in that house with four children, sometimes five children, so we need to reduce the standards a bit.
And one more on insulation laws, that is quite interesting that it was Mr. Merz in particular who brought that up. Heating Act, Building Energy Act, that has precisely been introduced under Angela Merkel in the year 2020, 2021. And is still being enforced by von der Leyen, CDU-von-der-Leyen in the EU. And that is making everything extremely expensive, nobody can afford that anymore.
(Merz briefly chuckles)
I know, you're allowed to.
I am paying my taxes in Germany, that is why I am so happy that you are asking me this question.
I would love to answer this question, very gladly. If it wasn't for 6 million women and men who pitched in since the turn of the millenium, our pension contributions would still be as high as under [former chancellor] Helmut Kohl, namely above 20%; in fact they are way below that. And many of those who additionally pitched in have come... always from the country, those are women who work more, those are older people, late 50s, early 60s, who are working more than before. That is the better transition from school and job, however all of that still needs to be improved further. In particular, we must ensure that schools and daycares become more reliable, so there is less... hardship for the families who don't know how to reconcile work and family. Big task.
And at the same time, it is also the case that we will also need immigration in the future so that our pension systems, our health insurance, our long-term care insurance, our unemployment insurance have affordable contributions. And I want to tell you in no uncertain terms: If that does not happen, the contributions will go through the roof, namely upwards. Everything has become cheaper than has been predicted at the end of the previous millenium, and that is only because of the many hardworking men and women who, to a large part, joined us from other countries, and that is why you are not just a woman who divides the country with her party, you are also against economic prosperity in Germany - with you, poverty would get into our country.
Looking at the clock, now it's the moderator's turn for once. (Scholz is still talking nonstop) Mr. Scholz, please, Mrs. Weidel, please, don't make me get up.
...
(Scholz is still talking, but eventually stops [screw his drivel for now])
May I? I need to look at the clock. Now I do have to get up. Let me look at the clock. Mr. Scholz, that is 22:37 now, you are far ahead. Then Mrs. Weidel, Friedrich Merz, Robert Habeck. I also want to say to that, fact check, stern.de, you can keep looking at that, and it is indeed the fact that there are 2 million views already, so there is a big interest there.
80% of the citizens are in favor of what I am calling for - namely a stable pension level. I have enforced that one, that expires in Summer, and I want to enforce it again for the next decades. 80% of the experts you quoted have a different opinion. But they aren't the ones who then start working from 17 to 67, but those are the ones who started giving you smart advice from 17 and earlier, and honestly, I can say I've had it up to here.
I am firmly convinced that, if enough people work, we will have stable pensions in the future too - and the fact that the same experts that you are quoting now have said back then that we would be paying way higher contributions, and have not said a single word on why that didn't happen, namely because more people are working, should maybe confront you with the thought that that is also the solution for the future. If as many people as possible work in our country, then it is also our welfare state, our pension system that will be stable. The French are currently outraged that they are supposed to work until 64, we have 67, where do we even live.
We want to briefly get Mrs. Weidel involved, you want to increase that to 70%, is that correct? So, if we look at the pensions again. ... 70 percent?
We want to stabilize the pensions. We have to stabilize them, the best requirement for that is a growing economy. And growing incomes of employees, because that is what the amount of pensions is based on. The second requirement is that we - indeed - build up an additional capital-covered retirement plan. What has been attempted with Riester and Rührup has failed, that also has a very plausible, very simple reason. Back then, the legislator was afraid to equip this capital coverage without corresponding insurances. This capital insurance has cost a lot of money, the insurance companies have made money hand over fist. Foolishly, the pensioners were the ones who, at some point, canceled these insurance contracts or suspended them - a third of the contracts are suspended. That needs to be done differently next time, I have told you right at the beginning, we want to start that with 6-year-olds, that they build up a capital-covered retirement plan. The people have to get used to the capital market being able to give them a reliable source, also for building up wealth, and retirement funds. Other countries have done that for a long time now, the Netherlanders, the Swedes, the Danes - all of them are much much further than we are, we- I don't even want to look at America.
Here we are 30 years too late with these topics, by the way, Mr. Habeck, again - good that at least you are recognizing that capital coverage is correct, but just the way Christian Lindner planned it and you once intended do it is wrong. Within pension funds, a capital coverage, and debt-financed capital stocks have no place - no place whatsoever, it does not belong there.
(Habeck briefly wants to say something, but stops quickly)
But the basic gist is correct, that we keep doing it in that direction, and then we are going to manage it. We now have a problem for roughly 20 years. That is the time when the high-birthrate age groups retire - and the low-birthrate agr groups are in the labor mraket. That is why it's also basically correct that we examine the topic under the- under the- under the headline of migration and into the labor market - but please, migration must happen into the labor market, and not into the social system.
What do you think, what percentage of civil servants actually works until the legal age limit. Is that A, Mr. Habeck, 20%, is it B - 40%, C - 60%, or D - 80%. What do you think?
We know the voters decide that, we know that, and still, at the end there will be no way around talks, we want to look at current numbers for now, for this show we asked Forsa, there is 30% for the Union at the moment, the AfD is at 20, SPD 16, Green 13, Left 7, FDP 5, BSW 4. So here, so to say, is the new situation, that at least FDP and Left, that is, the smaller parties, genuinely caught up. Mr. Merz, so, with a look at these numbers... theoretically, you have good chances of leading the next government, the question is, with whom. Mr. Söder very passionately excludes the Greens. Even if the FDP will manage to get into the federal parliament, that won't be sufficient for a coalition, cooperation with the AfD is excluded by you, so the only ones who are left are SPD, correct?
Insofar, these debates- these debates are first a choice of direction for the people in Germany, therefore. Yes, the parties also decide about the personnel. Nothing more can be said on that.
Mr. Jauch, with all due love, don't transfer the problem of the Union to me or the Greens. The problem Markus Söder is had exclusively by Mr. Merz. And after Markus Söder has destroyed the election campaign of Armin Laschet [CDU chancellor candidate in the previous general election], I hope that Mr. Merz and the other people in the Union know precisely this time who they have got sitting in Bavaria, but please don't turn this into my problem.
-I'll use the time that I still have to point out that then they [these industries] won't be happening here. And it is the programs introduced by the great coalition [CDU+SPD] of Angela Merkel and Peter Altmeier and the Minister of Finance at the time, Scholz, that we have continued. Insofar, all of what is being said there is not right, you don't get these future industries in Europe that are being subsidized much higher in other countries. Semiconductors, we have them everywhere now, and for the people who are watching, in your television, in your remote, in your phone, in the cars, and so on, where do they come from? From Taiwan and South Korea - most of them at least. What is next to Taiwan? China. Can we in the global situation be certain that China isn't planning anything with Taiwan? What is next to South Korea? North Korea. And then the Union seriously says we in Europe, in Germany, shall not have this future technology?
[Merz and Habeck keep talking over each other as Habeck gets increasingly upset]
-that is precisely about this, that we put on big programs for batteries-
(Merz cracks up)
(now Habeck and Jauch are talking over each other)
-this is basically almost the last question. Many people are worried that, when the democratic center, that is, Union, SPD, and Greens. If they, no matter in what coalition, will not solve the problems of this country in the next term, that then, possibly, the next [female] federal chancellor is standing to the left of you right now.
Are you seeing that, with the political recipes and also rituals of the past and the party-political trench fights - also in the democratic center - that you are not able to survive the next four years?
[they display a countdown, but I'll take the liberty of timing them myself]
[49 seconds]
[57 seconds]
[1 minute, 4 seconds]
And one word to conclude. Certainly. Not. With. The AfD. If you want a change, then that will only fly with the Union.
[1 minute, 6 seconds]
We did not manage 100 percent, we ask you to go easy, what is a bit tougher with four, Olaf Scholz had a bit more speaking time, but by really little, these are few minutes here, that is completely okay, so, they are more or less, I would say, as federal chancellor it's okay now, so, thank you very much.
[and this is where they start talking about what comes next on RTL, so this is where I cut it off]
Again, this is a bespoke translation and transcription by yours truly. I try to localize terms for the benefit of international audiences. Screencaps are inserted where appropriate. Interjections are denoted with indentation, and it was my editorial liberty of what to count as a heckling interjection or a speaker change. If you are wondering why Habeck's speech is so weird, it's not just because it's late at night for me, it's also because the man is not very intelligent and just rambles on. And thus....
But before that
A few minutes before it started, the moderators of the previous show gave brief profiles of the 4 chancellor candidates, so I might as well start the post with that.
"Olaf Scholz, Federal Chancellor, SPD [Social Democratic Party of Germany]. Born 66 years ago in Osnabrück. The politician is married to Britta Ernst, the love of his life, he says. The two don't have children. Scholz studied law."
"Friedrich Merz, chairman of the CDU [Christian Democratic Union]. At 69 years, the oldest candidate of the current round. Married to his wife Charlotte for 44 years. The two have 2 daughters and 1 son. He studied law and political science."
"Alice Weidel, chairwoman of the AfD [Alternative for Germany]. She is the only woman and, at 46 years old, also the youngest in the Quadrell [portmanteau of duel and quadruple]. Weidel is married to Sarah Bossard, they have 2 sons and live in Switzerland as a family. Weidel studied economics and business administration in Bayreuth."
"Robert Habeck, Vice Chancellor, Green Party. Born 55 years ago in Lübeck. His wife is the author Andrea Paluch. Together, the two have 4 sons. Habeck studied philosophy, German studies, and philology."
And now the main event
[from this point on, all my notes are in brackets - enjoy]
Female voiceover
Welcome to the first and only Quadrell of this general election. Now facing each other in the fight for the chancellor's office are Olaf Scholz of the SPD, Robert Habeck of the Greens, Friedrich Merz of the CDU, and Alice Weidel of the AfD. And your hosts for tonight are Günther Jauch and Pinar Atalay.
Atalay
Good evening live from Berlin, welcome, we are broadcasting from Adlershof [district in Berlin] for the first televised Quadrell in German television, here on RTL and n-tv. Just one more week until the general election and that's why I'm sure that this is going to be quite an exciting thing.Jauch
At least we hope so. Are there rules tonight? Yes, but only a few of them. Of course we measure the time of all discussion participants and take intermittent looks on whether all of that is still fairly distributed. Other than that, everybody gets a final statement of one minute. We drew lots to determine the order in advance and the first speaker is the current federal chancellor. And also, behind the scenes, there's an ongoing fact check. Where you can find it is currently being displayed.[text on screen: The LIVE fact check on the Quadrell; Now at stern.de]
Atalay
Good evening to you as well. Nice to have you here and, it really is about a lot, that is why we want to start off right away, because the people outside want to know what you have got to offer to them.Jauch
Yes, I suggest that we start with that topic because we asked earlier - what is concerning people the most, and it simply is the case, basically everyone you talk to is concerned about the topic of migration, and not just since the terrorist attack of Aschaffenburg and also of Munich. Mr. Federal Chancellor, almost 1.5 years ago, you have announced, and we see the Spiegel headline here, quote, "finally wanting to make large scale deportations of those who have no right to stay in the country". Last year, 220,000 people were obliged to leave the country, a mere 18,000 - that is not even every tenth - has been deported. Why are you making such clear promises for which you would actually have to know that you definitely can't uphold them, or perhaps, considering the Greens or your own party, don't want to uphold them?
Scholz (SPD)
The statement is necessary and I would make it again anytime, it is about us doing everything to limit irregular migration. That is why we have reduced it by 100,000 in the past year and this year there is going to be another reduction of 100,000. That is shown in the numbers of January and February, because of all the measures that we really took, and that needs to help, because it is about, after the numbers suddenly went up again, we quickly bring them down again, that was achieved. And regarding deportation, we have an increase of 70% since the start of my term, but it is not enough and must continue. That is why we changed a lot of laws to make it easier, and we have negotiated with many, many, many in Europe on how we can achieve better. The border controls which we now conducted have shown to be effective, but is about being able to quickly relocate those who must have their procedure in another European country without being obstructed like we are today, that is law now, comes into effect next year, and is the result of the work of the administration I have led, so. We stick with it and need to stick with it. You must not go back. Let me say one more sentence because that's important to me.All of that is important. The reduction of irregular migration, the tough approach, the strict approach regarding deportation, so that we protect all of those who have an immigration background in this country, who come from a family in which they themselves, a parent, or a grandparent came from another country once - almost a third of our population, who are all diligently pitching in and must not be discriminated against here, but they belong and they need to be able to rely on the fact that we all see it that way.
Jauch
Still, this topic of deportation remains in the center - and they are not that simple in practice. The people either got no documents or [law enforcement fails to catch them] or the European neighbors are obstructing. Mr. Merz, don't you need to admit that you too will not manage to get the bulk of people who are obliged to leave the country to actually leave the country? [this is a lot less awkward of a sentence in German, trust me]
Merz (CDU)
Mr. Jauch, let's take the numbers first. Currently, within 4 days, as many newcomers arrive as are being deported in one month. That means the influx keeps going. And let's take a country, Afghanistan. The German federal government is the only one in all of Europe that still brings in refugees to Germany. Partially in cooperation with non-governmental organizations, via the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ms. Baerbock, basically without any control; now we read in the newspapers today that the federal government finally wants to put a stop to this. Today. Shortly ahead of the general election. We have been saying for years that this needs to be stopped, with these pushback programs to Afghanistan. One can deport to Afghanistan. But then, you need to be willing to negotiate with the Taliban.We are giving 300 million euros of foreign aid to Afghanistan, why are we doing that without talking to the Taliban about that. Ms. Baerbock refuses to hold these talks. Of course, if you act like that, if you use Green-adjacent non-governmental organizations to constantly get more refugees from Afghanistan and not talk to the Taliban on why they don't take back the ones in Germany, then this is the result which we have been seeing in Germany for some time now. There is a lack of political will, and partially, parts of this coalition even undermine what the federal chancellor correctly said at the end of 2023, but he is failing in his own administration.
Atalay
Mr. Habeck, as you are listening there - that is also an accusation against the Greens, plus again and again, deportation, deportation, deportation - you as a Green would be out of the picture regarding a possible administration with the Union, no?
Habeck (Green)
I just want to make two comments on Afghanistan and then speak on the general situation or the general topic complex. The Taliban govern in Afghanistan, that is a terror regime. One can't call it any other way, and the small numbers, the quotas, are reserved for those who - back when western troops and western aid were in the country - were our allies. Who are now living in the country fearing for their life and limb. That, Mr. Merz, you should reconsider what you have said there, because-(talking over Habeck)
Jauch: The security checks partially actually take years.
I just want to briefly say, secondly, there is no country that has diplomatic relations with the Taliban. If you would want to do that, that would be a knighting for this, for this, for this regime. Which does terrible things, then you would urgently need to align with your European partners, and if the Americans are still willing to talk, with the Americans. Going it alone, a national solo effort, as it sounds like here, would be the next nail, so to say, to break apart Europe at some point, just that on Afghanistan. Then on the situation-Scholz (SPD): May I briefly interject? We have organized a deportation flight to Afghanistan, and believe it - we had contacts with the Afghan government.
Atalay: Very unexpectedly moving to the next topic.
(talking over Atalay)
Jauch: With what result?
Scholz (SPD): Hm?
Jauch: With what result?
Scholz (SPD): An entire deportation flight took place, we are going to have more, we are-
Atalay: Can you already tell us when? Is there a date-
Scholz (SPD): No, and we would only tell you when the plane is in the air.
Atalay: Mr. Habeck?
Yes, but to briefly correct it, these were criminals and people who have waived every entitlement to protection in Germany, that's why it's correct that there are deportations to Afghanistan too. But that is a bit more complicated than just "you just need to negotiate with the Taliban".Atalay
Yes. Mrs. Weidel, if you are listening and if we are looking at what Mr. Merz has just said. You would be, I think, also one who would say "deport, next plane", and be closer to the Union.
Weidel (AfD)
Most importantly, it starts with prevention. We are going to stop illegal migration; it is not irregular, it is illegal. And that happens via two things. Via secure borders. And via the resolute deportation of criminals and illegals in this country.The people no longer want to have this loss of control in our country. We have got an erosion of domestic security. And what we want, what I also personally want for the German population, is the restoration of statute and law in this country.
Atalay
Which is not so different to the others. Günther?Jauch
Well, Mr. Merz, when it comes to the AfD, you once said "if you get a viper to your neck, it's going to bite you dead at some point", and by the viper you meant the AfD. You're 1.98 meters [6'6"] tall, how high up is the viper already hanging on your, uh, on your body?Merz (CDU)
Not at all, Mr. Jauch. We are keeping that far away from the body. And we are not going to work together with that party. And even if there might be consensus on the subject matter here or there, on the other hand there are so many things that separate us so fundamentally, and I am looking at Austria, there, first the Social Democrats and then the Christian Democrats worked together with the so-called FPÖ [Freedom Party of Austria], the Free. And now they are the strongest group in the Austrian parliament. I am going to do everything to prevent precisely that, and therefore again, it does not get anywhere close to us.Atalay
But you are under ever increasing pressure, now even the US Vice President Vance said just this weekend, "there is no room for firewalls", quote, and the Americans are basically officially meddling with the German election campaign and saying "you need to talk to the right wing, even make a coalition if need be", so even the Americans. You are a Trans-Atlantic, the American friends-
Merz (CDU)
What does "even" mean? I'm not gonna let an American vice president tell me who I am to talk to here in Germany. I have accepted the American election result - the way the voters did it in America last year on November 8th - and I expect the American government to do the same thing in return.And if you are bringing up the topic of the firewall. It may be, but that's not my terminology. I want the fire behind the wall to not become a wildfire in Germany. And I told that J. D. Vance in the talk I had with him in Munich on Saturday in no uncertain manner, on Friday in no uncertain manner. That is out of the question and I refuse to put up with such meddling with the German general election and also the formation of government afterwards. The Americans have nothing to contribute to that.
Atalay
That's already happened, yes.Jauch: But you-
Mr. Scholz please. Mr. Scholz wanted to say something on that.Scholz (SPD)
I think it must be very clear, what has been said there is completely unacceptable. It is the case that we have a good tradition in Germany, which consists of learning the lesson from the experience of national socialism: there is no working together with the extreme right wing. And that is why we also have laws to enable and support that, by, e.g. prohibiting national socialist symbols in Germany, unlike in the USA. And I think it must stay that way.And I am also in favor of saying very clearly, there must be no cooperation with (gestures towards Weidel) the extreme right wing, and that is why I am still incredibly dejected about the fact that the CDU passed a resolution motion with the AfD and tried to pass a law with the AfD, which then failed, that is a genuine problem in my point of view.
What can you trust in if you say in advance you're not going to do it, and then it happens anyway. What can we as citizens trust in after the election?
Jauch: Independent from that, but-
Weidel (AfD)
I find this comparison scandalous. I repudiate it for me personally and for the entire party, what you have just said. And I must tell you one thing-(very loudly talking over Weidel)
Scholz (SPD): In your party, somebody said it's a fly shit, this history-
-holding up freedom of speech and democracy-(loudly talking over Weidel)
Scholz (SPD): -of national socialism, this is your honorary chairman!
-and that- that you can't make politics with firewalls.Look, you can insult me here tonight as much as you like. In doing so, you are insulting millions of voters. It does not hit me at all. I am merely representing these voices. You would do well to remember that.
(talking over Weidel)
Scholz (SPD): National socialism is-
That is what democracy means.(talking over Weidel)
Scholz (SPD): Fascism is not a fly shit of history-
I am telling you again, I find this comparison horrible.(talking over Weidel)
Scholz (SPD): -as your honorary chairman says, but it is the worst disaster and the biggest crime-
Horrible.(talking over Weidel)
Scholz (SPD): -that Germany has committed, that always must be part of our experience.
Atalay
(talking over Scholz)Mr. Merz, would you go as far- would you go as far as to say that the AfD is a Nazi party? That's what he said.
Merz (CDU)
(talking over Atalay)Look. First I have to say, Mr. Federal Chancellor. What you are saying here for the umpteenth time, on the second-to-last, the second-to-last week is a bugbear of course, you know that as well. And you know exactly, and you know me well enough personally, that we have nothing in common with this party and these people.
And now to you, Mrs. Weidel. You just need to read the interview that you gave in Bild am Sonntag today. In there, you are knighting Mr. Höcke as a potential member of the administration.
Atalay: That is why my question is so concrete, would you-
(talking over Atalay)I am replying to it-
(talking over Merz)
Atalay: Would you say this is a-
(talking over Atalay)I am replying to it very concretely, Mrs. Atalay. This interview, and your statements on Mr. Höcke - whom every man and every woman in Germany is legally free to call a Nazi - whom you are knighting and whom you want to have in your cabinet, show what you are made of. You are a far right party, to a large part right-wing extremist, and you are free to refer to your voters as much as you like. The truth is that you are standing outside of what this Federal Republic of Germany fundamentally needs, in economic policy as well as migration policy, and that is why I am saying it again in no uncertain terms. With this party, there will be no. Working. To. Gether.
Weidel (AfD):
(talking over Atalay)Do you know what I am missing in this discussion?
Atalay: Yes?
That it is never about the substance.(talking over Weidel)
Atalay: And how is that supposed to go, Mrs. Weidel?
Merz: We are about to get to that.
That there is never any reasoned discussion. But only an outrageous framing against the Alternative for Germany.(talking over Weidel)
Atalay: Now we're talking about it-
We are a free conservative party. And to say it in no uncertain terms here. All of the problems in this country would not exist today (gestures towards the other politicians) without the perpetrators of which all three are standing here.Jauch
Mrs. Weidel, on the other hand - what the federal chancellor just mentioned, this word of, uh, bird shit in German history, the 12 year Nazi era, by your honorary chairman Alexander Gauland. This framing, you don't regret it at all?Weidel (AfD)
... Just invite Alexander Gauland into the next show and ask him that yourself. I am finding fault with the lack of reasoned discussion on all the problems that (gestures) these parties here have caused.(talking over Weidel)
Jauch: So you share this bird shit thesis. Am I seeing that correctly?
No, that's what you are saying, go invite Mr. Gauland.(talking over Weidel)
Jauch: No, I am asking you. I am asking you.
I want a reasoned discussion,(talking over Weidel)
Atalay: Yes.
I don't want to talk about any stupid stuff here-Atalay
(talking over Weidel)We are getting to substance, Mrs. Weidel, therefore the concrete question to you. You say you want to secure the borders. I would like to know how that works in practice, we are speaking of roughly 4000 km [2500 mi] of border. That would actually need to be done day and night, federal police working shifts, uh. The European neighbors would need to allow that, how is that supposed to go in practice?
Weidel (AfD)
Exactly as you have just said. 24 hours, go talk to the federal police. The borders-(talking over Weidel)
Atalay: Yes, the federal police officers-
-our borders- you don't need to go into detail, ask the federal police.(interrupting Weidel)
Atalay: Just a question. How many federal police officers would you need to secure this 4000 km of border.
(talking over Atalay)Ask the federal police. I am a politician. I am telling you, where there is a political way, there is always a solution. If you want to secure the borders, and they need to be secured as a bulwark against illegal migration and illegal crime imported into our country. I want-
(talking over Weidel)
Atalay: I have done the math. You would need to set up a federal police officer at every kilometer [every 0.6 mi]...
(talking over Atalay)Just let me finish speaking. I simply want to get rid of this situation in our country, and for that, you need to secure our borders and resolutely deport the people who are in this country illegally and committing crimes. We are going to do that, we are going to do that on day one.
Atalay
I have tried to talk about substance, now to Mr. Habeck, I would like to get you on board. Now you need to say that, if you look at the parties present here, you want to enable more migration - this accusation keeps coming up - I am mentioning that because of family reunification. Some people don't understand it, because you say you want to keep enabling it, for the people that means more. Explain it to us.Habeck (Green)
Well, family reunification is an instrument for those who have a prospect of staying in Germany, make it their home. That is not irregular migration, that... The people who are coming are tiniest quotas that are being checked, that reunite families, for those who stay here. If we are talking about irregular migration, first of all that has nothing to do with family reunification, and it really is about small numbers for the people who can bring their families because they are here for longer. Maybe I might briefly collate the debate from my point of view.The main problem that we have is the dysfunctional current European refugee and asylum system. At its core, it says that the countries at the outer [EU] borders have the sole burden for all refugees. That they don't want to understand that they have no interest in keeping them there is relatively logical. That is why the solution is a European change of this system, which has now been agreed on. Namely control, register, quickly push back those who have no prospect of staying, at the outer borders-
(talking over Habeck)
Atalay: That has not been working so far, why should it work now.
-the ones who stay here get distributed. That is the- the first point, but that only works with a European solution, what Mrs. Weidel and Mr. Merz similarly in his five-points plan said is, at its core, a fence around Germany. Because of the police officers that you are correctly setting up. Then Europe is over, that is, the common market of Europe then really is finally over.Secondly, the security question, but you need to- You need to discuss it with the security aspects, and the third point that I want to make, and that is always being neglected, is integration. Integration. Because you are right, there are many people here. And the ones who are here should have a chance to get into the labor market, to work here, go out of the asylum seeker welfare laws and then participate here in society - language classes, school education - there, there is where the municipalities are complaining, that the bottleneck is there, the bottleneck is there, and until the traffic lights [coalition government] changed that, it was prohibited for the refugees- or made as hard as possible, to go out of welfare and into work. I find that completely counterproductive, that has been changed now, but. This entire debate is very one-sided, it suffers from the people simply being here now, and the ones who are here should be able to get integrated as good as possible.
Jauch
I think the points have now been made clear. We have prepared for you a quick-fire question round. Each question goes to all four and you can really answer quickly.I would like to start with you, Mr. Scholz. Smartphone ban at schools - yes or no.
Scholz (SPD): No.
Habeck (Green): A no.
Merz (CDU): Already trialed in Schleswig-Holstein. Seems to be a reasonable answer for me, at least for elementary schools.
Weidel (AfD): Absolutely, yes.
Atalay
We are now starting here and then in that direction. Should cannabis remain legal - yes or no?Weidel (AfD): No.
Merz (CDU): No.
Habeck (Green): Yes.
Scholz (SPD): ... In the very limited scope that we have set up, yes, but not beyond that.
Jauch
I am with you again. Stocks or savings account.Scholz (SPD): ... Everybody needs to decide that for themselves, I recommend stocks, but personally decided differently because I have said, as a politician I don't want to be discredited for owning stocks and therefore making some decisions in a certain way.
Habeck (Green): ... Stocks.
Merz (CDU): ... Active pension from age 6 onward, as we have suggested it, 10 euros a month for every child in Germany so they learn to grow up with this topic.
(talking over Merz)
Habeck (Green): And we are now-
Atalay: Does that mean stocks?
Merz (CDU): Yes.
Habeck (Green): -at the explanation or our campaign programs or-
(talking over Habeck)Yes, exactly, I see it the same way.
(talking over Jauch)
Merz (CDU): Then I would give you the answer for the population in Germany. That is precisely the answer.
Habeck (Green): I just wanted to get the rules of the game...
(talking over Habeck)So you are a stocks guy, not a savings account guy.
Merz (CDU): Yes.
Atalay: Good, keep going.
Weidel (AfD): Both, everybody should decide for themselves, but significantly increase the tax-exempt amount for a stock pension.
Atalay
Starting again here. What is worse for you - [parliamentary] opposition or [reality TV show] Jungle Camp?Weidel (AfD): ... Definitely Jungle Camp. ... (chuckles)
Merz (CDU): ... Well, I am surprised about the question.
We are at RTL, Mr. Merz.Merz (CDU): Yeah, that- Okay. Then I'll gladly reply to it.
(talking over Merz)You can reply to something like that in a serious discussion. [said matter-of-factly, but it is obvious that it's more of a fun question]
(talking over Atalay)
Merz (CDU): Jungle Camp. Better in the opposition for decades than 10 days in Jungle Camp.
Good. An answer. Mr. Habeck.Habeck (Green): ... The same.
Scholz (SPD): I don't want to go to Jungle Camp either, but I've watched it once.
At least one.Jauch: Then everybody is in agreement for once-
Once. Then what does that mean?Jauch
After the failed traffic lights coalition, Germany is groaning under the recession.Video intermission
Female voiceover
High prices in the supermarket. Energy also is getting ever more expensive. Because of the inflation of the past years, millions of Germans have less money in their wallet. Butter is becoming a luxury, as is a heated home. In many industries, there recently were big pay increases, but that is putting pressure on Germany's companies, as well as the skilled labor shortage, the weak demand, domestic and foreign.The economy has shrunk in the past two years. And that will probably continue in 2025 too. But how does the third largest economic nation worldwide get up again? Bridges are crumbling, the rail network is dilapidated, and there is a jam of reforms in digitalization.
There is a lot to do. Who has the best concept?
Jauch
So, lower productivity, and bridges and rails are dilapidated, schools at the limit of wear, not waking up in time for digitalization. All of that existed... Existed ahead of the traffic lights, and that was with the Union at the helm of the chancellor office. Mr. Merz, why don't you explain to me why things are suddenly going to be better with you.Merz (CDU)
First of all, Mr. Jauch, I'm permitting myself to point out that we aren't in a recession just since the falling apart of the traffic lights, as you introduced it, but for 2 years now, more than 2 years, as it has been correctly presented in the film. What is also correct is that we were in the government, but in the past 26 years, the Social Democrats were there for 22 years, so don't neglect this part that also belongs.How are we doing that better now. Indeed, we must get out of-
(interrupting Merz)
Jauch: The chancellors decide on the guideline.
-in the meantime the SPD was in the chancellor office, and now for the second time, alright. So. Let's leave the past in the past, we are now adjusting with- we are looking ahead. We need to get out of this recession, that basically means: We must get this entire bureaucratic monster under control, it starts in Europe, continues in Germany. Concrete... Concrete example, Supply Chain Act, one of the really big bureaucratic problems that we have in this country. But I wanted to get rid of it with the chainsaw already, we made the proposition in the federal parliament [Bundestag], to repeal it. Rejected by the coalition. There are many other examples.The entire topic of bureaucracy, tax burden in Germany, social insurance contributions, labor costs, energy supply. Right in the middle of the biggest energy crisis of our country, this coalition shuts off three well-working nuclear power plants. Gas supply. A gas field in the North Sea has been developed, approved, for mining. The minister of the environment of the state of Lower Saxony refuses to connect the drilling platform to the energy grid. Even though the Netherlanders urgently want to do it together with us, and it is approved. Also Mr. Habeck explains: we don't need that.
If we keep going like that, constantly explaining all of the things we do not want, get out of everything, then this country is not going to get up again. We need to get into things again instead of constantly getting out.
Atalay
Mrs. Weidel, you usually say, you are there for the people. Also for the people who only have little. But I am wondering what precisely you want to do. What do you want to do so... the common man, the common woman has more in their wallet.Weidel (AfD)
I am going to explain to you very precisely what we are going to do. It's two points. The first is: We have the highest energy prices worldwide. That means: As the first measure, we urgently need to go down with energy prices, also as a driver of inflation. And that works as follows: via openness to technology. For instance, through baseload-capable nuclear power. Through coal power. Through gas. But also, if you like, through renewable energies, but without this huge subsidization policy to the detriment of our country.
We urgently need to stop that, and that is why we in a government- we will be doing two things, namely: We are going to repeal the EEG [Renewable Energy Sources Act]. And we will abolish the carbon tax, which by the way got introduced by the CDU. It makes everything more expensive, especially for the consumers, you have just seen that in the video. Heating, then at the gas pumps, the carbon tax, the increase of which is going to hit hard in the year 2027, and what is going to happen; we are going to have a gas price increase of up to 1 euro per liter [4 dollars per gallon]. Just to simply describe here what is coming for the consumers. Heating and gas bills will not be affordable anymore.
And we are absolutely against all prohibitionist politics. Everybody shall decide freely-
(talking over Weidel)
Atalay: [unintelligible because this journalist whore just keeps talking over Weidel]
-everybody shall decide freely what heating they install, what car they drive-(talking over Weidel)
Atalay: And whoever wants to have a wind turbine may have it too.
-diesel, combustion engine, or oil and gas heating. Every consumer-(talking over Weidel)
Atalay: Wind turbines too?
One moment please. Every consumer shall decide for themselves- one moment please. Every consumer shall decide for themselves what they demand. For that, we don't need any prohibitions, and every company shall be able to decide freely what it produces. If the German automotive corporations want to produce combustion engines - a top technology in Germany - then they shall do it. I don't want the market to keep being distorted in the automotive sector-Atalay: Point made.
-by a subsidization of electric cars-(talking over Weidel)
Atalay: Point made. Just one question by me, very shortly, Mrs. Weidel. Wind turbines, you're allowed to have them if you want. Or do you prohibit...
Openness to technology!(talking over Weidel)
Atalay: Good. Wind turbines are allowed.
-without this subsidy policy which is just hugely expensive-Atalay
(just rudely cutting off Weidel)
Mhm. Mr. Habeck, in your election campaign posters, you are primarily talking about confidence. How do you want to achieve that the people are genuinely confident again, that things are going to be better with you, if the Greens are in an administration.
Habeck (Green)
I just have to say, obviously there's a fact check, they're going to have to do a lot of work now, because there were-(talking over Habeck)
Atalay: Yes, fact check, stern.de.
-so many wrong statements, or statements that need to be corrected-(talking over Habeck)
Atalay: You're free to correct them, yes.
No, no, then I won't get to talk, I actually want to look ahead. Because it has been described correctly, that we are having a stagnation, we are in a structural economic crisis. That is something different than what we have seen in the repeated downswings before, COVID or high energy prices. Because two requirements of growth have gone away. Cheap energy from Russia - and Putin shut that off, again, don't forget - that is messing up our energy prices to this day and made them high, this dependency which is the root cause for this, that we have high energy prices. And secondly, that Germany is an exporting nation and the export markets are getting ever smaller. Not just because of current American politics. And now that both are dropping off, we see that we genuinely, in the past 10, 15 years, did way too little for the competitiveness of the location. That is why the points that also Mr. Merz mentioned are all correct. We need to reduce bureaucracy, we need to invest in infrastructure, and all what we didn't invest in the past years needs to be caught up on, from rails to bridges, but especially in digitalization. We need more skilled laborers, finally there is a law that organizes the legal organized immigration into the labor market. Especially, in the short term we need an impulse for the economy, and that is a tax write-off for the companies that are investing now. That is how we quickly bring back growth even in the year '25. We have taken the first steps still in the administration, that hasn't been put into law yet, that is why we are lagging behind a bit now. But that is how you do it, the different points-(talking over Habeck)
Atalay: And that is confidence?
-play out not against each other. Confidence is a duty; confidence doesn't mean "I believe"-(talking over Habeck)
Atalay: But the people were scared of you, "Mr. Habeck is coming into my basement and rips out my heater", how do you reconcile-
(talking over Atalay)-Do you want to let yourself get brought down by the problems or are we straightening up our backs first; let's not always put the blame with others, but start working; that is, stop whining and develop your own strength again. Confidence is working on hope, you can't put it like that to me, but that is the- the political answer for that we... Always have this whining "everything is going downhill, I don't know either, and should I move away from here", that's not how it'll be fixed, we must want to win. That is the attitude that we want to put on our posters.
Jauch
(talking over Habeck)Then the SPD- Then Mr. Scholz with his posters did everything right, because they say "More for you". The people do have the impression that it's less for everyone, but of course everybody finds it great, "more for you", everybody thinks: "I see. If I vote for Scholz, I get more dosh in every case." The question is just: Where is all that money, if... basically everybody gets more, who vote for SPD, where is that supposed to come from, and also a few others too.
Scholz (SPD)
... One sentence first. Indeed we have a big crisis to overcome. That has something to do with Russia's invasion of Ukraine. With the incredible expenditure that we had to bear to help the Ukraine and do something for safety now. It has something to do with the end of gas deliveries and an incredible energy price inflation. That, to fight the inflation, the European Central Bank correctly increased the interest rates. Now we are mostly through with it, because we managed it, that we get our energy supply a different way. We are getting coal, gas, and oil from others, and meanwhile, the prices are getting cheaper again. We no longer need to subsidize it with countless billions like at the beginning - we did that so it doesn't get cold in Germany and the factories don't need to stand still - which many predicted ahead, that went past us.What is now coming with "more for you"? Very clear statement, first of all growth. I have a very concrete proposal for this that can start now with the situation that we have, the Made in Germany bonus. That is a tax premium [that term makes no logical sense to me, but that's what he said, "Steuerprämie"] that is being paid when companies invest in Germany. That is better than the blanket tax decrease suggested by AfD and CDU for people who earn even more than the federal chancellor and who, in a certain way, get a relief there; I think it's better that the ones getting a relief are the ones who really invest, in our country: I want a Germany fund to be used to ensure that we can steer public and private capital towards our community, to create growth, and then it's about the citizens of course. A higher minimum wage. A tax relief for 95% of citizens. And I am happy to admit that, people like I and Mr. Merz and Mr. Habeck and Mrs. Weidel are going to pay more, and that is just. And I believe, other than that, it's about doing something so that the food prices are looked at a bit, that's why there's my proposal on what to do with the value-added tax for foodstuffs.
Atalay
Alright, now we have got a lot of items from the campaign program, just all over the board, I just want to look at-(interrupting Atalay)
Scholz (SPD): I have been asked about that.
Yes. The time measuring, all of that is your speaking time. I'm looking here...
We are here relatively similar, which is good, so... Indeed, with a difference of around a minute or so, we can continue in this way.
Jauch
Let's stay in the topic of money and, of course, also the topic of taxes. You, Mr. Merz, (camera close-up of Merz) once had a special idea to simplify the German tax system. It is meanwhile, or still, one of the most complicated in the world. (Merz chuckles a bit)
I have to be very careful here, it's from the [museum] House of German History. I have been told I am not allowed to touch the coaster itself, because it's a museum piece. With this coaster- (Merz and Habeck laugh)
(talking over Jauch)
Habeck (Green): That is kinda funny, sorry.
(talking over Habeck)-you have suggested a simple and transparent system with 3 tax rates over 20 years ago. Although, were you... How many pils [beer] did you have in your system when you-
Merz (CDU): Not a single one!
[unintelligible]Weidel (AfD): Do you always write like that? ... Okay.
So, it is not very very clear here on the coaster, but it was astoundingly simple, just 12, 24, and 36-Merz (CDU): Yes.
-percent, and done. Was that just a gag in the bar? Or why did you never revive this suggestion again?Merz (CDU)
I did suggest that on the party congress in Leipzig in 2003. Uhm, and really a general simplification of the German tax system. We again plan to do that. We want to do that. But there is one difference. We cannot do that for all companies anymore today, that was my suggestion at the time, equal taxation for companies and for private households, that won't fly anymore. The time for that has passed. We need to reduce the burden on private households, that is true. But we must get a tax burden of around 15% for the companies-(interrupting Merz)
Jauch: Good, but for payroll tax and income tax payers, that would be a huge simplification already.
It would be a big simplification, many exemptions would be gone, the- tax rates down, we want that. Also it is not going to be the coaster anymore, it will be an app in the future. The coaster now arrived at the SPD, the SPD is currently advertising on coasters. We don't do that anymore, we will-(interrupting Merz)
Jauch: It doesn't matter if it's a coaster or an app, but in terms of the outcome, it would need to be simplified-
(interrupting Jauch)Precisely that is our plan, but again, that is going to need to be handled separately for income tax and with corporate tax and commercial tax. And I want to say that explicitly, as long as many companies in Germany must pay income tax. And that is something which Mr. Scholz regularly does not comment on. These companies will be massively burdened by the SPD's plans, of course. Then comes inheritance tax on top, then comes wealth tax, all of you are planning that. Again on top of that, and if you do that to the 1% up there. Then that are many business partnerships. Then that are many handcraft businesses. Then that are many self-employed people. And if you reduce their burden, down on the ladder, then you would need a top tax bracket of 60%-
(talking over Merz)
Scholz (SPD): You are creating a false impression. As if every handcraft business made 5 million euros of profit. The craftsmen in Germany would be grateful if that were the case.
... Yeah. But-(talking over Merz)
Scholz (SPD): [unintelligible]
-Mr. Scholz, you are missing that a big part of companies in Germany are paying income tax-[Scholz keeps talking over Merz, can't make out what he's saying until Merz stops]
Scholz (SPD)
-that 10% of the population get 20 billion euros of tax relief according to your suggestion, someone who's a board member and earns a million gets 24,000 tax relief. If you earn 3.5 million, you get 84,000 tax relief at the CDU. And for the hairdresser with 24,000, she gets a whopping 10 euros a month. That's what I'll call just.Merz (CDU): Mr. Scholz, this is the same old story with which-
(talking over Merz)
Atalay: [unintelligible]
Merz (CDU): In every election.
-are you talking about craftsmen? In truth, you are talking about CEOs of DAX [German equivalent to Dow Jones] corporations. That is not okay.Merz (CDU)
We want to reduce the burden on companies, we must reduce the burden on companies in Germany, that is not just true for the large, that is true also for the small and medium-sized. By the way, craftsmen don't appear at all with you. The Mittelstand [SMEs] don't appear almost at all, neither do the self-employed. The-(loudly talking over Merz)
Scholz (SPD): August Bebel [one of the founders of the SPD] was a craftsman! Friedrich Ebert, the first state president of the Weimar Republic, was a craftsman!
-we are relieving them via the income tax, not the corporate tax.Atalay
We are now right in the middle of it. Because that is particularly interesting to you (gestures) in front of the TV. Where is what relief? What do the four who are standing here plan to do? To say it in broad strokes, I'm not saying that the- (looks at Jauch, who is picking up the coaster from the ground because it fell down) Very careful.
I'm saying... The AfD and the Union actually actually want to - I know you are going to object, but please hold it in for now - they want to primarily relieve those who have more. And Green and SPD, let's say, prefer relieving those who have less, that's how you can describe it in broad terms, depending on- Mrs. Weidel is already shaking her head and is free to argue that in a moment- I'll come again with the point that the little man would be happy if we aren't talking EEG and energy, we have done that already. Low income earners are not really taken care of with you, if I look at that. Right? Are they in good hands with you?
Weidel (AfD)
... The opposite is the case. They are in very good hands with us because it is precisely us who want to relieve the burden on families. We are in favor of a family splitting model and for a strong increase of tax-exempt amounts. That would mean: For a family, three- with three children, 5 people, that the tax-exempt amount for adults would be 15,000 euros, so for a married couple 30,000 euros, plus the 3 children on top, we would be almost at 70,000 euros gross earnings tax-free. Because relieving the low income earnings is precisely there, in raising the tax-exempt amounts. That, by the way, has been an AfD demand for many years and it has been thoroughly rejected; and since you just mentioned that with energy policy: Nobody here has even explained, just now with the important point, how they want to reduce energy prices, that was very peculiar. If we want to talk about this coaster which you have shown-Atalay: Do you have one as well?
Around 20- Yes, sure. Uhm. Around 20 years old. We are forgetting that, in the meantime, 16 years of Angela Merkel, a CDU-led administration has been there, so why have you not done anything? And by the way, Mr. Merz: How do you actually want to implement any of your demands with Green and Red [SPD], you would need to explain that, nothing at all has happened. It's a pure announcement policy, and accordingly, the voter should be very careful to vote for CDU in this respect.Merz (CDU)
... Evidently we are the main opponent against you. It honors us, it awards us, it increases the distance.(talking over Merz)
Weidel (AfD): How do you want to implement it? Simple question.
It is very simply about that we take a closer look again in what we really want in tax policy. We want to keep the top tax rate. We want to adjust the top tax bracket - flatten the curve a bit so it doesn't start already at 66, but only at 80,000 euros. The top tax rate that in Germany as- with the solidarity surcharge as it is still being collected today, is so high that almost half of the income up there, with a skilled laborer is even in the top tax bracket. At the time it was introduced, 15 times of the average income was necessary to get into the top tax bracket. Today, it is 1.8 times. That means we are taxing the top performers in the companies, we are taxing the company directors, we are taxing those who want to work more in the companies.The second point, you need to let me say that.
Atalay: Yes, that's being deducted from your time, you are very far ahead, but alright.
I just want to mention, we are making a concrete suggestion for older employees in the companies, to double the base tax exempt amount from 12,000 to 24,000 euros a year. So that the older employees have a chance to stay employed for longer, if they want to do that, voluntarily, beyond 67 years. And I think that is a good suggestion, that is also well thought through in terms of tax policy.Atalay
Mr. Habeck, I want to get you in because you have been looking that way all this time very skeptically.Habeck (Green)
Yes, first of all there is a difference, that needs to be said, between SPD and the Greens, and as it has been presented correctly, AfD, Union, and we may lump in the FDP [Free Democratic Party of Germany] together with them, it is indeed the case, and that has been calculated frequently, that it is especially the few rich who profit from your tax programs. And for us, it is precisely the other way around, that the lower incomes profit more strongly, next to all the tax increases and tax reductions, especially through affordable energy, through affordable mobility, and by supporting the families. But my point is actually a different one.That's a genuine election decision that Germany has, that is, politics for those who are already "haves", and the ones who- or politics for those who need it more urgently, that is discussed to death, and you can make an impression, you can calculate that and put your vote at the right place. But there is a problem, which both have, they don't know how to finance it. Namely neither the corporate tax decrease or with the tax decrease for investment, nor the tax decrease, the volume that is not financed - and that is without defense, maybe we will talk about that later - consists of 100 billion euros annually with the Union. And you get that-
Merz (CDU): How did you get to that calculation?
That has been checked several times by the different institutes, by the different institutes.Scholz (SPD): The other had 90 thousand- 90 billion.
Exactly, there is a range, he is right, between 89 and 100 thousand euros,(talking over Habeck)
Atalay: [unintelligible]
That is, so to say, the accuracy, but that is interesting in particular because Mr. Merz and Mrs. Weidel, but maybe that is not so interesting. Either have to reduce other services without telling the Germans. Increasing the taxes elsewhere or reform the debt brake. But there is no third option, there is none, all of that is not going to work-(talking over Habeck)
Atalay: Mr. Habeck, now we are at-
-because I can tell what Mr. Merz is about to say, we do all of that through growth. You need to say, to close this gap - 90 to 100 billion - you need 9 to 10% growth. Per 1% of growth there is roughly 10 billion more, rough estimate.Atalay
(talking over Habeck)We are coming to that point soon, Mr. Habeck, where we briefly talk about that. But we are currently throwing numbers around the viewers' ears that nobody can remember-
(talking over Atalay)
Habeck (Green): Well, that it's not financed can be said without any numbers-
We'll get to that soon, but the voting clientele of the Greens, they are usually more well-off, have your voters got around to learn that, if they vote for the Greens, it will become more expensive for them?Habeck (Green)
... What do you mean? ... For many people, it will get cheaper, and those who, like the federal chancellor said, who... are part of... the richer incomes,Atalay: That's who I mean.
-they obviously are to pay-(talking over Habeck)
Atalay: That's who I mean, so the Green clientele says: "That's okay for me. I'll do that."
Weidel (AfD): But everything has become more expensive. It's the opposite.
We have decided that.Weidel (AfD): Green politics has made everything more expensive.
[talking over each other a bit]Mrs. Weidel, you still didn't get it. You, I mean you don't have an intellectual problem because you would submit to Putin. You would have no problem saying the Ukraine shouldn't whine like that, a bit of oppression in your own country, you can stand that-
(talking over Habeck)
Weidel (AfD): And J. D. Vance too.
-and we'll also continue buying gas again-Weidel (AfD): And the Americans too.
We ran into the trap that we have become dependent on Putin's gas, we are still suffering from that today, that has been the cardinal error, "we have made everything more expensive", best wishes to Moscow, to Moscow with love,(talking over Habeck)
Weidel (AfD): That is your politics, you have made energy expensive, and with that, production.
(talking over Weidel)You didn't get it, did you? Energy has become more expensive because the gas was lacking, the gas was lacking, and the gas-
(talking over Habeck)
Weidel (AfD): No, that is an expression of your politics. Your politics.
I didn't invade Ukraine.Weidel (AfD): No, it is your politics. It is the Green energy revolution [Energiewende] that has made everything so expensive.
... I recommend the fact check, the renewable energies make it cheaper-(talking over Habeck)
Weidel (AfD): How do you want to go down with the costs.
-and are giving us now the chance, because we have now made energy climate-neutral, to say, now we make it really affordable, out with grid payments, out with taxes, because now the demand is supposed to go up. That is the success of the energy revolution as we have implemented it.Atalay
Mr. Scholz, I would like to-(talking over Atalay)
Jauch: I'd like to- ... Please.
I have seen here just now that Mr. Scholz slowly got nervous, that's why-(talking over Atalay)
Scholz (SPD): I figured you were going to ask, that's why.
Jauch
That's why I am talking to him, because from you, two times the term has fallen, "the rich", or "the more rich", also Mr. Scholz often says "you need to get to the wallet of the rich". Starting at what net income is one actually rich? What would you say?Scholz (SPD)
So, I find that someone who, like the federal chancellor, earns more than 300,000 euros gross, certainly can pay more taxes, and if the people pay 1, 2, or 3 million, I find that also- earn, then they can pay something.Jauch: Because the Federal Office of Statistics says, starting at 3,750 euros net, a single is rich.
I've once talked badly about that for an hour with [former federal chancellor] Helmut Schmidt, because we both found that so stupid, you can't imagine.Jauch: That must have been a while ago.
(talking over Jauch)
Weidel (AfD): [unintelligible]
That is a while ago. That is-(talking over Scholz)
Jauch: [unintelligible]
-all across Europe, and I think also globally, the statistics of how that is determined, you can't count on that. I think most citizens who are watching us here know exactly what rich is, and rich is not at 3000 euros-Weidel (AfD): It depends on the costs of living that are completely being forgotten here, go explain that.
No.Weidel (AfD): That is not an absolute amount, but instead-
(talking over Weidel)Again, Mrs. Weidel, we have to be very clear. You have-
(talking over Scholz)
Weidel (AfD): -expenses, making everything more expensive, you are ruining-
You have presented a tax program in which all people, up to even almost 200,000 euros, pay more ta- less- more taxes and everybody above pays fewer taxes.Weidel (AfD): Incorrect. Completely wrong.
(talking over Weidel)That is your concept, by the way, you have put even more on your plate than Mr. Merz and the FDP did - who are at 100 billion in expenditures that are not being financed - you are almost at the size of the entire budget, perhaps you make do without any tax income and everything works by itself. But I'm saying it again, it is a question of justice that those who have quite a lot more in a time in which we are lacking money on all fronts have a contribution. Because of security, but not only because of that. And I wanted to say that because of the energy prices-
(talking over Scholz)
Habeck (Green): -I don't want to mention so many numbers, but-
...Habeck (Green): Sorry.
We need to take care of the energy prices being down. That is why we reduced the energy tax for producing companies and agriculture. That is why we ensured that the EEG reallocation charge, that is, the funding of renewable energies is no longer in the energy price, Mrs. Weidel, the federal budget pays for that. That is why we ensured-(talking over Scholz)
Weidel (AfD): That is, the taxpayer.
-that very large energy-intensive companies have to pay less, and that is why it's also the case that all the speeches we have just heard about carbon prices are quite funny when you know(talking over Scholz)
Weidel (AfD): Nope, the companies don't find that funny.
-that this is a European ruling that we alone from Germany cannot change.(talking over Scholz)
Weidel (AfD): [unintelligible]
[unintelligible](talking over Scholz)
Atalay: We want to try letting them speak, more or less.
(talking over Atalay)It is about us supporting economic growth and that we act justly and that means-
(talking over Scholz)
Atalay: Just.
-it must go on like that. Higher pay increases-(talking over Scholz)
Atalay: Yes?
-like in the previous 18 months-(talking over Scholz)
Atalay: Just is?
-in the lower wage area, and if I am being asked on what I am most proud of regarding the past three years. Then that the low wage sector shrank significantly, because of the minimum waeg, but because of many other things that we have done also. And that needs to go on; I think the people who work hard and earn little money have deserved a better income.Atalay
Yes. For some, justice is this or that, but I am still wondering, the calculation did not make sense to me yet, how you want to reduce the burden on 95% with the other 5%.Merz (CDU): With 1.
Scholz (SPD): That is-
Or 1 percent.Merz (CDU): With 1.
There is 5 remaining for the people.Scholz (SPD)
I'll put it this way, I laughed immediately when I read that the first time, we have said we want to pull up the 1 percent that earns the most. And that is us already. We are part of that, so many people don't even earn-(talking over Scholz)
Jauch: How much revenue is taken in with that?
... That is a sum around 4 billion, and therefore not all of financing-(talking over Scholz)
Atalay: Because you need a lot more billions.
-that comes from the holistic concept, there are also a few speculations that are being repealed, that is, speculation gains that are being taxed, also a part of that.(talking over Scholz)
Jauch: What are those?
Also the things that we suggest in the area of inheritance tax, all of that comes together. And still, again: It is something that was said immediately, to tell the people, so to say, who need a real relief of the burden in their net income, that this does not fly, and to hide that the suggestions of the Union - also the FDP and AfD lead to exclusively, and overwhelmingly the people with the very very high incomes being relieved, and that is not just and fair in our country.Atalay
But it needs to be said. That point comes as well. We have calculated it, because you keep saying we have these and those promises, we want to do this and that. You need money, all of you need money, it's not going to work without money, and it will- For the discussion here, I printed out something.Jauch: Namely that which-
We have a lot of things under the desk.
Habeck (Green): [unintelligible]
One more, this here I can hand out to everybody, these are the famous institutes who all really calculated that, be it Ifo [Institute for Economic Research], ZEW [Leibniz Center for European Economic Research], DIW [German Institute for Economic Research], IW [German Economic Institute], all of them are in there, you are free to take it home with you after. Because, actually, 30 to 140 billion euros need to be there in the first place. So it's not going without a reform of the debt brake.(Habeck makes gestures as if he was saying "I've told you so, thanks for pointing it out to the class")
Jauch
What has been admitted by the four of you, I think you were the most affordable, allegedly-Scholz (SPD)
(talking over Jauch)
The Social Democrats have the most affordable program-
(Multiple people start laughing here, can't make out who exactly)
Jauch: But only during campaigning, yeah?
No! That's how we are! We can handle money-
Jauch: Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah.
(talking over Jauch)
Habeck (Green): May I make a point?
Atalay: Mr. Habeck?
Habeck (Green)
Overall- I don't want to get lost in the details again myself, but...Weidel (AfD): No?
That... That we have a justice problem in Germany, we all admit that. That, currently, the rich profit strongly. We have got 130 billionaires. Billionaires. That is, billionaires, not millionaires. Who have got 28 billion of more wealth last year. Let it be... deigned to some extent, but that was, so to say, a diverging in Germany, so that rich get richer, and in the lower income range there is a problem - we can agree on that, can't we? I am wondering about the turn of phrase in the debate as if we needed to justify ourselves that those who really have a lot of money, have very high wealth, can afford a certain contribution to finance the community.Shouldn't it be precisely the other way around? Shouldn't those here go and justify, the ones who do not want that, why they don't want that? That is a weird debate.
Merz (CDU)
... This debate is really weird.Atalay: Yes.
These two are standing here. Who are responsible for the biggest economic crisis of German post-war history. You two, Mr. Scholz and Mr. Habeck. You two are responsible-Scholz (SPD): I always thought it was Putin.
You two- I will gladly tell you something on that matter.Scholz (SPD): Yeah, tell us.
Atalay: Stay with that point.
(talking over Atalay)Others in the European Union have been even more dependent on gas imports. Like Spain. Like France. Like Greece.
(talking over Merz)
Habeck (Green): [unintelligible] But that is nonsense.
These countries are now out of the recession-(talking over Merz)
Habeck (Green): Nord Stream 2 or 1 did not go to Spain.
(talking over Habeck)These countries are long out of recession-
(talking over Merz)
Scholz (SPD): That is why France is currently increasing-
(talking over Scholz)And you two are saying-
(loudly talking over Merz)
Scholz (SPD): That is why France is currently increasing the taxes for the top earners by 20 billion euros because they can no longer bear with-
(talking over Scholz)
Atalay: Have you made your point?
(talking over Scholz)No.
Scholz (SPD): -what they are paying in subsidies.
(talking over Scholz)I am constantly being interrupted by those two.
(talking over Merz)
Scholz (SPD): And Great Britain [unintelligible]
Atalay: Then Mr. Merz, again-
[unintelligible]Jauch
France did- France, by the way, did that once a few years ago already, and that went very badly for France, they very quickly undid that.Scholz (SPD)
That is why I am not suggesting that, I just wanted to say: We should talk about the facts here for once.(talking over Scholz)
Atalay: Hopefully we're doing that.
The other countries around us have made high sovereign debt to support economic development. In the extent that it happened, I think that is wrong. But we are about to talk about that, what could be moderately possible perhaps. But I think explicitly, one has to say: We have got a situation in which Germany is a country, which was directly affected by the gas deliveries from- from Russia, of which everyone thought we're not going to survive that. And if I may say, nobody had confidence in the administration that I led, that it- that we prevent a huge economic crisis from happening, because factories are closing up and it's going to get cold in the homes. We did it!Atalay
(talking over Scholz)Mr. Scholz, we had that point earlier.
(talking over Atalay)
Scholz (SPD): We did it.
(talking over Scholz)We had that point earlier. Mrs. Weidel-
(talking over Atalay)
Scholz (SPD): Are you coming back to it?
Yes.Scholz (SPD): You always need to expect me to come back to it also-
Jauch: From all of you we expect you to come back to it-
Scholz (SPD): You got it!
Jauch: -you understand.
Mrs. Weidel, debt brake. You indeed have, if you calculate it, very very very very many things that you want to spend on, what you are promising to the people, you won't be able to collect revenue that easily. You really need a reform of the debt brake if you are being honest.Weidel (AfD)
... So, first of all, as a principle, a state must never spend more than it takes in. And that is the debt brake; the state actually mustn't make any debt, because otherwise, parts of the budgets are being spent on interest payments. That is why we are, I am in favor of abiding by the debt brake. The question of financing our tax plans to reduce the burden on families and lower incomes, especially companies and working employees is-Atalay: All employees work.
...Atalay: Sorry. Go on.
Yes, the savings on the spending side. And if you look at our tax, uh, savings, you get to around 120 billion, and on the other side, you can save, namely with climate expenditures and unemployment money [Bürgergeld] for foreign nationals who have never paid in to our social funds, etc.pp., foreign aid payments. Because we follow the principle that the money must be there for the German citizens who pay taxes. And it must not simply get thrown out the window. And if you reduce these expenditures, then you even have more income in the federal budget.(talking over Weidel)
Atalay: With these three things, at least 120 billion.
(talking over Atalay)Of course, yes, but of course; in sum that's 135 billion, 140 billion. That is roughly 30, 35% of the federal budget. I hope that Mr. Habeck knows the numbers too, because he always wants to speak on principle, you must know the numbers, you know that your energy revolution is extremely expensive, and again, I still have yet to hear any solution... from the remaining three of you, on how you want to go down with energy prices; German companies are no longer competitive and are moving abroad or going broke. That is where the problem lies. The deindustrialization in our country is moving full steam ahead, and I am not seeing a single suggestion here on how that is supposed to be stopped. I have just made the suggestions.
Scholz (SPD): Nope.
Yes.Scholz (SPD): Nope.
Very concretely, even.Scholz (SPD): Not a single one.
Yes.Scholz (SPD): Nope.
Very concretely.Scholz (SPD): None at all! ... The viewers have listened, they have heard nothing from you but hot air.
...Jauch: Well, then you can go ahead again.
Habeck (Green): I think, new nuclear power plants-
(talking over Habeck)Really?
Jauch: Yes.
Do I still have speaking time?Jauch: No, you are not supposed to say the same thing again, but instead, uh...
(talking over Habeck)
Atalay: I am recommending this literature again, that's where it says that too.
(talking over Atalay)Yes. Down with energy prices!
Habeck (Green): With new nuclear power plants.
Yes! Right! With new nuclear power plants!Habeck (Green): And they're really cheap. (gestures as if mockingly in support of that)
Baseload-capable energy production-[unintelligible because Atalay, Weidel, and Habeck are talking on top of each other]
Scholz (SPD)
(loudly talking over Weidel)
Going down with energy prices, Mrs. Weidel, means: You want to pay the energy bills of all companies from the tax budget, that is what you are suggesting. We buy gas on the government expense, you suggest. We buy coal on the government expense, you suggest. We buy oil from government expenses, now that is what I call a concept! And then we give that away to the people. Great concept! Brilliantly conceived! Very great!
Weidel (AfD)
Mr. Scholz. Who do you actually want to do campaigning for here? You have your own voters-Scholz (SPD): Not for you, that is quite obvious.
(talking over Scholz)You have betrayed your own voters. You have-
Scholz (SPD): You are dodging again, Mrs. Weidel!
-the responsibility for the largest economic crisis-(loudly talking over Weidel)
You have no concept, I have just said you have spewed hot air, now you are spewing more hot air!
...Atalay: Alright, we're getting to a-
You have the responsibility for that-(talking over Weidel)
Scholz (SPD): You are spewing hot air.
Atalay: We are obviously not getting ahead here-
Yes. Especially it is you who is dodging the issues, in particular, you have been in the government for three years. And you have made politics against the population,Atalay: Mrs. Weidel-
-against the German companies, against the German employees. You are responsible that you still have open borders, an erosion of domestic security. That people are being killed on the streets every day, needs to be admitted very clearly-(talking over Weidel)
Scholz (SPD): We are currently answering the question if you want to buy the coal at government expense and then give it away. That was your suggestion now.
-make it very very clear, we have a very clear political failure here, a political failure that you are responsible for.Atalay
Mrs. Weidel, we are now getting to a round of... fits somehow, doesn't it, Mensch ärgere dich nicht [German board game, literally translated "Man, don't get angry"].Jauch: Yeah, let's try it. How does it work?
I'll start. Mrs. Weidel: What angers you more, that your party friend Mr. Höcke is allowed to be called a fascist or that nobody wants to make a coalition with you?Weidel (AfD): ... Ah, both equally.
Jauch
Mr. Merz, what angers you more, that Olaf Scholz always says you're lying or that even the federal chancellor is more popular with young women than you are?Merz (CDU): Both... don't.
...(Weidel chuckles a bit)
Atalay
Mensch, ärger dich nicht.Weidel (AfD): The chancellor is more popular among young women?
Jauch: Yes.
Weidel (AfD): Really?
Jauch: Yes.
(Weidel laughs)Merz (CDU): I'm hearing that for the first time tonight, but. It's your game.
Weidel (AfD): Not bad.
Jauch: Fact check.
Of course we have looked into that, fact check, it is the case.(talking over Atalay)
Habeck (Green): What- What kind of questions are these?
Mr. Habeck.(talking over Atalay)
Weidel (AfD): That is amazing-
Habeck (Green): I don't want to complain, but I am wondering.
Weidel (AfD): That urgently needs a fact check.
Mr. Habeck, what angers you more, that you as Minister of the Economy were unable to explain in TV what an insolvency is, or that Friedrich Merz called you a mop bear.Habeck (Green): ... ... I'm not angry about mop bear.
Jauch
Mr. Scholz, what angers you more, your Cum-Ex memory loss, or that Elon Musk thinks you are stupid?Scholz (SPD): ... Because I did not have memory loss, but reported what I know, and everybody found out I did everything in order. I find it difficult that Mr. Musk makes such statements about the Federal President and other politicians. But honestly, I am not angered. Conservative and sometimes even very right-wing media entrepreneurs have disliked the SPD even in the 19th century. What is supposed to change about that.
But that the sentence "I don't recall", uh, in the, in... In the Cum-Ex trial came from you somewhat frequently-Scholz (SPD): There was no Cum-Ex trial.
Yeah, so, at the-Scholz (SPD): Yeah yeah yeah yeah, so, there was no-
(talking over Scholz)Then let's take the Cum-Ex investigation committee-
(talking over Jauch)
Scholz (SPD): All of these things have not turned out to be true, but that there was no influencing. And I think, if a few thousand pages are full of text in which that is included, then you can just stop there. Of course you don't have to.
Merz (CDU): But the memory loss, you can't deny that.
[Scholz and Merz are talking over each other]Merz (CDU): And you have said several times that you cannot recall these talks.
Scholz (SPD): I always only say what I remember and I don't make up anything, that tells me apart from the others.
Atalay
We want to look at the time, we have promised to pay attention to it so that everybody mostly gets to speak equally, that looks very good at this point. Olaf Scholz is slightly ahead, but actually everything is relatively within scope regarding the time.
Now we want to look at Germany and the world. Especially if we are looking at the past weekend, somehow there was a disturbance at the world stage, you could say. The US Vice President Vance has essentially explained to Europe, and thus Germany too, that we are supposed to play a smaller, or no role at all in big questions of global politics. He says there is a new sheriff in town. And that is particularly striking in the Ukraine War, and we briefly look at it together.
Video intermission
Female voiceover
For almost three years, Ukraine is defending against the Russian invasion. Now US President Trump apparently is planning a deal with Kreml ruler Putin - ostensibly above the Ukrainians' heads. The Europeans too could be left in the cold in negotiations. Are Americans and Russians soon going to decide alone on the future of the continent?In his visit at the Munich Security Conference, US-Vice J. D. Vance made it clear whom the Trump administration sees as the biggest threat. Not Russia or China - but Europe's democracies, who allegedly suppress freedom of speech. Afterwards, Vance met Friedrich Merz for a personal talk. AfD chairwoman Weidel also got an appointment. Only the ruling chancellor was left empty-handed.
Atalay
Mrs. Weidel, you have met the US Vice President. Trump and his administration, they like you, have you made new friends?Weidel (AfD)
So, first of all I welcome J. D. Vance - the Vice President of the United States - making himself that clear. He has committed to freedom of speech, and he has avowed that one must not construct firewalls in order to exclude millions of voters from the outset, we have to talk to each other, he has made that clear. And he also made clear - just as Donald Trump did - that finally there is an armistice being negotiated in the Ukraine and peace is being made, that is by the way what the AfD has been demanding for three- for almost three years now. We had to bear with getting terribly insulted, but - what is important for the people in this country and the European continent - that finally peace is being made - and Donald Trump is the right one for that. We will see-Atalay: New friends? That was the question. Have you made new friends?
We have Friends in West and East. We have friends with the US-Americans. We are talking to the Russians. We are also talking to the Ukrainians. And also to the-(talking over Weidel)
Atalay: They're friends too?
-and also to the Chinese, because China and the USA, for instance, are the biggest and most important trade partners of Germany, that is why it's very important that we talk to them, and have a very good standing. And Germany would do much better to be a neutral intermediary in the mediation of international conflicts. We want to make peace, we-Jauch: But they don't want us.
-want an armistice in the Ukraine, and thank God Donald Trump is now at the helm who wants the same thing.Atalay
Mr. Habeck, basically, the Americans have intervened in the election here in Germany, very very openly. You have said they should go take care of their own business. Do you think they care?Habeck (Green)
No, but I don't believe either that the Germans care about what the Americans recommend them to vote, I think the people in Germany will have their own picture, make their own decisions, we are not a slave to vote recommendations from dubious vice presidents. That is not what worries me primarily, that is inappropriate, that is a style violation, but it is not about matters of style here, that- what has happened in the past weeks and with the Munich Security Conference is, you can't take it seriously enough. Because the Trump administration is launching a head-on attack against the community of values of the West. It isn't about the election, in attacking, in- in- in intervening in the election, but it is about a breaking of what once came from America to Europe, namely that rule of law, liberal democracies, rule-based orders are the foundation of politics. And that is being called into question, that's why they obviously have no problem making deals with Putin, but everyone else should have a huge problem making deals, because behind this order of values, what the constitution says, what the social market economy says, what Europe has done as an order of peace, is the thought that power cannot be exercised without limits.And what all these people have in common is precisely this desire, "I've got the biggest armies I'll just grab a country", "I'm the richest man, I want to get even richer", "I've got the strongest market, I'll ignore all market order now", that is why the Europeans have to stand together now, Germany, the next federal government, no matter who has it, must be in the service of European strength, so that we stand strong, it is about defending what has been built up in the past 10 years, and I can only hope that America - because they are making a big gamble - Trump would need to win that first, also win economically, understands again that we are stronger when we work together, but we must never throw that in the dust, in the face of these statements, or else we are giving up what makes us strong and what defines us.
Jauch
Mr. Scholz, Germany has supported the Ukraine with a lot of force for almost three years now, and now it looks like Americans and Russians want to decide on the fate of Ukraine now in Saudia-Arabia without the Ukraine and even more, above the Europeans' heads. Did we finally and ultimately end up at the side table of global politics?Scholz (SPD)
No. And first of all, I want to say, the fact that the American president and the Russian president talk to each other is not worthy of criticism. I also spoke to the Russian president, ahead of the war, after the start of the war, again in November.Jauch: But it's been without consequences, right?
It was without consequences because it was all the same old story. In truth, he wants to stick to his plans of more or less conquering the Ukraine, installing a dependent government, that the country has no weapons and-Jauch: What does Trump have to offer that you wouldn't be able to discuss with Putin?
Trump- The American government needs to talk to him, as do we, that is why I did that, and I want to highlight that once, that was correct. It depends on the question of what we are doing there, and that is why I am telling you my principles. Ukraine must be a democratic sovereign nation, there must not be decisions over their heads, we as Europeans will not let that happen, that is why I am also driving to Paris tomorrow and talking to many friends there, where we meet together to discuss precisely that. And we will not let it happen that anyone agrees, for instance, that the Ukraine will be demilitarized, the other way around, it needs a very strong army so it won't get invaded again when a peace agreement is made.Jauch: But what do you mean by "not let it happen" if you are not even being asked.
We are to be asked because it doesn't work at all without us. We have made more support for the Ukraine from Europe than the USA did. Germany has brought forth 44 billion of support, including the costs for the Ukrainian refugees. 28 billions of arms, serviced, agreed, or delivered. And we are still working on holistically supporting Ukraine. Of course we have something to say there.There will be no guarantees of safety that we did not develop and accept for ourselves. And that is why, I believe, it is about making it clear that it would not be accepted if deals are made there above their heads, especially the Ukraine. And, by the way, I am also quite confident that this will happen. Because I have also heard a few statements with my talk with Mr. Trump coming from him, and they are also said by the government there. Namely, that they will not stop support for the Ukraine. Because they also suspect that Putin will make no concessions whatsoever, and I hope they stick with this stance. At least we will support that together.
Jauch
But, Mr. Merz, is a Putin not pretty much even encouraged? I would say, to approach the Baltic states next. Perhaps threaten Poland. And so... perhaps a genuine risk of war is getting ever closer. Also to the German border.Merz (CDU)
That is the opinion of many, including also the German Minister of Defense, Boris Pistorius, who has been saying that with very clear words for longer now. Let us get back to that again soon.But maybe we first have to sort out and figure out where we are in this war. And Mrs. Weidel, what you have just said here is precisely what you have been saying for a long time. And to this day you vehemently refuse to call out the cause of this war. Even if you are being asked repeatedly, you refuse to say that Russia started this war. And that only Russia started this war, and that there has been no reason or even justification whatsoever. You are fidgeting and dodging because you want to play a role here that you don't deserve, and that Germany does not deserve either. This war is an invasive war against international law by Russia - not just against the Ukraine, but against the entire political order that we built up together after 1990. And that is why I take the threads that he has made for a long time... can be read, can be heard, very very seriously. It is not just the Ukraine, it is Greater Russia that he dreams of restoring; these are parts of Poland, parts of the Baltic, and if we give in to him now-
Jauch: Including the earlier Soviet-occupied zone?
At least historically speaking, that is not what he counts as Greater Russia. But we can almost be certain that, once he is on that path, he will not hesitate to keep going over more borders, he is looking at NATO territory. That is what we need to be prepared for. Are we prepared for that?(talking over Merz)
Atalay: That is the question: Are we prepared for that?
And did we make a bit of progress in the past three years? We have- we, also my party, have criminally neglected the German armed forces [Bundeswehr] since 2011. That needs to be and must be caught up on quickly now. But the federal chancellor, in his government statement, three days after the start of the war, promised immediately 2%, investing at least 2% of the gross domestic product for the German armed forces, and setting up a 100 billion euros special fund. The truth is, Mr. Scholz, you reduced the defense budget in the first year after the statement by 300 million euros. You made the demands of your Minister of Defense go into the sand several times. You even ignored his suggestion to reintroduce conscription step by step. Because you don't want that. And with this politics, for which you are responsible in the past three years, in defense policy, in foreign policy, we will not get out of this role that we are in right now. We must get out, we must become strong in Europe. And, if I may say, the fact that these meetings of the past days and weeks happen in Paris, that Emmanuel Macron put on the call to action, and the German federal chancellor is, at best, a guest for a few hours, is not the role that I imagine for Germany in such a confrontation.Atalay
Mr. Scholz, that is a direct attack against you, a part of that-Merz (CDU): A description of the situation.
Yes, but no-Scholz (SPD)
That is not a description of the situation, that is a twisting of the facts. It is the administration led by me which contributed to us spending more on the German armed forces now. When I became Minister of Finance, 2018, that was 37 billion. Now it is 80 billion, and if we add the other NATO expenditures on top, 90 billion. You can do as much math as you like, that is the actual increase in the federal budget-Merz (CDU): The budget is at 52.
The budget is at 52 because we make additional use of the 100 billion to get to the 2%. And that is where we get to the point that Mr. Merz always talks around. Namely the fact that, if we want to continue achieving the 2%, or want to spend even more - we will not be able to achieve that if we don't find a way to finance that. Already in 2028, that will be 30 million, quite precisely from the mathematical draft, which we need in addition. And we will only be able to finance these 30 billion if we decide now to make it possible, by reforming our debt rules, because otherwise we won't have the wiggle room, and even less so if we have to do more. Which is what we have to do, in my opinion, because the NATO is currently dealing with the question: How can the ability goals for the individual states be redefined? And there, I presume there will be more coming, and that's why I'm saying, if we don't want the stronger support, the better financial support of the German armed forces, that the huge increase that is now being implemented and that needs to continue happening, comes at the detriment of rail infrastructure, roads, the detriment of health, pensions, care, of modernization initiatives in our country, then we must do it by taking on additional financial wiggling room-(talking over Scholz)
Atalay: We are at special budget again, debt brake.
No, but we are in the situation that you pool wool over the people's eyes if you don't say that.Atalay
(talking over Scholz)But I want to make one point right now, because many who listen are wondering right now, one thing is the money, the other, Mr. Merz, needs to be prepared, that German soldiers are being sent to Ukraine for peace troops.
Merz (CDU)
Mrs. Atalay, this question is not at all being asked today. A very different question is being asked today.Atalay: Why is that not being asked today?
Well, because this question is not in consideration; the question of whether safety guarantees will be given to Ukraine, and if yes, who takes them, is a question that can be answered at the earliest after a provable permanent armistice-(talking over Merz)
Atalay: The Americans-
Jauch: -are not going to take over that.
Atalay: -are already demanding that.
Mrs. Atalay, the immediate question is a completely different one. Let me say that sentence for once. The question is a completely different one.Tomorrow, the federal chancellor drives to Paris to discuss concretely what needs to be done in these days. Two weeks ago, the federal parliament has passed a resolution, first the budget committee, then the plenary of the German federal parliament, that, of course, an extraordinary expenditure of 3 billion euros for additional Ukraine aid is possible. You are blocking that, Mr. Federal Chancellor, namely you as a person, against the members of your administration, to this day. The Ukraine urgently needs air-defense systems now that need to be replaced. Germany could finance them with an extraordinary expenditure, the budget committee has demanded you make a corresponding request to the parliament, to this day you have not done it, instead you are talking about the debt brake here. The most urgent thing is first to help the Ukraine, so it has a chance to continue defending against this invasive war, and then talk about all other topics, if you-
Scholz (SPD)
(talking over Merz)But I want to say very explicitly, because that is an important question which you just talked about. First of all: I agree with Mr. Merz when he says that the question of what happens after a peace treaty can only be discussed if the Ukraine has settled for itself at what conditions it is ready to do that, or else we would be talking over their heads. Secondly, for me it is clear already: The Ukraine will need to have an army that is very strong. So that they don't get attacked, that will be a group effort, of the Europeans-
(talking over Scholz)
Atalay: That is, with German soldiers.
-the Americans need to finance- No, it is about us making it possible for them to have a strong army. The country is way too small to bring up a defensive force as they do now in the war. And I would like to say to that, at this time we are at a point where I am in favor of the voters knowing that the most important question that is being decided in this general election, in some way, is always being ignored.In the current budget, we are lacking 25 billion euros because we spend 12 to 15 billion for UKraine, and even if all kinds of things are also being spent, what has been planned, then it is precisely these amounts. And if we want to keep supporting the Ukraine, we will only be able to do that by saying that we need special financing for that. If we want to spend 2% of the economic performance on defense, then we need to honestly tell the citizens that it won't fly without a reform of the debt brake, that is way too much for that. And if we say we want to do even more and, for instance, together with our European allies and the USA and other international friends of Ukraine, ensure that they have a strong army, then we need to have the wiggle room for that. And whoever passes over the fact that this question is being decided in the general election is organizing that there is going to be a very big wake-up call afterwards, in which everyone will says "Why did nobody tell us that it's about such dimensions", that is what I am convinced of.
Jauch: But- Is it- Is it serious, uh, basically saying that, if the debt brake won't go, then we deduct your pensions, which is not that easy anyway, because we need to deliver that to Ukraine.
That is very serious to say that, so I can say it very clearly. Gaps in the budget are gaps in the budget and remain gaps in the budget. And if I may highlight that again: The general election - and I actually hope that all democratic parties will have this realization - must enable the decision that we have to do something for our defense and our security in this very trying situation, that we have special financing for that.(talking over Scholz)
Atalay: We have made that point.
Or else it will be at the expense of-(talking over Scholz)
Atalay: We have made that point.
-everyone else in Germany, and that is not okay.Atalay: That point-
Weidel (AfD)
But much more important, much more important is that this election will decide over peace and war. And Mr. Merz has just yesterday demanded to deliver the Taurus missile systems to the Ukraine. The Taurus missile systems - a German weapon system - would be delivered with German soldiers and would make Germany a direct war party, by the way while the US-American president already wants to negotiate and wants to negotiate an armistice, that's what it's about, demanded just yesterday. Accordingly, I can just say: No German soldiers in Ukraine, no more German weapons in Ukraine. Gladly a participation in an international peace corps, you could still discuss that, but we have wasted even this bonus; why? Because we are no longer being perceived as neutral by Russia. An involvement of German soldiers in Ukraine-(talking over Weidel)
Habeck (Green): This is a bugbear debate. I need to intervene. I need to briefly intervene.
[for a time, Atalay, Weidel, and Habeck are talking over each other until it's just Weidel speaking]It is a provocation, in every case, for Russia.
(talking over Weidel)
Habeck (Green): This is a provocation, Mrs. Weidel, what you are doing here. This is a lie what you are telling here.
(talking over Habeck)You have- no, you- you have really messed this up. You have messed up this opportunity. And finally, I can't help but emphasize that again, a US-American president stands there and demands what the AfD has been demanding for three years-
Atalay
(talking over Weidel)Now Mr. Habeck may reply to that. Last word to that, then we-
Habeck (Green)
Just once to clear up, what Mrs. Weidel is insinuating, and that is the polite way to put it, has been said by no one of us. Nobody plans that, nobody wants to: I would even say, everyone is excluding that.Weidel (AfD): Taurus missile system-
What Mrs. Weidel is denying and that is why I actually raised my voice again, that all the efforts that we are discussing here, and the signs are always so... We are talking about arms and armament, it is about restoring peace in Europe and keeping the peace. Everything that is being discussed here, and what are difficult questions, and everybody here will be happy if we just talk about education and economic growth, but we must face the reality as it exists, it's about restoring peace again. That is why I want to point out that, with different stances on weapon systems - there I would be with Mr. Merz. With different stances on financing, there I would be with Mr. Scholz. Here there is a big consensus of the democratic parties in the election - namely that we want to support Ukraine, that Putin is the warmongerer, it's in his hand, that we only preserve peace if we can protect it, and that we need to finance it. Insofar, there is, and that is important to me, because I believe that this discussion, which Mrs. Weidel is having for obvious reasons of course, is scaring people and... the people standing here are those who stand for the democratic center of this country, they stand closer together than the differences at individual weapon systems; to believe, to insinuate, we are always talking about what divides us, I guess that needs to happen during campaigning-(Atalay briefly interrupts, but I don't care anymore)
-but that is important, that the Americans, and the Ukrainians, understand that we, we in the big picture, are all standing side by side-Merz (CDU)
(talking over Atalay)I want to add one point, Mrs. Atalay. Look at the pictures. Mrs. Weidel. And look at the people in Ukraine, you have just said a very telltale sentence here: "We are no longer being perceived as neutral by Russia." No, Mrs. Weidel.
(starts speaking very emphatically)
We are not neutral. We are not standing in between. We are on the side of Ukraine and together with Ukraine we are defending the political order that we have here, and your words which you have just spoken, they are an affirmation for me, that I will do everything in order to prevent you from ever getting your hands on political responsibility in this country. These are the people behind whom we are standing, and nobody else, and we are not neutral.
(talking over Merz)
Weidel (AfD): And we will prevent you from delivering Taurus to make us into a war party. That is precisely what you are planning to do.
We know exactly that this won't happen together, that German soldiers don't need to come to Ukraine with that-Atalay
(interrupting Merz and Weidel)We are making a cut. We are making a cut here, uhm. Actually, in terms of topic, it almost goes in that direction, because you have just spoken about fear, and also uncertainty, it needs to be said, for many people. Because, in total, everyday life has become more difficult, and especially if young people are looking toward the future, it has become harder for them too, there used to be a promise of improvement, it has been said, man, you can somehow afford a car, and you can buy an apartment, you can take holidays, and you're doing well, all of that is for earlier generations, but for young people, this is almost completely unattainable, right, Mr. Habeck? What has changed there?
Habeck (Green)
... The world is currently changing dramatically, and everybody who is afraid of the future... has reasons for those fears. We have just talked about the worst thing that exists, namely war. And, mh, also conscription would be a task especially for young people, that's how it's set up. Regarding the social question, um, the economic situation in Germany has been described earlier. I am particularly looking at the education system. And there, we have to say, we have a real problem. Those who are leaving school without good reading and mathematical abilities are ever growing in number. We are basically back to the level of the PISA shock, it's just nobody talking about it.And I think that, with the measures we have so far, we won't be able to cope, we must start a big offensive there - for building infrastructure - with an investment volume of roughly 50 bil- 55 billion - we are suggesting to support the schools from a fund so that at least the buildings are in some way attractive. Then we still don't have enough teachers, we are about to face a giant gap of 100,000 lacking teachers, and if we don't even manage to prepare the young people for professional life with a reasonable education, then we must not be surprised that this is a social, but also a justice problem in the making. But that is not going to happen, Mr. Jauch, with the political demands and measures that we have made in the past, this reparation project for the schools, refurbishing all schools and daycares in the next 4, 6 years, but especially the increase of teachers will mean effort put in by the federation - which, according to the federal order, is to keep its hands off there, that cannot be sustainable.
Jauch
You spoke about buildings and building structure. I want to move to another problem... which might be even much more easy to grap for many people, for millions, and which often leaves them desperate, that is the search for an apartment. Instead of 400,000 promised new apartments every year, only around half have been built, the tendency is ever dropping, and, Mr. Scholz, even the municipal apartment building company in your electoral district in Potsdam said this week: "New constructions are not going to fly with us, to get to a +/- 0 [breaking even], we would need to demand a net cold rent of 24 euros per square meter [30 dollars per square yard / 271 dollars per square feet], and I am talking about a municipal- a municipal standard, and not some luxury apartments. Rent price brake, rent price control - all of that hasn't worked. What now, Mr. Scholz, regarding apartment construction?Scholz (SPD)
... First of all, we must built as many apartments as I have said from the outset, we are very beaten up by the sudden price hikes from the war, from energy price inflation, that we have subsidized with countless billions, but incredibly many projects were no longer able to be financed. We have the incredibly increasing interest rates, that on the causes. But in that time we didn't stay inactive, but together with the apartment economy, with the companies, with the construction economy, with the companies, with the renter associations, with all states, we aligned on how the laws need to be so that construction can be achieved easier and cheaper. They are also in the German federal parliament, are being decided, would be, if we would only vote in September, but we will get them passed, I am quite confident because they are a broad, almost cross-party consensus on what needs to be done to make that easier. We have - that is a part of it - expanded the means for supported apartment construction to over 20 billion euros to address precisely this topic that you talked about, and that is why I am very happy that, in many states in Germany, now three categories of supported apartments have been established, for which two thirds of normal earners would also profit from, each with corresponding rent levels so that there are affordable rents. Everything combined needs to help, and then we also need to have a change in mentality, I'm saying that explicitly, because we don't live far away from each other. It must be possible that everywhere where housing is needed, construction land is being allotted so that apartments can be built. We can't want to have more housing and then be against construction work happening in the neighborhood.Jauch: So that is basically a scolding for the citizens-
No.Jauch: -that you are doing, whoever says "please don't do it in my neighborhood"?
That is not a scolding for the citizens, this is a moral appeal to every one of us. That we can't be in favor of more housing if we aren't in favor of more housing. That needs to be built somewhere. And I had the calculations done, if we were to built all the housing where it is being desired, then we still wouldn't have the density of the Netherlands, that would still be a country in which there is a lot of green to see.Jauch
Whenever it says "rent price brake" or "rent price control", it sounds like a panacea; in the moment when it came, Berlin has trialed that, the notices plummeted so far, there were hardly any apartments left on the market, in spite of that... it sounds tempting at first, Mr. Merz. Would you be in favor of that being prolonged, or are you saying it doesn't do anything, Mr. Merz?Merz (CDU)
Yes, you have just said it yourself that all of them did nothing in the past years. And the rent price control in Berlin has even been repealed by the Federal Constitutional Court.I think the crucial issue is that we build too expensively in this country. We are too complicated. Have too high demands also for quality. And we don't build serially and we don't build in a more standardized way. I will simply tell you a number, the study has been made 2, 3 weeks ago, has been published. In Austria, the costs for bureaucracy and levies are at 6 or 7 percent, in Germany they are 36. In the German-speaking area, same land, what difference is there? We are simply too expensive. The requirements are, and by the way, Mr. Habeck, you are not exactly innocent here, also regarding all these topics of heat insulation and energy-saving houses. It is too expensive. And if you continue making it so expensive like you did in the recent years, that has little, a bit, but little to do with energy price developments, it has a lot to do with standards, a big lot to do with the restrictions.
The designation of building plots, look here to Berlin. We have got a huge area around the old Tempelhof airport, there had been a citizens' vote and it has been rejected to build on this area. Yes, sure, if the citizens refuse, politics must be ready to also say against the declared will of the neighborhood: We are designating that as building plots now and we will build there.
(talking over Merz)
Atalay: Okay, you can do that, so-
I think we have to-Scholz (SPD): I think we have to, I think, we have to say today, we agree in a point.
In your home city-(talking over Merz)
Scholz (SPD): I want to highlight that.
-Hamburg, if I learned correctly, there is currently also an initiative in which a completely new area is to be developed. We need to build, and for that we need living space. Living-[Scholz and Merz talking over each other a bit]
Honestly, I don't care at all if there is party-political for or against here, the decisive point is that we build, and that we get down with the costs, that we maybe build smaller houses, that we- just look at the standards that have been built on this glorious point in time that you have just described, the way my parents built in the 60s, probably nobody would build today anymore. But we lived in that house with four children, sometimes five children, so we need to reduce the standards a bit.
Atalay: At least an entire house.
At least an entire house, well, it was a small town. In a small town, you can still do that often enough today. In the big metropolitan areas it has been damn hard, I am seeing it in my own family. We need to bring down the standards, build serially, and then it will work better.Atalay
Mrs. Weidel, in this topic block, basically under social matters, we would like to see how a social-Weidel (AfD): I would like to say something on that.
Yes, I can go ahead and ask my question, then you can maybe, maybe it fits. If we focus on the welfare state a bit, what can the people expect under you, I was wondering, for instance, unemployed.Weidel (AfD)
...Atalay: But you can gladly reply on construction.
Gladly, first of all, I would like to make a statement on why we have too few apartments, but also too few houses.Jauch: Let me make a guess - because of migration.
No, in fact I don't want to say that, Mr. Jauch, namely. That we are way too high with construction costs. Relatively to the net income, where I arrive at the main issue - after 16 years of Angela Merkel, 3 years of traffic lights. Germany has the lowest home ownership rate in the euro area, and why? Because the people have too little net of their income, they simply can't afford it any longer.(talking over Weidel)
Atalay: But traditionally-
(talking over Atalay and Weidel)
Merz (CDU): You live in Switzerland, where it's even lower. (chuckles)
-and you don't need to make excuses for yourself, because you, because you are responsible for all of that, how badly our country is doing, and why the people can no longer afford apartments and houses anymore. And that is because of the costs, and that is because of way too high taxes and levies.And one more on insulation laws, that is quite interesting that it was Mr. Merz in particular who brought that up. Heating Act, Building Energy Act, that has precisely been introduced under Angela Merkel in the year 2020, 2021. And is still being enforced by von der Leyen, CDU-von-der-Leyen in the EU. And that is making everything extremely expensive, nobody can afford that anymore.
(talking over Weidel)
Merz (CDU): But in Austria it's just like in Germany, and in Austria-
-Yes, because of von der Leyen, correct, that is your politics, Mr. Merz.Jauch
Since Mr. Merz just said, in Switzerland, where you allegedly live, the homeownership rate is even lower. Many people did not really understand that yet. You have two residences. One in Switzerland, where you live together with your wife and your two sons. And in Germany, in Überlingen at Lake Constance. Where is the main residence of those two?Weidel (AfD)
Steering the debate onto that now, I find that interesting, I am going to answer you that question, thank you very much for that. My wife is Swiss. And accordingly, she is a Swiss national and has her residence in Switzerland. I am registered in Germany, I have my residence here, as does my wife, by the way. As do the children. Here we are paying- Here I am paying my taxes and I am around as a parliamentary and party chairwoman only in Germany, I work here. And I want to do politics for our country, unlike all three others here.(Merz briefly chuckles)
Jauch: But I would like to remain on that issue, that means-
(talking over Jauch)I know, you're allowed to.
Jauch: -you are paying- for all of your income...
I pay taxes in Germany, of course. That is correct.Jauch: For all of your income.
Yes, that is correct.Jauch: And, uh...
Double taxation treaty. That is completely normal.Jauch: That means you're paying-
(talking over Jauch)I am paying my taxes in Germany, that is why I am so happy that you are asking me this question.
Jauch: No, I am not asking- I am not asking if you are paying your taxes, but whether, for all of your income, you pay the taxes exclusively in Germany-
But of course, because I have to. Of course.Jauch: So you pay no tax in Switzerland.
No. (laughs a bit)Jauch: Do you have another citizenship other than the German one, possibly the Swiss one, which you could have?
No, I don't. I have only got the German citizenship because I want to serve this country.Atalay: I would like to return to my question, I have memorized it, unemployed. With you, as far as I can see, they don't have it particularly easy, right?
We want the activating basic security benefits, that means that we will financially support unemployed for additional earnings income, so that we can integrate them much better into the labor market. Unemployment money [Bürgergeld], which is way too high, and being paid out to everybody, in particular to foreign nationals - that is something of which we see that it is way too expensive, and an antiquated concept, and it makes the German social system collapse because too much is being paid out to people who never paid in. And that is not just for unemployment insurance, but also health insurance and pension insurance - nobody can afford that anymore. And accordingly, why don't you ask Mr. Federal Chancellor here - he is still the chancellor - to what extent he believes that the fee increases now for all payers are correlated - that is, are in relation to - the immigration in Germany.(Habeck briefly talks over Weidel, but he stops relatively quickly)
I would like to know that. Do you think it is sustainable for the fee payers to pay to people who never paid into the social system-Scholz (SPD)
(interrupting Weidel)I would love to answer this question, very gladly. If it wasn't for 6 million women and men who pitched in since the turn of the millenium, our pension contributions would still be as high as under [former chancellor] Helmut Kohl, namely above 20%; in fact they are way below that. And many of those who additionally pitched in have come... always from the country, those are women who work more, those are older people, late 50s, early 60s, who are working more than before. That is the better transition from school and job, however all of that still needs to be improved further. In particular, we must ensure that schools and daycares become more reliable, so there is less... hardship for the families who don't know how to reconcile work and family. Big task.
And at the same time, it is also the case that we will also need immigration in the future so that our pension systems, our health insurance, our long-term care insurance, our unemployment insurance have affordable contributions. And I want to tell you in no uncertain terms: If that does not happen, the contributions will go through the roof, namely upwards. Everything has become cheaper than has been predicted at the end of the previous millenium, and that is only because of the many hardworking men and women who, to a large part, joined us from other countries, and that is why you are not just a woman who divides the country with her party, you are also against economic prosperity in Germany - with you, poverty would get into our country.
Weidel (AfD): But they are having a fee increase right now.
Atalay: [unintelligible]
(talking over Atalay)
Weidel (AfD): The fees are constantly going up. I'm asking my question-
(Scholz and Atalay talking over Weidel and each other for a bit)Weidel (AfD): I gladly ask my question-
Scholz (SPD): We can gladly discuss this, this is relevant to many other duties, we can discuss that, we can discuss fee increases, but because you have opened up a false relationship, I wanted to just tell you, mathematics says it's exactly the other way around.Weidel (AfD): I will gladly ask my question again.
Atalay: I am posing- why don't you say what-
(talking over Atalay)
Weidel (AfD): Do you believe that it is socially just?
Atalay: Mrs. Weidel.
Weidel (AfD): That millions of people receive welfare payments, at the cost of payers, who have never paid in. Do you find that socially just? I don't.
That's why I find, it it very great that-Weidel (AfD): Do you find it socially just? Yes or no?
-Germany, since the 19th century, social reform, and what the social democracy made of that, developed a welfare state that mostly works with payers-Atalay
(talking over Scholz)Looking at the clock, now it's the moderator's turn for once. (Scholz is still talking nonstop) Mr. Scholz, please, Mrs. Weidel, please, don't make me get up.
...
(Scholz is still talking, but eventually stops [screw his drivel for now])
May I? I need to look at the clock. Now I do have to get up. Let me look at the clock. Mr. Scholz, that is 22:37 now, you are far ahead. Then Mrs. Weidel, Friedrich Merz, Robert Habeck. I also want to say to that, fact check, stern.de, you can keep looking at that, and it is indeed the fact that there are 2 million views already, so there is a big interest there.
Jauch
And, ahead, we were thinking, is there actually some topic where all four of you, uh, march in unison. And indeed, indeed we found it. There is a topic that makes all for of you dodge around it. All for, and it is the topic of pensions. It might be related to the fact that 40% of the entire electorate is over 60 years old, and then you are not really courageous to touch it, because the pensions are not safe. The current system is going to collapse sooner or later, all experts say that, all "Sages of Economy", in service of the federal government, are warning: It can't keep going like this. How, I am going to ask all four of you, Mr. Habeck - how do you justify this cross-party cowardice to the voter?Habeck (Green)
But that's not what it is, at least for me and for our situation, I can't let that stand. First of all, of course, it is primarily about getting people into work - and maybe, in particular, we start with those who would want to work - those are women. Meanwhile we in Germany have a participation of women in the workforce that is at the European average, but the part-time factor is exorbitantly much higher, namely in the moment when children get born. In Scandinavia, those are frontrunner countries to some extent - the work volume in the moment when children are born decreases by 20 to 30 percent, in Germany by... 70 - by 70 percent, and it is completely implausible to believe that Danes or Swedes somehow have a different chromosome structure. (brief chuckling from Merz) This is surely because we still don't have a reliable assistance system, because back then, there used to be bad parents who brought their daycare- their kids into daycare. That is the first - that would immediately bring almost a million people into work, 870,000 people - women who would then be able to work. Secondly, on financing. In politics, you learn: We have taken over the thought by the FDP, for a long time, I don't deny it, I have refused to do it, for the stabilization of the statutory pension, build up a stock fund that pays into the pension system.Jauch: That is 10 billion, those were peanuts.
And third, re-establish the- you must say- failed Riester retirement plan, that means opening up the same fund that manages this capital to the citizens, so that they are spared from all the fees and levies for insurance and then build up a capital stock that reinvigorates the third column, and gladly also for company pensions, to preempt that, so that the state basically guarantees the affodrability and also the safety of the investment, with that we can deliver what the people rightfully expect, namely stable pensions in old age.Jauch
So, the Sages of the Economy don't believe in that. Mr. Scholz, Franz Müntefering - your man - who basically came up with the pension at 67 years at the SPD - today he is convinced, and he says it, you have to- we have to work until 70, why does nobody say that?Scholz (SPD)
Because it is wrong and because it is not right and I am also firmly convinced that it is the case that, with the retirement age of 67, we have reached the end of the line. If you want to work past that voluntarily, you should be supported by us, we have made very concrete suggestions, also for instance the tax deduction as Mr. Merz also suggests, but for instance also by making it possible to profit from that with your pension. But I want to say very concretely, I do not share this stance, but there is an interesting phenomenon.80% of the citizens are in favor of what I am calling for - namely a stable pension level. I have enforced that one, that expires in Summer, and I want to enforce it again for the next decades. 80% of the experts you quoted have a different opinion. But they aren't the ones who then start working from 17 to 67, but those are the ones who started giving you smart advice from 17 and earlier, and honestly, I can say I've had it up to here.
I am firmly convinced that, if enough people work, we will have stable pensions in the future too - and the fact that the same experts that you are quoting now have said back then that we would be paying way higher contributions, and have not said a single word on why that didn't happen, namely because more people are working, should maybe confront you with the thought that that is also the solution for the future. If as many people as possible work in our country, then it is also our welfare state, our pension system that will be stable. The French are currently outraged that they are supposed to work until 64, we have 67, where do we even live.
Jauch: But the system is only stable in the moment because a quarter of the federal budget basically goes to any-
(talking over Jauch)
Atalay: We want to hear the others too on that, we-
If we decide on a mothers' pension, which we did, Mr. Jauch, then that is not a matter of the contribution payers, but us as taxpayers.(interrupting Scholz)
Jauch: We would need to ask Mr. Söder for that, but he is not here.
And of course it is also correct, Mr. Jauch, if I may make that comment, that someone who earns 500,000 euros contributes to pensions via the tax system. Yes, that's a good thing.Atalay
...We want to briefly get Mrs. Weidel involved, you want to increase that to 70%, is that correct? So, if we look at the pensions again. ... 70 percent?
Weidel (AfD)
So, first of all, basically, basically it is the case that we consider the taxation, the repeated taxation of pension income to be wrong, accordingly, the taxes on pensions need to go - they must be abolished so that the pensioners get significantly more, item 1. Item 2 is, we need to strengthen the additional earning opportunities of pensioners if they want to work longer, again, that- that happens and that can be done and we are going to do it, it is in our program - by the increase of tax-exempt amounts on- on the labor of pensioners. And. Lastly, we need to embiggen the financial base of the statutory levy - that is, the first column - and that happens; that too is in the program of the Alternative for Germany, by all of us - civil servants, politicians - everyone having to pay into the statutory pension system. We must not make special laws for- for politicians and civil servants, but they must pay into the statutory pension fund just as every employee, and accordingly, this entire expensive pension system - which is also completely wrong, why should a politician after four years in federal parliament get just as high of a pension as someone who has worked their entire life?Merz (CDU): That is not the case, Mrs. Weidel.
You can't- you can't explain that to anyone- Obviously you object to that, but it is the case, you can't explain that to anyone, that is deeply unjust - and that is why we all have to pay into the first column.Atalay: Mr. Merz.
Merz (CDU)
Well, first of all, I want to object to the impression that, in this election, we are dodging around this topic, we. We are very openly dealing with it, Mr. Habeck just made his suggestions, Mr. Scholz made his suggestions, Mrs. Weidel, I'm making mine as well - ours.We want to stabilize the pensions. We have to stabilize them, the best requirement for that is a growing economy. And growing incomes of employees, because that is what the amount of pensions is based on. The second requirement is that we - indeed - build up an additional capital-covered retirement plan. What has been attempted with Riester and Rührup has failed, that also has a very plausible, very simple reason. Back then, the legislator was afraid to equip this capital coverage without corresponding insurances. This capital insurance has cost a lot of money, the insurance companies have made money hand over fist. Foolishly, the pensioners were the ones who, at some point, canceled these insurance contracts or suspended them - a third of the contracts are suspended. That needs to be done differently next time, I have told you right at the beginning, we want to start that with 6-year-olds, that they build up a capital-covered retirement plan. The people have to get used to the capital market being able to give them a reliable source, also for building up wealth, and retirement funds. Other countries have done that for a long time now, the Netherlanders, the Swedes, the Danes - all of them are much much further than we are, we- I don't even want to look at America.
Here we are 30 years too late with these topics, by the way, Mr. Habeck, again - good that at least you are recognizing that capital coverage is correct, but just the way Christian Lindner planned it and you once intended do it is wrong. Within pension funds, a capital coverage, and debt-financed capital stocks have no place - no place whatsoever, it does not belong there.
(Habeck briefly wants to say something, but stops quickly)
But the basic gist is correct, that we keep doing it in that direction, and then we are going to manage it. We now have a problem for roughly 20 years. That is the time when the high-birthrate age groups retire - and the low-birthrate agr groups are in the labor mraket. That is why it's also basically correct that we examine the topic under the- under the- under the headline of migration and into the labor market - but please, migration must happen into the labor market, and not into the social system.
Atalay: Mr. Habeck?
Habeck (Green)
We are not that far off each other, but I am just pointing out that many people are here already now, and it was the big lie... probably by the Union. The people who came to us, they now have to remain in the "refugee system", they are here now-Merz (CDU): Nope.
-and then it is better-Merz (CDU): Nope.
-if you do the so-called lane change-Merz (CDU): Nope.
-and then they come over-Merz (CDU): They don't come over.
-and can work here.Merz (CDU): That doesn't work, you see that it doesn't work.
-and now it works and unfortunately it just works 15 years too late, we wouldn't be having many integration problems if the people hadn't been prohibited from being allowed to integrate in this country, by...Jauch
We happen to be in a different show here, but I have the question for you all, analogous to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? - A, B, C, or D. [in case you didn't know or realize, Günther Jauch is famous for being the host of the German edition of that show]What do you think, what percentage of civil servants actually works until the legal age limit. Is that A, Mr. Habeck, 20%, is it B - 40%, C - 60%, or D - 80%. What do you think?
Habeck (Green): I'll guess 60.
60.Merz (CDU): Certainly it's not that. Because, among civil servants, there are many teachers, and they quit earlier. I guess it is 40 at a maximum.
60, 40.Weidel (AfD): 40.
40.Scholz (SPD): 20.
20. Well, you would be one round farther, Mr. Scholz.
Scholz (SPD): That was my plan.
Yes, but honestly, this entire thing is not very glorious, because if this government example were to be a widely known fact in the free economy, then the German economic miracle is absolutely and finally a matter of history.Weidel (AfD): Confirms my thesis, everybody has to pay in.
That is the case, the state gives a very bad example with its, with its employees, and those are- those are- it's not a classic roofer who is working in public service.Scholz (SPD): But you don't need to convince me, I like working a long time and I find a lot of others who would like to do that.
Atalay
We want to look at another matter. And for that-Jauch: Mr. Scholz.
I know, it would have kept going here otherwise, that can happen after the show, we have now talked a lot about issues, about ideas that you have, and now we want to look at who could govern with whom, who could not govern with others.
We know the voters decide that, we know that, and still, at the end there will be no way around talks, we want to look at current numbers for now, for this show we asked Forsa, there is 30% for the Union at the moment, the AfD is at 20, SPD 16, Green 13, Left 7, FDP 5, BSW 4. So here, so to say, is the new situation, that at least FDP and Left, that is, the smaller parties, genuinely caught up. Mr. Merz, so, with a look at these numbers... theoretically, you have good chances of leading the next government, the question is, with whom. Mr. Söder very passionately excludes the Greens. Even if the FDP will manage to get into the federal parliament, that won't be sufficient for a coalition, cooperation with the AfD is excluded by you, so the only ones who are left are SPD, correct?
Merz (CDU)
Mrs. Atalay, indeed we exclude cooperation with the AfD, and I think the show tonight has also shown in no uncertain terms why. Everything else is decided by the voters in Germany, that must be mathematically possible, I want to strategically achieve that we have at least two options and only need one, but the decision is with the voters in Germany, not with you, not with me.Atalay: What are the two good options?
That would be, in this case, as it says there, possibly the Social Democrats, possibly the Greens. I have large doubts for the FDP. Again, I definitely exclude the AfD-Atalay: So you don't exclude the Greens.
Again, that is decided by the voters, what options they give us.Weidel (AfD)
You've heard it, all of the campaign promises by the CDU are impossible to implement together with the Greens or with SPD or with both. Mr. Merz can not explain how he wants to implement the demands, which he mostly copied from us. That is the firewall policy that you have introduced. And accordingly, you are cementing yourself in left-wing politics, and that is also a part of the truth.Atalay: Mr. Merz, do you want to reply-
Merz (CDU)
Again, I- we want to try to really get this country back ahead, and I am quite sure that, after the election, after next Sunday, reasonable talks will be possible, I believe that the Social Democrats have understood that they can't keep going like this, I believe that the Greens have understood that they can't keep going like this, and we have a plan for this country. And this country needs to move ahead, we need to loosen the brakes, we need to open the windows, we must make sure that the economy gets ahead again and that is going to be possible. I am firmly convinced, and, Mrs. Weidel, you don't need to hold lectures, what you have said tonight, also on economic policy, on tax policy, on social policy, that is not our program, we don't want that, and we are not going to do that with you.Weidel (AfD): So therefore rather with Mr. Habeck as Minister of the Economy, that is precisely-
I didn't say that.(talking over Merz)
Weidel (AfD): -that is precisely what you have said.
Atalay: That would be a-
Administration posts, you know, and very very honestly, Mrs. Weidel, even if-Weidel (AfD): Relax.
-it's not going to come this far, but I will not sit down together in a room with Mr. Höcke. You want to make him a minister. Have a good trip. Not with us.Weidel (AfD): But with Minister of the Economy Habeck. Go say it.
...Atalay: That is a question, if I listen, I've been closely listening to this campaigning season, it is said, with these Greens it would not be an option - with these Greens.
Mrs. Atalay, again, we are not doing coalition campaigning, and I will not do that tonight here with you either.Atalay: Then I'm going to ask Mr. Habeck, would you, for the good of the country, in the sense of the Greens, then somehow say, okay, if it won't fly with these Greens, that is, with me, then do it without me?
Habeck (Green)
... What kind of weird question is that.Atalay: Why is it weird?
Jauch: Why is it weird?
Weidel (AfD): It's absolutely appropriate.
Tonight we have seen at least in two areas that this country has a clear alternative. Namely, first of all, in the social politics area, a politics giving more opportunities, more riches, to those who don't need it, to repeat it again. Or gives support to those who need the- the support. Secondly - regarding the stance, how pro-European does a government work. Third - and that has not been a topic here - of course that's also your call - what is our stance on fulfilling the climate protection goals and are we willing to work for that. And there really are dramatic differences, a real choice of direction, for everything regarding the future, many are facing a glut because the finance questions are not being answered unambiguously, at least we slightly touched the subject today.Jauch: But the question was a different one now.
(talking over Jauch)Insofar, these debates- these debates are first a choice of direction for the people in Germany, therefore. Yes, the parties also decide about the personnel. Nothing more can be said on that.
Jauch: That is correct, but for instance, when the CSU [the Bavaria-only CDU] says that you are the decisive problem bear, what is important to you? That you are part of the next administration or that the Greens are part of the next-
(talking over Jauch)Mr. Jauch, with all due love, don't transfer the problem of the Union to me or the Greens. The problem Markus Söder is had exclusively by Mr. Merz. And after Markus Söder has destroyed the election campaign of Armin Laschet [CDU chancellor candidate in the previous general election], I hope that Mr. Merz and the other people in the Union know precisely this time who they have got sitting in Bavaria, but please don't turn this into my problem.
Jauch: Could it be that he is not completely wrong with that, Mr. Merz?
Merz (CDU)
He is wrong, Markus Söder and I agree in the substance, that we will not, under any circumstances, continue this economic policy of this federal government.Jauch: Well, he's basically dictating to you that you are not allowed to partner up with the Greens, and then you are basically a prisoner, uh, prisoner of the SPD, because you would have to make a coalition with them.
Nice games, but Mr. Söder does not dictate anything to me. Markus Söder and I are in complete agreement regarding the questions of substance. And this economic policy will not be continued. Period.Weidel (AfD): Mhm.
Mr. JauchWeidel (AfD): With the Greens.
Habeck (Green)
Usually by that he means - if I may use up a bit more time on that - that we are no longer supposed to support the future industries of this country - namely batteries and semiconductors. That is always the accusations that I'm hearing. But these are the future-(talking over Habeck)
Merz (CDU): We know better.
-topic, well-Merz (CDU): We know better.
[Habeck is getting increasingly upset and emotional here, at least relatively for him]-I'll use the time that I still have to point out that then they [these industries] won't be happening here. And it is the programs introduced by the great coalition [CDU+SPD] of Angela Merkel and Peter Altmeier and the Minister of Finance at the time, Scholz, that we have continued. Insofar, all of what is being said there is not right, you don't get these future industries in Europe that are being subsidized much higher in other countries. Semiconductors, we have them everywhere now, and for the people who are watching, in your television, in your remote, in your phone, in the cars, and so on, where do they come from? From Taiwan and South Korea - most of them at least. What is next to Taiwan? China. Can we in the global situation be certain that China isn't planning anything with Taiwan? What is next to South Korea? North Korea. And then the Union seriously says we in Europe, in Germany, shall not have this future technology?
Merz (CDU): Who says that?
Not support them?Merz (CDU): Mr. Habeck.
This is the criticism-Merz (CDU): (exasperated) Mr. Habeck.
-of "the economic policy" that is not being continued-Merz (CDU): (exasperated) No... No... No...
-and then that's not happening! And then we get to what the Union offers, agricultural diesel-[Merz and Habeck keep talking over each other as Habeck gets increasingly upset]
-that is precisely about this, that we put on big programs for batteries-
Merz (CDU): Crashed into a wall!
-the value creation, automobiles, the automobiles of the future, yes, that is where value creation is, and all of that currently comes from China, and then the Union says "yes, that is so hard, something could go wrong, so we'll not do it" - that is what prevents a future in Germany, that's why one should not just repeat what has been written into the program in 1990, also see what is currently happening in the world!Jauch
... Mrs. Weidel?Weidel (AfD)
... ... What is it?
(Merz cracks up)
Jauch: [unintelligible]
(talking over Jauch)
Atalay: Haven't you been listening?
Yes, I have. Yeah, well. Okay, yeah, I did, but I mean, heh! Here it is becoming completely clear who Mr. Merz wants to build a coalition with, namely with Green and Red, and he will not be able to implement his policies like that. The voters will vote for the original, for the Alternative for Germany. For a real political change in this country. There is absolutely nothing more that can be said on the state of tonight. This here has been an admission of failure, and most importantly, you are dancing around the subject, Mr. Merz, around the coalition question, just go and say it, Mr. Habeck shall become Minister of the Economy, who ruined our country. Who is deindustrializing it. And then up there you have the SPD standing, and you can only go in with a three-party coalition, because all of you- all the ones there are being punished by the voters, completely rightfully. Because they are ruining this country. And accordingly, go say it. You will never be able to implement it, you know that, you are just deceiving your own voters.(now Habeck and Jauch are talking over each other)
Jauch
(not gonna bother with the drivel of the two, eventually Habeck dies down)-this is basically almost the last question. Many people are worried that, when the democratic center, that is, Union, SPD, and Greens. If they, no matter in what coalition, will not solve the problems of this country in the next term, that then, possibly, the next [female] federal chancellor is standing to the left of you right now.
Are you seeing that, with the political recipes and also rituals of the past and the party-political trench fights - also in the democratic center - that you are not able to survive the next four years?
Merz (CDU)
Mr. Jauch, I too object to your phrasing "political trench fights", we are currently having a democratic-Jauch: Party-political trench fights.
-Yes, also party-political, currently we are doing a tough election campaigning of the political parties in this country and competing for the right concepts for the future. However, I share your sentiment, if the next federal government will turn out again to be incapable in solving the big problems of our country - and I am naming migration and the economy here on the top 2 positions-Jauch: Briefly.
-then not only are we not going to not solve the problems in our country, then we are going to contribute to right-wing and left-wing populism, and I want to prevent that, I want us to succeed in solving problems from the wide political center of our country, and that is what we stand for and what I also very personally stand for.Atalay
... I know, there is still a lot to talk about, but we are together here in this studio for 120 minutes now, and in principle, now you have another chance to say something, because there is a conclusion round in which everyone gets to speak.Jauch
Yes, we have drawn lots for that, every one of you has 60 seconds, and starting off will be the federal chancellor.[they display a countdown, but I'll take the liberty of timing them myself]
Scholz (SPD)
Ladies and gentlemen, on February 23rd, you can decide how the next government is going to be led. I believe the show has shown, it's for the best to have SPD and the current federal chancellor who gets another round. It is about... peace and war, it is about the security of Europe. We can only guarantee that by taking care that we have enough financial means and get those without cutting pensions, health, care, streets, and infrastructure. We must bring forth a Made in Germany bonus to promote investments in Germany. And we must, in every case, ensure that the country sticks together with a better minimum wage, with tax decreases for the large bulk of the population, and with a more just tax system that takes more from those who earn a very big amount and, like I said and I said very clearly, a stable pension level that will only exist with the SPD.[49 seconds]
Jauch: Mrs. Weidel.
Weidel (AfD)
We want to make Germany prosperous and safe again. We will stop illegal migration, by securing our borders. And with the resolute deportation of illegals and criminals. The CDU has prevented that for years, by the way. We are the country with the highest energy prices in the world, we will change that too. By openness to technology, that means baseload-capable nuclear power, coal, gas, also renewable energies, but without huge subsidies to the detriment of our country and to the detriment of the taxpayer; we are going to repeal the EEG. We are the country with the highest taxes and levies, almost worldwide. We need to reduce the taxes for employees and for companies and we will abolish the carbon tax. Pluck up your courage, vote AfD for a real political change.[57 seconds]
Atalay: That was the concluding statement by Alice Weidel fo the AfD, and we are moving on to the Greens and thus to Robert Habeck.
(already while she is talking, Habeck is moving away from his desk)
Habeck (Green)
Election campaigns run with the same pattern, with the ritual. The government usually finds everything that they did good and right, and the opposition finds it bad and completely wrong. That is also a bit how this debate went. But after the election, after February 23rd, we will have to get out of the rituals. The situation is too serious for that. The pressure that is on Germany and on Europe is too high. Dear ladies and gentlemen, I am 55 years old. I have lived my life in a country in which eternal peace and prosperity seemed to be guaranteed. This guarantee has become fragile. We need to work together politically after the election. We must take care that we solve the problems. I am canvassing so that I can continue working in the service of Germany, so that my children and your children, and maybe my grandchildren, and your grandchildren have the same opportunities that we have had in the past. That is why I am asking you to give your vote to the Greens on Sunday.[1 minute, 4 seconds]
Atalay: That was Robert Habeck from the Greens and now Friedrich Merz from the Union.
(as Habeck moves back, Merz also walks a tiny bit past his desk)
Merz (CDU)
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, tonight you have watched an exciting discussion, a necessary discussion about the political topics of our country. We are conducting a tough and committed election campaign, but there is not just February 23rd, there is also February 24th, and then we really have to solve the problems of our country. Among these problems is the unorderly migration, among these problems is also the economic weakness of our country in the past three years. Fallen into a recession. We don't need that, we can do better; we have a really good program for Germany. I want to lead a government that stops squabbling. Lead a government that is committed in Europe again. Which ensures that Germany's voice will be heard again in Europe. And that only works when we are economically strong here. When young companies have a future again. When we do better education policy, when we take care that our country genuinely has a better mood again. That is what I stand for and what I am putting all of my effort into.And one word to conclude. Certainly. Not. With. The AfD. If you want a change, then that will only fly with the Union.
[1 minute, 6 seconds]
Atalay
And that was the final word by Friedrich Merz, thank you very much to all four of you, we briefly want to take another look at the time, or rather, the speaking times.
We did not manage 100 percent, we ask you to go easy, what is a bit tougher with four, Olaf Scholz had a bit more speaking time, but by really little, these are few minutes here, that is completely okay, so, they are more or less, I would say, as federal chancellor it's okay now, so, thank you very much.
Jauch: Mrs. Weidel again got the short end of the stick, by one second.
But by little.Jauch
Compared to Mr. Habeck. Yes, we too know that we can't be absolutely thorough. Education certainly got a bit neglected. Care got a bit neglected. Energy, climate, Mr. Habeck is right there, but it is a live show, there were four representatives of the political parties and not just two. Then it all gets its own dynamics.[and this is where they start talking about what comes next on RTL, so this is where I cut it off]
Last edited:
so yeah attention span pretty much zero
