Stephan Weil, 65, has been Prime Minister of Lower Saxony since February 2013. He is also the SPD state chairman.
WELT AM SONNTAG: Mr. Weil, after the European elections you blamed the federal government for the SPD’s poor performance and called on it to “create the conditions very quickly to regain trust.” Honestly, how can that still be achieved?
Stephan Weil: A necessary but not sufficient condition is a joint federal budget for 2025. The way in which the coalition deals with this challenge will show whether all parties represented in the federal government have drawn the right conclusions from the European election results. We now need very quick decisions that are, if possible, convincing in terms of the matter and are presented jointly to the outside world. That would be good and important, but would probably not be enough.
WELT AM SONNTAG: What would need to be added?
Because: The traffic light coalition should agree on a realistic work program for the last year of the legislative period. And this work program would then also have to be presented to the outside world in a consensual manner and implemented consistently. Projects that realistically have no chance of being implemented in this legislative period should be postponed until the next legislative period. Now it is important to concentrate on the things that we can achieve together.
WELT AM SONNTAG: Which would be?
Because: We absolutely have to continue all measures that protect the climate but are also manageable. We have to continue down this path consistently, we cannot stop after a third of the way. But the question of social balance must be considered much more than before. When we see how much the AfD is doing in some rural regions, we can imagine how much the heating law, for example, has frightened many people there. If the right conclusions were drawn from this in Berlin, that would be real progress.
WELT AM SONNTAG: This strategy will probably fail because of the initial prerequisite. When it comes to the budget, the SPD and the Greens on one side and the FDP on the other have completely walled themselves in. Some want more credit-financed state investments. For others, this is irresponsible devilry. How is the coalition supposed to get out of this without losing face on either side?
Because: If it were only the SPD and the Greens who were demanding additional investment, your question would be entirely justified. However, the fact is that large parts of the economic expert community are now of the opinion that we simply cannot meet the current challenges with the current version of the debt brake. The German Council of Economic Experts is not suspected of being left-wing, nor is the Federation of German Industries.
By the way, you can also look internationally. Every country that can afford it is investing. Germany is an exception. The motto “We have to save, whatever the cost” is dangerous. And ultimately it would cost us a lot.
WELT AM SONNTAG: Now you have explained how the red-green coalition can emerge from the budget debate without losing face. How Christian Lindner and the FDP are supposed to do this is still missing.
Because: I hope that it gives Mr Lindner something to think about that other smart people who initially agreed with him have since revised their position. They had their reasons.
WELT AM SONNTAG: The Jusos and a group of the SPD left are aiming for a member petition on the subject of the 2025 federal budget, with the aim of ruling out cuts in the budget negotiations. A good idea?
Because: No, definitely not. At the end of the day, this budget will also need a majority in the Bundestag. It is always a matter of a differentiated overall assessment. A federal budget like this is more than complex and completely unsuitable for a member survey.
WELT AM SONNTAG: You yourself have said several times over the past year, “Stop, this is not the way to go” – for example on the subject of industrial electricity prices. The federal government has not moved a millimeter in your direction…
Because: Not only that. Unfortunately, it has even moved in the opposite direction and eliminated the subsidy for network charges. This has led to an increase in energy costs for most companies.
WELT AM SONNTAG: The result is that even more companies are apparently thinking about relocating their production capacities abroad. Could it be that the traffic light coalition simply hasn’t heard the economic bell?
Because: Cutting the subsidy for the network charges was wrong, no question about it. However, we must also remember the circumstances under which this decision was made. Immediately before the budget was passed, the Federal Constitutional Court made a ruling that very few people had expected to have such consequences. The consequences for the federal budget were dramatic. That is why decisions were obviously made that would probably never have been made under other circumstances.
WELT AM SONNTAG: Your colleague Manuela Schwesig and the Thuringian SPD leader Georg Maier, who is facing a difficult state election, are demanding that the SPD in future pay more attention to the “working middle” and less attention to gender truths or the next transfer payment. Are they both right?
Because: Yes. Bill Clinton described this group well: “People who work hard and play by the rules.” If you include pensioners and family members, that includes a large majority of the population. That must be the group that the SPD is particularly concerned about. And for this group, for example, a sufficient wage gap between those who work and those who could work but do not care enough about work is an important issue.
WELT AM SONNTAG: So was the introduction of the citizen’s allowance, which in many cases levels out this wage gap, a mistake?
Because: The citizen’s allowance corrected mistakes made in the Hartz IV reform. That was absolutely fine. But in society and also in the SPD, a large majority believe that those who consistently refuse suitable job offers must face clear consequences. And at this point, there should still be some movement with the citizen’s allowance.
WELT AM SONNTAG: Former SPD leader Sigmar Gabriel, a Lower Saxon, advises the SPD to finally follow the strict migration policy of the Danish Social Democrats. The right way?
Because: 60 to 70 percent of the people who come to us have a right to protection, and we must be reminded of this again and again. It should be a matter of course to treat such people fairly. This is not compatible with a course of harassment. It is true that we in Germany have made a crucial mistake for decades. We have kept the door closed to legal, controlled immigration and at the same time have not put up an effective stop sign against illegal, uncontrolled immigration.
This only changed with the decisions made last year, including at EU level. I am confident that this new asylum policy – border security, controls near the border, fair distribution within the EU – will noticeably improve the situation in the long term.
WELT AM SONNTAG: The Conference of Prime Ministers again asked the Chancellor on Thursday to conduct asylum procedures beyond our borders in third countries in the future. The Union is pushing for this issue – you yourself have expressed some skepticism. Why?
Because: You have to differentiate between a model like Rwanda, in which people from Germany are to be taken to a completely foreign country against their will, and a preliminary asylum procedure in a country to which the people concerned have gone themselves. The first model faces a whole host of legal and factual concerns, as the hearing of experts by the Interior Ministry has shown.
I share many of these views, and I make no secret of it. The asylum process in a transit country is much less problematic, but even then a country that is available for this has yet to be found. Both are now being seriously examined, and then we will see.
WELT AM SONNTAG: In truth, the issue of a third-country solution has been on the political agenda for a very long time. Your prediction: How will it end?
Because: Let’s take a look at the experience that Great Britain has had so far in the Rwanda case after a debate that has lasted several years. Nothing has happened so far, and if the model is ever implemented, the costs will be huge and the number of cases will be manageable. Even in the best case scenario from the supporters’ point of view, this model would only be able to make a small contribution. Unlike Great Britain, Germany would be bound by European law. In short: I have big question marks.
