13:40
Alice Weidel, thank you for joining me on The Insider. Thank you for inviting me. So, the party you lead, Alternative for Germany, is on the rise. You came first in two recent state elections: in Saxony- Anhalt and Mecklenburg- Vorpommern. You are the largest opposition group in the Bundestag. And you are consistently at the very top of the national polls. And I believe that your success, your rise, reflects the deep disappointment of many Germans with the status quo. And you are very good at expressing this disappointment. But I think people have less of an idea of what exactly the AfD will do and what it won't do. This is what I would like to focus our conversation on today, to help me and our viewers understand exactly what kind of
Germany you want to build. So I would like to start with economics. You are an economist. Imagine the German economy as a car. Does it only need minor repairs? Or is a completely new economic model perhaps needed? How big a challenge does the German economy face In fact, to follow your metaphor, the entire car needs to be restructured and rebuilt, because its parts are also broken. And I will explain to you why this is the case in Germany. I believe that Germany, if you just look at the data, the economic data, is in a deep crisis. And this crisis is multifaceted. Firstly, one of the main reasons is the destruction of our energy infrastructure by the so- called Energiewende (energy transition). So, Energiewende is an energy
transition policy that was self-initiated; It was introduced by the Merkel government and has been continued by subsequent governments until now. And this energy policy involves the destruction of our infrastructure, for example, the destruction of our nuclear power plants. You have to imagine that in the past, Germany had 19 nuclear power plants- the most modern. They were just turned off, and some were blown up so that they were effectively destroyed, you know? And now there are zero nuclear power plants in Germany. That's why I think Germany has the stupidest energy policy in the world. And it continues. We are making an energy transition by basing our energy supply exclusively on wind and solar energy. So when the wind doesn't blow and
the sun doesn't shine, we have what's called a "Dunkelflaute" (a period of windless and sunless weather). I don't know how it would be in English. This is similar to a situation where you have no electricity supply. In essence, we are becoming dependent on our neighbors, importing energy at incredibly high prices. And all this leads to a situation in which energy costs for our companies, for German companies, and for Germans, are too high. They are the tallest in the world. So, we are no longer competitive in the global market. And we are now faced with a rapid increase in the level of bankruptcies of German companies. They either go bankrupt or go abroad. And this, in fact, is the situation here. And I haven't even mentioned the heavy bureaucratic burden
on companies and. So it's interesting that you mentioned both of those points, because I think you have very valid points on both of them. Germany does have incredibly high energy costs. I think, looking back, many in the government would agree that closing the nuclear reactors made no sense. And your program last year made it clear that you want to cut red tape-both of these policies are pro- growth and smart. But your program last year also said that Germany should leave the euro. This is a policy that makes me scratch the back of my head, as most economists would agree that Germany's exit from the eurozone would be disastrous for its growth. In
recent days, there have been reports that your party may be reconsidering its policy on the euro. So I wonder if you could be clear: should Germany leave the euro? Thank you very much for the question and for the opportunity to clarify something. There is this misconception that stems from the way our party is presented, that we want to leave the EU and abandon the euro. This is not true. Our program states that we want to reform the European Union first and foremost. We believe that the European Union should be a community of sovereign states with a free trade area. This is what we started with.
What we don't want is a bureaucratic EU commission with a bunch of bureaucrats, like in the Soviet Union, as something that interferes in your private life, in the affairs of companies, telling them what to produce, having not just, I would say, laws, but also bureaucracy, and also telling consumers what to buy or what to install. We believe this is very harmful to a free economy and a free market system. We also see a democratic deficit, such as with the system of checks and balances. So we all know from political philosophy that we need a system of checks and balances both horizontally and vertically. So, decisions should be made at the lowest level, because there you can have control, you can do everything better, because you have the knowledge to make decisions,
not a planned economy, like a commission that is not elected, and people have no idea about the free market system. You are watching an interview from The Economist. To get early access to our upcoming interviews and view others from our archive, subscribe to The Economist by clicking the link above. Now let's get back to the interview. Is your goal to reform the European Union, to reform the commission, to reform the entire structure from within, or is your goal to threaten to leave or to withdraw from it? Well, I think Cameron did it. So, he said it was like Cameron did it once. So he said, " Listen, we need to do these reforms, like 1, 2, 3.
Otherwise, we're going to leave the country." So then you got the Brexit decision in the UK. It's not entirely clear whether this was such a big deal to us. Well, that's an open question for this discussion. I think the UK has other problems now, but let's stay in Germany because we are in the European Union and we are the main financier, right? The financier of the European Union. We believe that we need to rebuild the European Union and have competences in sovereign nation states, while having a free trade area. So this would actually guarantee the prosperity of all nation states that we had in the past. We believe
that the development that we also had after the introduction of the euro was quite harmful for the European Union, because, for example, the German people were promised that Germany would never take on the debts of other countries. This was a promise to the Germans. were never asked about the introduction of the euro. I want to get to the heart of the matter, which is that we are where we are. Given where we are now, should Germany leave or not Euro. We believe that the eurozone or the euro, unfortunately, is not a stable currency. Because many mistakes have been made because nation states are not the so-called optimal currency area. And politicians
should have known this from the very beginning. But we are nowhere. Wait. This is very important because we have a currency with high inflation. We came from the world of the German Deutsche Mark. We have always had a relatively stable currency. And for the German economy, this is a completely different matter than the introduction of the euro. We need to return to a stable currency, and that is what we propose: we must adhere to institutions created above national currencies. They must follow the rules. Their activities should be based on rules and should not inflate the balance.
An interview with Marine Le Pen has emerged, where she advocates for more infrastructure funding from the ECB. Of course. projects and so on. So it's cheap for France. You know, she's probably leading in the polls. She could very well become the president of France. What will Europe be like if you lead it with your views and Marine Le Pen leads it with hers? Well, the explanation is very simple. Germany is the EU's main financier, and France, like other countries, receives money. Of course, she wants this from her perspective. I would do the same. She wants to do what is best for her country. She wants to have
debt-free financing. Although France is already in a huge debt crisis with cosmic interest rates. I don't know what they're going to do in the capital markets, do you? But Germany is already in the same situation, almost the same. Our national debt is growing rapidly. You describe very clearly the different views that you and Marine Le Pen have. Isn't there a risk that when the financial markets digest what you and she are saying, a bond crisis will actually start in Europe Oh, definitely. Of course, we will have a bond market crisis. So, with such high public debt-and it's not just France, it's also Italy, Spain, Portugal, and also Germany.
German debt program, we already have a rise in interest rates in the capital market. And we are also a country in debt. And with this high debt over the next 3 years of Friedrich Merz's government, I think we will rise to 82 billion. So I'm a numbers person. Sorry to bother you with all this. also a numbers person. It's okay understand numbers. We pay, Germany is currently paying interest on the capital market of approximately 40 billion, 40 billion. We are increasing the But your interest rates, of course, are among the lowest in Europe, your interest rates. Yes, but with the risk premium that is bound to appear, we will have an explosive increase in the interest burden that will have to be dealt with. From today, 40 billion, in 3 years-to
over 80 billion. And this is an indicator that is simply impossible to sustain. And this happened because of senseless policies, like throwing taxpayer money away senseless projects like climate transition. I could list many more things, but Germany, and this is my main argument, is in a deep financial crisis, and we need to return to financial sustainability, seriousness, and stability. You speak very convincingly about this, but when I look at your election platform last year, you proposed increasing pension spending and significantly reducing taxes. Both would only increase the deficit. So when I read your program carefully, it did n't seem
fiscally prudent to me at all. Well, the numbers match up if you prioritize correctly. For example, we have recipients of " citizen's benefit" (Bürgergeld). Social benefits, yes, that is, social security payments. Yes, social assistance, mainly for foreigners, which reaches 50 billion, then development aid in the billions, and then expenses for the so- called climate and energy transition. This is very important, because reducing the costs of the energy transition. That is, it means reducing subsidies. There are also billions in subsidies for an energy transition plan that doesn't work for an industrial country like Germany. Regarding the
pension plan, for us, a proper pension system should be based on three pillars. The first is the pay-as-you-go system, the second is the corporate pension plan, and the third is each person's private pension savings. We have calculated everything, because now the second and third pillars are not stable. To the first pillar, we need to add individual accounts, that is, capitalized mechanisms, which do not currently exist. If we diversify the pension system in the way our reform envisages, we can achieve completely different So, to be clear, you will not be spending more public money on pensions.
What do you mean? State money. Will the state pension become more expensive under the rule of the Alternative for Germany? No, definitely not, because we will abolish taxes, especially for the second and third pillars, for private pension schemes, so they will be tax-free, meaning they will not be subject to taxation. But that will increase the deficit, right? This makes it more expensive. I'm trying to figure out the fiscal implications. No, because we have the highest taxes. We have the highest taxes and social security costs, and it's all to the detriment of the individual worker. Therefore, we need to lower
taxes, but on the other hand, we need to reduce these huge expenses of our state. And I would also like to talk about the huge costs of illegal, uncontrolled mass migration in our country. We still have open borders, and it's very expensive, not to mention disrupting our public order You are watching an interview from The Economist. If you want to watch our other interviews, including with Mark Carney and Dario Amodei, subscribe to The Economist by clicking the link above. Now let's get back to the interview. I think it's hard for people to understand how the numbers add up when they look at your plans. I think it would be that you explained the logic, but it's hard to see how lower taxes and higher pension spending equals lower debt and deficit.
But let's leave it at that. And let's just talk about defense, because one of the reasons we have, and I like the phrase you use, you say that Chancellor Scholz has had a debt orgy. But one of the reasons why Germany abolished the "debt brake" was to ensure a significant increase in defense spending, which the country had only just begun to do. Do you support this increase? And in particular, do you support 3.5% of GDP on defense spending by 2029, as announced by the Scholz government? Well, Germany has not spent even 2% on NATO's budget in the past. So, we were pretty far behind. I think it's somewhere around 1% or so, 1.2%. So, we need to spend more. But I think that military and defense spending, as the name suggests, should
be directed towards our own defense capabilities. And now I come to the topic of Germany being in a situation where it is the main financier and also giving our ammunition and everything else to Ukraine. So, we are now the main financier of aid to Ukraine. Other European states are backing down. Trump is already out of the game. Therefore, our government, in our opinion, is pursuing a policy that is not only harmful to Germany, because it affects our national security interests. But also for other European nation states. We believe, and this is our opinion, that the policy currently being pursued by the German government is very detrimental to the national security of Germany, as well as other European states.
Therefore, we propose to immediately begin peace negotiations to put an end to this terrible war in Ukraine. I think everyone would like the war in Ukraine to end. Let's analyze what you are saying here. First, our government actually. Well, let's break this down. One of the main reasons for the increase in NATO spending, including for Germany, is that many European countries and people in this country see Russia as a threat. Do you see Russia as a threat outside of Ukraine? Do you think this is a threat to European countries, to NATO members? I think the question is not whether it is a threat or not. I believe that Germany's foreign policy should be evaluated by the criterion of whether it meets our national
interests. And acting the way our government is now, it leads to a situation that is very harmful to us. I have n't mentioned sanctions yet. While we are imposing one package of sanctions after another, Donald Trump is talking to Vladimir Putin about supplying additional diesel, as well as oil and gas, right? We would like to have the same for Germany because we need to reduce energy costs. Therefore, we are very pragmatic. We would like a peace that also meets the interests of Ukrainians. And also to Russia's security interests. But this, and this is our position, this is not our war. And it's very dangerous, and it's very expensive, especially for us. Germany spent, you have to imagine this figure, Germany spent over 100 billion euros on the war in
Ukraine. And this is quite dangerous, and also threatens Germany as a state, because now we could already be a target. For Russian attack on Leipzig airport was fortunately repelled. Well, to be honest, I did n't witness this, and I'm not a supporter of pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian policies. What matters to me is what evidence do we have? How about.no, no, because it's very important right now. As for this so-called drone attack or attempted attack, we haven't seen any evidence in Parliament. It was just said. But what we have in the sea are the destroyed Nord Stream gas pipelines. And this was a state terrorist act against German infrastructure, very harmful for
Germany, for us. Like the destruction of energy infrastructure, which cost, I don't know, more than almost 30 billion euros. And in fact, cutting off all of Europe, cutting off Europe, and especially Germany, from Russian gas, in particular from gas. And I think we need to, follow the facts. And we see that facts, such as the terrorist attacks on Nord Stream, are ignored by our politicians. And besides, there is no evidence. So we ask for evidence, but there is none. Can we step back a little? I agree with you about the importance of sticking to the facts. And the facts are that in February 2022, Russia attacked Ukraine. And since then, Russia has continued to attack Ukraine.
You say you want a peace that will be good for Ukraine. I think many people want a peace that will be good for Ukraine. Ukraine is under constant shelling. I was in Kyiv just a few weeks ago. I was there for a whole week in Ukraine. I myself witnessed constant shelling by Russian drones, Shaheds, and Russian ballistic missiles. Ukraine is trying to defend itself from the aggressor. Don't you think it's appropriate for Germany and other Western European countries to support a democratic country that is trying to defend itself from this undisguised aggression. They no longer have elections for a new president. This is the reason why the American president is demanding new presidential elections, because he believes that Zelensky is the wrong person at the right
time. And therefore, if the wording They don't have elections now, because there is a war and martial law is in effect. But still, when we talk about the aggressor and about someone who is not one, we also criticized Russia's attack on Ukraine, because Ukraine is a sovereign country. Point. There is nothing to discuss here. But right now, as you said earlier, we are in a state of status quo. And this status quo is terrible. who die, and the families who lose sons, and the damage to infrastructure, oil refineries, and the rapid rise in diesel prices. Um, and an incredibly high security risk for all countries, especially European ones. So we need to put an end to this. And this is ours, because I am a German politician. I have to evaluate every aspect of
Germany's foreign policy. Is this in our national interest or not? The prolongation of the war and the measures that the German government is currently taking pose an enormous risk to our country, and we believe, I believe, that it is wrong to continue financing a war that has already been lost. Ukraine, unfortunately, we can say that Ukraine is too small. Ukraine cannot defeat Russia. This is impossible. So, what do we do now? Lost war, Yes. Does this mean that you will agree that Ukraine will cease to exist as an independent state, and Russia. No. So, if Ukraine is to exist as an independent state, it needs support for this. Do you agree with this?
Well, uh, you can't, you can't reach a peace agreement if you continue this war. But Vladimir Putin is not interested in peace. The Ukrainians say they will agree to a ceasefire. He refused to cease fire. Can you give at least one piece of evidence that he is interested in peace? Can you provide at least one piece of evidence that Zelensky is interested in peace? He constantly.He proposed an energy truce now. They.They were in Florida, discussing peace agreements. Ukrainians are absolutely ready to start peace negotiations. It is Vladimir Putin who is not interested in a peace agreement because he believes he can
destroy Ukrainian cities in the winter, as he is doing now. And it seems to me that what you're proposing, and I just want to make sure I understand you correctly, you're proposing to end all German financial and military support. All European support. Is that so? Is this your desired policy? We have already spent over 100 billion. No other country has spent so much. And we were heavily in debt. Yes, I put the interests of my country first. This is "Germany above all else." And this war is not in our interests. And this is very.this is very dangerous for our national security. And I repeat myself. When diplomacy sits at the negotiating table, history is always behind it. So we need to consider developments not
only through the prism of one event in February 2022. And this is not a justification for attacking Ukraine. This is not an excuse. What I'm trying to say is that there is a story about NATO approaching the Russian border. Russia has highlighted this issue several times. So why didn't anyone listen to Russia's concerns when missile systems were deployed on the borders, especially in Romania? And then, for example, systems capable of carrying nuclear devices, like the Aegis missile system. I don't know an English word. But here.what I'm trying to say is that there's a lot of history here. And in order to achieve peace in Ukraine, we need to take into account not only Ukraine's security interests, but also
Russia's security interests. And that was in the past. And that was. that was the main mistake of the last 20 years-not recognizing Russia's security concerns. I agree that the security and concerns of both Ukraine and Russia need to be taken into account, but I would argue that if, as you suggest, military and financial support for Ukraine were to be cut off, But more importantly, I agree with you that history matters, and Vladimir Putin is a great historian. And.and Vladimir Putin has shown no signs of recognizing Ukraine's right to exist. And, most likely, he would like to recreate the former Soviet Union. So I think the real threat that you seem to be
ignoring is that there is a threat outside of Ukraine, a threat to the Baltic countries, a threat to NATO countries. Are you.are you absolutely sure that there is no risk of this? Well, dragging out the war and launching drones deep into Russia, destroying oil refineries, also destroying, uh. residential buildings and structures near Moscow-this is a huge provocation This is very tempting fate. Look.no, it's very.no, every night. This is risky. and.and ballistic missiles. They are pouring in, pouring in on Ukraine.
This strategy is risky. And we criticized this strategy. We want to end this war. And it doesn't help if a country.er.is launching drone attacks.er. against a country that has nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense, I'm sorry to say it, and it's very risky, and it's very stupid. And I.I just.I keep repeating. We have to end this, and we have to actually put pressure on the Ukrainian president to have the will to stop the loss of lives and this very risky strategy for all of Europe. Like, for example, the USA, with an ocean between them. It's not.it's not in their security interests, not at all. We Europeans are suffering, and that is why we must.we must be most interested in ending this war.
You have stated your position very clearly. I understand her now. I think you can see that I disagree with her, but that doesn't matter. I completely understand her. Let me move on to another topic that you briefly mentioned earlier, where I think people are struggling to understand what exactly your party stands for. You mentioned what you call mass migration, and you increasingly use the word "remigration." You say you are a supporter of remigration. Can you explain to me what exactly remigration means? consistent implementation and enforcement of current legislation. Therefore, illegal immigrants who have crossed our borders illegally, whose asylum applications have been rejected, and people who commit crimes have no right to remain in our country. These
people are obliged to leave our country. And we just want the law that is already in effect, but the current government is not enforcing it, to be followed. Yes, and this is our definition of remigration. This is very clear. Simply. Nothing more, nothing less. That's about 260,000 people who are to be deported. But that's not true, because there are people in your party who talk about millions of people who should migrate. Millions have to go. Millions of people. Do you renounce this? Because they probably also mean naturalized Germans of foreign origin. They mean the people who are here. Can you say categorically, because I think that many people of foreign
origin are very scared of the Alternative for Germany party in this country. So, it would be helpful, I think, for you to be clear about this. People who are here legally, whether they are Syrians or Afghans or whoever, are they able and welcome? They can stay here and you welcome them? Well, to be honest, our law, our asylum law states that in the case where the reason for coming to our country, like, for example, for Syrians, let's stick with this example, because you mentioned it. That reason no longer exists, right? To be here because they are refugees, asylum seekers, any kind of shelter. Here they get a lot of money from the state, but it doesn't matter right now.
They need to return to their country. They must leave our country. What is our government doing? to send these people, Syrians, back to Syria. Because the Syrian Foreign Minister has Listen, of course we are not taking back our Syrian citizens because they are a strategic asset in Germany." So, that speaks for itself, right? Our chancellor just talks and does nothing. No reforms, nothing. He said, " Oh, we have to send back 80% of the Syrians." This is Chancellor Friedrich Merz. No one was sent because the strategic asset must remain here. Therefore, law enforcement agencies in Germany are very clear. 100% of Syrians, since the war in Syria is over, 100% of Syrian citizens should return to their country. And also Afghans, whom our
government decided to actually bring into our country by plane. I don't know how they could have come to such a disgusting policy of importing Afghans from Afghanistan, because the crime rate has been rising rapidly since 2015, when the borders were opened. And the main group of the worst crimes: rape, murder. Raw material crimes, this is called raw material crimes. So, the main category is Syrians and Afghans. So we need to send these people back, and we need to detain the criminals as well as the leaders of religious extremists. We do not want a caliphate in our country. So, of course, the Syrian president, for example, might want that, otherwise his foreign minister wouldn't be talking about a foreign asset as a strategic
asset in Germany, meaning keeping people here. Therefore, we have serious problems with the integration of these people. And I haven't even mentioned, uh, Ukrainians. Ukrainians should also leave our country when this war is over. So, these are millions of people, because in total it's about four to five million, and they have to leave our country. But our government is doing the opposite. They are scattering our German passports. After 5 years of residence in our country, you receive our passport automatically. Why? You need everyone with a migration background, every foreigner, to be a welcome guest in Germany. We accept people, professionals, who want to work here, who contribute to our welfare system, to our society, who behave well, who do not commit crimes.
Everyone in my party likes it. And we would really like to send these people back and enforce the current law. But, given that you said you want to send back all the Syrians, all the Afghans, all the Ukrainians, as soon as the war is over, which you told me you want to end very soon. Uh, you also said that anyone with qualifications is welcome here. Uh, you just said, uh, that Syrians are the largest group of foreign- born doctors in Germany. We have, I think, 100,000 German doctors over 60. This is about a quarter of the total. They will retire soon. You are facing a huge shortage of doctors. You already have it. Do you really think the policy of expelling Syrian doctors and deporting them is reasonable, given this shortage? I give this as a specific
example, but it applies to many areas in Germany, because you have a rapidly aging population and a serious shortage of workers. I believe that in this discussion, which is very important, we should not confuse the asylum system, on the one hand, and people who come to Germany on a work visa, with qualifications, as So we shouldn't mix it up. I was talking about people who are here illegally because the law is not enforced. I wasn't talking about specialists, like professional Syrians or other qualified foreigners. I didn't talk about them. We need them, of course, because we have demographic problems, like other countries. Therefore, we
need to involve professionals. But we cannot attract specialists if we allow criminals, foreign criminals, who destroy our public order and social security system, to remain, and keep our borders open; We can't attract these people anymore because they say, " Look, it's very dangerous on German streets, is n't it?" And taxes are very high. And the bureaucracy is just ridiculous. We are no longer able to attract these professionals. People don't want to come to Germany to work. In addition, we have another effect. Hundreds of thousands of qualified Germans are now leaving our country. We have a huge brain drain, because the reason is
always the same. They say, " Look, the taxes are too high." We can't support our families. We can't afford to buy a house. And we don't know if we are safe on public transportation. What about the education system for our children? Are they safe at school? Because we have a lot of violence in schools, which is being done by- I'm very sorry to say this, but we have to talk about it -by children of Muslim origin who are beating our children in school. That's why people are very scared and say, " Listen, we have to leave our country because something is wrong, " and they would be better off working in the US, Switzerland, or somewhere else, but not in Germany. And we need to be attractive. So, to understand you correctly: you want those who are here
illegally and those whose asylum applications have been rejected to leave. And you welcome professional skilled workers. But your colleagues in Saxony-Anhalt wrote in their recent manifesto that Germany should not rely on, and I quote, "culturally alien" skilled workers. It was a bad idea, they said. This phrase, which is actually a veiled signal to Muslim doctors, to qualified workers from Muslim countries, is something that, in my opinion, is very, very frightening to many people. This is an extremist phrase. Do you reject this phrase? Or do you also agree that Germany should not have "culturally alien" skilled workers?
Good question. Thank you very much for asking me. Um, and I would like to, uh, clarify this sentence, which, uh, isn't that scary to me anymore. We really have, uh, examples of, for example, uh, So, uh, we have here in Berlin, uh, wonderful Berlin. Um, in the Berlin police, uh, we had an incident a few years ago when, uh, police officers, uh, of Muslim origin, didn't shake, uh, hands of their female colleagues. They didn't train in the pool, they didn't swim, because there were, uh, women in the water in front of them.
Um, then, uh, we have language difficulties. Um, uh, it's very important for the doctor to understand the patient, isn't it? And also shook hands and, uh, no, uh, thought, uh, that, uh, a woman was inferior to a man. And I think, uh, that's what my colleagues meant, and it's common sense. This, uh, can't be the case in a freedom-loving society where, uh, men and women are supposed to be equal, right? Does this mean that you think there should be fewer people of Muslim origin in Germany? No, I'm not saying that. I just gave a few examples of, uh, when it doesn't work, right? Um, and, uh, I wouldn't set a quota right now because there are
a lot of Muslims, uh, who are suffering, uh, from this situation, or, uh, suffering in this situation. And they are well integrated, people who work in our country, who also believe that something has gone wrong in our integration policy, because, unfortunately, there are too many people and this country is not able to integrate them all. This is a matter of integration and behavior, not religion or skin color. You are happy for people who are integrated. You are concerned about those who are not integrated. Is that so? Thanks for mentioning skin color. Skin color doesn't matter, and it shouldn't, because otherwise it becomes a racist argument, right?
We don't care. I don't care if someone is dark-skinned, like my wife, or light-skinned. merit-based system, not quotas or anti-discrimination quotas. When you speak, in our conversation you described yourself as a libertarian conservative. I sometimes scratch the back of my head trying to figure out who a libertarian conservative is, but you focus on personal freedom. But when I read-and I think I read all 252 pages of the manifesto of your colleagues in Saxony- Anhalt-I understand that this is a state manifesto, not an official federal manifesto of the party. But there are a number of things there that don't sound very libertarian to me, they sound quite extreme, and I ask about this because, as you know, many people
are concerned that you are a far-right radical party. I know you deny it, but when I read this manifesto, I thought I understood why people were worried. The manifesto calls for the removal of refugee children and children with disabilities from school classrooms. Heimatkunde", the study of the country's history. They want more Bismarck, less Hitler in the curriculum, and punishment for insulting the German state. It seems to me that this is the manifesto of a party that wants to actively use the state to create a special type of Germany. This is not libertarianism. This is much more like what most people call the far right.
Well, for us, we. Actually, I like some examples, like " Heimatkunde," more Bismarck, Goethe and Schiller, and less Hitler. Yes, that would be good. Yes, because people forget our history, our long history. And.but I don't want to talk about it. I just want to explain the position of my colleagues in Saxony -Anhalt, who actually received 45% of the votes there. They want to see a Germany in which order reigns. We have a positive vision of Germany. We want to have secure borders. We want families to be able to afford housing, to be able to provide for their families, to have safe streets and safe schools. And I think that's common sense, and I'm very sorry that this labeling of " ultra-right" or " extreme right" is not true. Why does this
have to be the case at all? Why is standing up for secure borders, against illegal migration, against the destruction of our energy infrastructure considered far-right, extreme right, or extremist? From my point of view, this is common sense. Therefore, we want to preserve the positive values of our countries and develop them further. We want a country that is normal and orderly. And to be on equal terms with our European partners, as well as to be partners for the UK, the US, and Russia. And I think we are on the wrong track, not only in Germany, but also in the UK. And in other countries, we talked about this. And I think what we lack is normal politics for people. And this is the reason why we advocate common sense politics. And I wouldn't
call it extreme right or extreme left views. let me just Actually, that's totally normal. I'll quote you another one, which says: "It has been proven that a complete family, consisting of a mother, father, and children, is the best prerequisite for the proper and healthy development of a child." This is exactly what is written in the manifesto. You mentioned your wife. You and your wife are raising two children in Switzerland. She was born in Sri Lanka. You clearly do not fit this description. . Well, I don't need to. Because my wife is actually Swiss. That's the reason. And this is always an interesting fact. But in any case, I can speak for a family consisting of a man, a woman, and children. Because this is the model in which
over 90% of children grow up. I can, I can, I can support this model. And I signed up for that too. And the party, for example, fully tolerates a model like mine. And maybe it's also the fact that I'm very liberal about my lifestyle, I suppose. I think everyone should live their own life. And the state should not interfere in all aspects of life, and I am completely against queer politics and gender ideology. I think it really deforms people, especially at a young age. For example, in Germany, the government passed a law that allows young people-and not just young people, starting at a young age-to change their gender once a year. Sorry. And this, this, this is ridiculous, very disturbing and annoying, especially for young people, for teenagers. We need to return
to normal politics, not inventing constructs like social genders while rejecting biological ones. I believe this is a false path that is truly deforming, especially for young people. I understand that, but to clarify: are you confident that your party will respect the rights and freedoms of families like yours? Absolutely. You are watching an interview from The Economist. If you want to watch our other interviews, including with Mark Carney and Dario Amadei, subscribe to The Economist via the link above.
Now let's get back to the interview. You describe yourself as a libertarian, and I'm actually pretty sure you are. But there are quite understandable, small, but openly neo-Nazi elements in your party. They are. No. I mean. Your accusations are completely baseless. Twice found guilty and fined for using Nazi slogans. Most recently, there have been reports of four advisors to your leader in Saxony-Anhalt who were part of a banned neo-Nazi youth movement. Do you deny that they exist? Are you claiming that there is no one with proto-fascist tendencies in the Alternative for Germany (AfD)?
Oh my God. This interview is not going very well. No, I was asked.This is important. Yes, yes. This is really important. Yes, but these.these accusations are completely baseless. Okay, then tell me categorically that this is not the case, and if there were, you would have ruled them out. Well, definitely. This is not true. The accusations are baseless. So, Björn Göke, he was found guilty and fined for using Nazi slogans. " Everything for Germany" is a Nazi slogan.
This is ridiculous. Good. " Germany above all else" is what he said. Do you think this is a Nazi slogan? I do n't think so. So you don't think there is anyone in the party in Saxony-Anhalt or Thuringia who has Nazi or proto-Nazi leanings? This wording is very harsh, and we have nothing to do with. And why are you asking me this question? I ask you because this is, honestly, probably the most important question people ask about the AfD. They say that the Alternative for Germany is a far-right party, and people, given Germany's history, are quite rightly concerned that there are those in your party who seem to echo the 1930s. I don't think. You know, my mother is German. I.I, you know,
grew up, spent some of my time here. I'm not at all surprised that people are really bothered by this. Well, we've heard it before, that the far-right extremist label is unfounded. I believe we are advocating for the common sense policies that I outlined in this interview. And.and the fact that we are associated with the terrible times of the Third Reich-you have already mentioned this several times-the fact that they are trying to portray us as the heirs of the terrible times of the Third Reich is being used against us to damage our reputation. Honestly, nothing could be further from the truth. Okay, that's interesting. But do you agree that many people who are participating in demonstrations against you are worried about extremist elements in your
party? And what could you do, given that your popularity continues to grow? Do you consider it a priority to reassure these people that they have nothing to worry about? Well, you know, we don't have extremists in the party. We are not an extremist party. These are frivolous accusations that are very damaging to our reputation. This does n't work anymore. We have reached, as you mentioned at the very beginning, over 30% at the federal level, while the Chancellor's party is already below 18%, with a gap of 12-13%. And the people, the German voters, no longer believe in it.
You.I think last year you said your goal was to get over 40%. Which would be an impressive result, but still not enough to rule alone. And now, as you know, there is a " fire wall" (Brandmauer) in Germany, nobody wants to deal with you, but do you think, first of all, that it will disappear? And secondly, are you willing to make certain compromises in order to cooperate with others for the sake of power? fire wall" is very harmful to the chancellor's party, which has dropped below 20% and now has 17%. Just imagine, the chancellor's party. And this is very harmful to them. And this is also very harmful for our country, because voters continue to vote for the coalition of the CDU and the Alternative for Germany (AfD) or the AfD now and the CDU,
because we are much stronger now. We are negotiating with the CDU. And I believe that our country deserves sensible and effective policies. And yes, using such an undemocratic tool as, say, a "sanitary border" helps radical left-wing parties, for example, to introduce very strict measures, as you can see here in Berlin. We can have a left-wing government, and that makes them stronger. Therefore, the entire strategy of the " sanitary border" strengthens the left bloc of parties, which leads to the introduction of high taxes and other restrictions. And so, we'll see what comes of this Tell me, would you make compromises to collaborate with others? And why do we have to do this? Because politics is often about finding compromises.
I believe that on our main points, which I outlined in our interview, compromises are impossible, because our country and our people deserve it. And I think the CDU should take the first step. And if the CDU doesn't take this step very quickly, they will disappear very soon. end on. Alice Weidel, thank you very much for joining me. Thank you very much for inviting me.
