This weekend, the Junge Union (JU), the youth organization of the CDU and CSU, is inviting you to Germany Day. Israel’s Ambassador Prosor is also coming to the meeting in Braunschweig. At ntv.de, JU boss Winkel says what he wants to give guests like Friedrich Merz, Markus Söder, Carsten Linnemann and Ursula von der Leyen: A clear stance on migration.
ntv.de: Mr. Winkel, this Friday the Junge Union is meeting for Germany Day. A meeting like this should always spread a good mood among your own people. How do you manage this in times of war in Israel and Ukraine?
Johannes Winkel: That is actually a difficult task. We are pleased that the Israeli ambassador Ron Prosor is coming to us and that we can send a clear signal that Germany’s largest political youth organization is firmly on Israel’s side. The mood will certainly be more serious than usual, even on Friday evening, when things are usually a little more lively.
How did you perceive the terrible terrorist attacks on Israel and how do you feel about Israel’s reaction to them?
Like everyone else, I was deeply shocked. Not least because many young people were murdered while celebrating life at a festival. Just like many of our members did this summer. Completely uninvolved people were simply massacred. This is what Hamas is doing. When Israel takes military action, they issue a warning to all civilians beforehand. That actually says everything about the respective understanding of politics and the military. Israel has every right in the world and a duty to its citizens to defend itself. Basically it is like this: If Hamas lays down its arms, then there will be peace in Israel. If Israel lays down its arms, Israel will no longer exist.
Have you ever been there?
Not yet, no. We actually wanted to travel to Israel in four weeks with the federal executive board of the Junge Union and have a lot of political discussions. Whether this is still possible remains to be seen.
Top-class guests are coming to Germany Day: Friedrich Merz, Markus Söder, Ursula von der Leyen and Carsten Linnemann. What do you want to give them?
First of all, these guests underline the importance of the Junge Union. Everyone we asked said yes. I am particularly pleased that Svetlana Tichanowskaja is also coming. On the one hand, our message is solidarity with Israel. The other message is: to take a clear stance against the traffic lights when it comes to important issues.
Then we’ll talk about it. There has been some movement in migration policy. The EU wants to set up camps at the external borders where asylum decisions are made, there should be border controls with Switzerland and deportations should be made easier. Is that enough?
No. The EU crisis regulation may make a difference in three years. And even against that, the traffic lights are blocked.
However, the crisis regulation is only part of the fundamental agreement to decide on asylum at the external borders.
This is the right way. But the traffic lights blocked this path for so long that the Chancellor had to say: Dear Ms. Baerbock, I will now decide without you. European measures are right, but we should also take national measures.
What do you imagine?
The focus should be on social benefits. First of all, this is a pull factor, an incentive to come to Germany. At the same time, the heads of government of the countries of origin have no incentive to conclude a repatriation agreement. Because they know that a significant part of the social benefit is transferred home on the first day of the month.
Then their basic assumption is that people are not being persecuted at all, but are economic refugees.
That is largely the reality.
But the most important countries of origin are Syria and Afghanistan. There is still war in Syria, albeit on a smaller scale than before, and in Afghanistan anyone who does not follow the Taliban line has to fear for their lives.
In Syria we certainly have a differentiated security situation. We also have a lot of people in Germany who pretend to be from Afghanistan. But they no longer have passports to prove this. We have no control over this. At the end of the day we need to reduce the pull factors. The countries that were on a similar course to us in 2015, Austria, the Scandinavian countries, did exactly that. The combination of open borders and an open welfare state is not compatible in the long term.
You have shown sympathy for the Danish model. There were also plans to send asylum seekers to Rwanda. Is this a goal for you, regardless of feasibility?
No. But we should think about specifically defining refugee quotas ourselves, as Thorsten Frei (the Union’s parliamentary managing director, editor’s note) suggested. Instead of an unlimited promise of individual asylum and a procedural review in Germany, we should be honest and admit that we cannot keep this.
Why not?
Because there are simply too many refugees in the world. We can’t accommodate them all. Our society has only a limited capacity to absorb. That is a fact. I realize this is a difficult debate. But there’s one thing you shouldn’t do: immediately cancel all suggestions for limits as inhumane. Because the truth is, our current system is inhumane.
In what way?
The race we have set in motion can only be won by the strongest. The weakest are left behind. That’s the reality.
But where do you draw the line? Even if they had said that we would accept a million Ukrainians as a contingent, what about those who come after?
Then you can make a new decision and expand the quota. It is important to break the automatism: Anyone who sets foot on European soil receives asylum benefits in Germany. That is the de facto situation. This cannot be a long-term concept.
They also advocate reception programs to bring in those who are supposedly in need of protection. But where will the political momentum come from once the doors are closed? Isn’t that just a fig leaf to avoid looking like an inhuman?
No. In any case, I would be for it. Again: the current system is inhumane. Now the weakest are left out. We should change that.
Social benefits are the German subsistence minimum, so not much can be reduced.
If the Constitutional Court declares a law to be unconstitutional, that must be accepted. But that does not prevent the legislature from finding new answers to new situations.
Can migration explain the rise of the AfD?
It’s not the only reason, but of course it’s the decisive one. I’m very worried. If, on top of a difficult social mood, there is a serious economic crisis, I won’t be surprised by the survey results. We have to find solutions so that those who have no humanitarian claim at all in politics do not end up in power.
You have been chairman of the Junge Union for a good year now and have experienced a lot during that time. What do you particularly remember?
The first thing that comes to mind is my trip to Ukraine. In the spring I was in Bucha, Irpin and Kiev and spoke to many young people there. They fight with their lives for democracy and freedom. This puts our problems in Germany very much into perspective. These people impressed me immensely and also gave me courage in these difficult times.
Volker Petersen spoke to Johannes Winkel