The traffic light coalition was caught off guard by the farmers’ protest – it wants to remain tough on agricultural diesel, but is trying to accommodate farmers in other areas. FDP parliamentary group leader Dürr explains in an interview with ntv.de how this could work. He also defends the new citizenship law that is to be passed today.
ntv.de: The farmers in Berlin have just sent a clear signal of protest. As a politician from Lower Saxony, you probably know their problems. Did you ask yourself when you saw the tractors in Berlin on Monday: If only Messrs. Scholz, Habeck and Lindner had asked me?
Christian Dürr: No. At a time when you have to get the government’s finances back in order, it’s always difficult when you consolidate. Not everything is predictable. At the same time, I understand the farmers. For two decades they have been complaining about too much bureaucracy, government intervention and financial burdens. That’s why it’s right that we talk to them now about where we can provide relief.
The farmers still expect that the diesel subsidy will remain and that agricultural diesel will not become more expensive for them. Does hope have a chance of being fulfilled?
In the end it comes down to two things. First: Are we reversing bureaucracy? There has been a lot of lip service paid to this in recent years, but now there is movement on the issue in the coalition. Secondly: Do we also create relief? The Federal Minister of Finance made a proposal at the large farmers’ demonstration on Monday: namely to provide tax relief for farmers. I think this is always wiser than talking about payments from the federal budget. It is better to reduce taxes from the start than to refund money.
Is that coming now? Or is that just the position of the FDP?
The question of tax relief is a point that we are talking about in the coalition. This was also part of our motion for a resolution on Thursday in the Bundestag.
Does that mean what Lindner said on Monday was agreed upon at the traffic lights?
It was his suggestion. It’s about how to manage farmers to be treated fairly for tax purposes. And we agreed to meet at the traffic lights to talk about exactly that.
Do you expect the farmers to end their protest?
It is important that we talk to each other. There was an initial discussion and further discussions will follow. The farmers have made one thing clear again and again: agricultural diesel was the reason, but not the actual cause, for their protest. Take the example of land set aside.
The EU obliges farmers to set aside four percent of their land to benefit the environment and compensates them for this.
Last year we did without it once. But we also have to question this overall at the European level. We are specifically depriving agriculture of income opportunities. And with it, Europe and Germany have the opportunity to produce food for the world. We have very advantageous locations, especially in Germany. We live in a region of the world where it makes sense to farm. You have to say that again and again. That is why politics must not push agriculture into a museum corner. That would be wrong.
But it’s not just the farmers organized in associations who say: There will only be talks if both controversial measures, i.e. vehicle tax for agricultural vehicles and the end of diesel subsidies, are withdrawn.
We already had a first conversation. It is part of politics to correct itself. We did that. We have withdrawn the vehicle tax collection for agricultural vehicles. This was also absolutely correct for bureaucratic reasons. When it comes to agricultural diesel, there is a meltdown mechanism that extends over three years. That’s why we have to talk about tax relief for farmers now.
After the meeting with the farmers’ associations, they said: There were enough commissions, now things have to be implemented. Isn’t that more important now than more dialogue?
That was the reason to say that we want to write down in summary what points are at stake and then talk about implementation, of course. But the implementation also has to be good. Just because you know the headings doesn’t mean you already have a perfect concept.
Would the animal welfare tax be in your interest?
Please forgive me if I don’t want to talk about individual measures. But it is clear that farmers must have fair framework conditions and planning security for the prices that are achieved on the market for greater animal welfare. The focus is also on the food retail sector, which agrees on prices with producers. We all have to sit down at the table together.
Some of the posters at the demonstration read: First give away billions abroad and then save money from farmers. This could also be understood as criticism of aid to Ukraine. But wouldn’t Germany have to do more now, for example deliver the Taurus cruise missile?
I think that would be a useful support. I would be happy if the coalition reached agreement on this issue. At the same time, what we are doing for Ukraine is already outstanding within the Western family. Helping Ukraine is also in our own security policy interests. Failure to do so would mean taking a gigantic foreign policy risk.
The new citizenship law is to be introduced in the Bundestag this Friday. That’s not particularly popular either. After just three years, the German passport beckons. Is that wise in times when the AfD is over 20 percent?
Citizenship law in Germany urgently needs to be changed. So far it has been the case that people who do not live from their own hands can become German citizens. That makes a lot of people mad and I can understand that. For the first time in our country’s history, we are linking nationality law directly to the question of livelihood. That is central for me.
Why?
Germany is a cosmopolitan country. But it was rightly complained that in the past people did not migrate into the labor market, but into the social security systems. That has to change and we are doing a lot to achieve that, including with the repatriation package that was decided on Thursday. But one thing is also clear: we are open to people who want to come here and have a go.
But do you expect that the new citizenship law will slow down immigration into the social security systems? Legal immigration visas are usually tied to jobs anyway. Asylum seekers in particular receive social benefits.
That’s exactly the point, and we’re changing that. With the Skilled Immigration Act, we have introduced a points system based on the Canadian model and are now finally behaving like an immigration country that is focused on the labor market. I will say it very clearly: what the Union-led federal governments have done in migration policy in recent years has been a catastrophe. We urgently need to change that.
Nevertheless, it could be grist for the AfD’s mill.
I think a lot has gone wrong in migration policy in recent years. You have to tell people clearly: We’re doing things differently now. We ensure that those who have no chance of staying here are repatriated. We make sure that those who come here get into the job market. I believe there is broad support among the German population for such a migration policy.
What role does citizenship law play in this?
That’s the other side. We promote exactly what we want from immigrants: You can become a German if you learn the language, integrate yourself and have a job. So exactly what we want from immigrants. What is also new is that people who are seen as anti-Semitic no longer have a chance of becoming German citizens. Continuing to allow anti-Semites to become German citizens, to continue to allow people without jobs to become German citizens, that cannot seriously be an option. That’s why I expect the Union to agree to this law.
Germany experienced a recession last year. The Growth Opportunities Act is still stuck in the Bundesrat – probably because the Berlin CDU, for example, is against it. The capital could lose 200 million euros in revenue. Why were such concerns not addressed in advance?
The aim of the Growth Opportunities Act is for us to have more growth. This increases tax revenue and the state of Berlin also benefits from this. To oppose this now is parochial political narrow-mindedness. The fact that individual CDU politicians are now retreating into their mouse hole is absurd. This law, which all business associations say is exactly right, must now be released from the Federal Council’s captivity. We have to do two things in Germany. We have to get migration under control and restart the growth engine in the economy. That’s what we’re doing with this law. That’s why I would like more support from the Union.
In the RTL/ntv trend barometer, the FDP is currently at four percent and the traffic light is still without a majority. Is there anything else that makes you optimistic?
The alternative would be not to reform the country, even though everyone knows that it has to be done. For example, when we clean up the household, we also have to explain why we are doing it. Unstable households in the world’s third largest economy are extremely dangerous. In GroKo times, solid finances didn’t matter; money was thrown away on all sorts of things. Of course, reversing this also leads to conflicts. If you want to get people more interested in politics again, you have to say why you are doing something and what successes will be achieved.
The Federal Constitutional Court’s ruling didn’t exactly help.
The Federal Constitutional Court has once again confirmed the debt brake. I welcome that. At the same time, this means that the state must exercise moderation. The fact that we are restructuring the state finances is already bearing fruit. The debt ratio in Germany is falling. From almost 70 percent at the time of the grand coalition to less than 65 percent. We’re working our way out of this.
Then the mood in the country is worse than the situation?
The situation is challenging. At the same time, the country has every opportunity. But we also have to use them.
Hubertus Volmer and Volker Petersen spoke to Christian Dürr