AfD co-leader Alice Weidel on Ukraine, migration and Germany’s future — The Economist

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Alice Weidel, thank you for joining me on The Insider. Thank you for having me. So the party you co-lead, the Alternative for Germany, is riding high. You came top in two recent state elections, Sachsen-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. You're the biggest opposition group in the Bundestag. And you come consistently absolutely at the top of the polls nationally. And I think your success, your rise, is reflecting a deep frustration amongst many Germans with the status quo. And you're very good at articulating that frustration. But I think people have less idea of exactly what the AFD would and would not do. And that's what I wanted to focus this conversation on today, to help me and to help our viewers understand what kind of a Germany you would like to create. So I wanted to start with the economy. You are an economist. If you were to, let's imagine the German economy as a car. Is it in need of a few repairs or does it need a whole new economic model? How big is the challenge for the German economy? [00:01:06] Alice Weidel: Actually, to be in your picture, you need to restructure and rebuild the entire car because the car parts are also broken. And I'm going to explain to you why that is the case in Germany. I think Germany, just looking at the data, the economic data, is in a deep crisis. And this crisis is multifaceted. Firstly, one major cause is the destroying of our energy infrastructure by the so-called Energiewende. Energiewende is the energy transition policy that was self-inflicted and introduced firstly by the Merkel government and then has been continued by the following governments until now. And these energy policies comprise the destruction of our infrastructure, just like destroying our nuclear power plants. You have to imagine Germany in the past had 19 power plants. Power plants, most modern ones. So they were just switched off and some got some explosives so that they are basically destroyed, right? And now Germany has zero nuclear power plants. So I think Germany has the stupidest and most dumbest or dumbest energy policy worldwide. And it continues. We have the energy transition basing our energy supply solely on wind power and solar power. So when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, we have the so-called Dunkelflaut. Dunkelflaut, I don't know the English word, so it is like when you have no power supply, basically. Then we are dependent on our neighbors importing energy for actually like for tremendously high prices. And all of this leading to the situation in which the energy costs for our companies, for the German companies, and also for the Germans, are too high. They're the highest in the world. So therefore, we are not competitive anymore in the world market. And we face right now skyrocketing bankruptcy rates by German companies. Either they go bankrupt or they go abroad. And this is basically the situation here. And I haven't mentioned yet the high bureaucracy burden by the companies. [00:04:20] Speaker 1: So it's interesting that you mentioned both of those. Because on both of those, I think you have some very good points. Germany does have incredibly high energy costs. I think with hindsight, many people in the government might agree that shutting down the nuclear reactors did not make sense. And you are also, and your manifesto last year made very clear, you want to cut red tape. Both pro-growth sensible policies. But your manifesto last year also said that you should, that Germany should leave the euro. And this is a policy that really has me scratching my head. Because most economists would agree that for Germany allowed to leave the euro would be catastrophic for its growth. Now, in the last few days, there have been some reports that your party may be rethinking its policy towards the euro. So I wonder if you could just state quite clearly, should Germany leave the euro? [00:05:10] Alice Weidel: Thank you very much for the question and giving me the opportunity to clarify something. There is this myth in the, also stemming from the framing of our party, that we want to leave the EU and that we want to leave the euro. It's wrong. Our programme states that we would like to reform, firstly, the European Union. We think that the European Union should be a community of sovereign states with a free trade area. This is where we came from. What we don't want is a EU, European Union, bureaucratic commission with a lot of bureaucrats, like a Soviet Union, like something that interferes into your privacy, into companies, telling them what to produce, having obnoxious, I would say, like laws, bureaucracy, and also telling the consumers what to buy or what to install. We think that this is very harmful to a free economy and to a free market system. So we also see a democratic deficit, like the check and balances. So we know all from the political philosophies that we need to have a system of checks and balances on one hand or horizontally, but also vertically. So decisions should be made by the lowest level of decision making, because there you can have control. And you can you can you can you can make things better because you have the knowledge of decision, but not a planned economy like commission that is not elected. And the people have no idea how free market system work. [00:07:15] Speaker 1: You're watching an interview from The Economist to get early access to our upcoming interviews and watch others from our archive. Subscribe to The Economist by clicking the link above. Now back to the interview. Is your goal to reform the European Union, to reform the commission, to reform the whole structure from within? Or is your goal to threaten to leave or to leave? [00:07:38] Alice Weidel: Well, I think Cameron did it so he said like Cameron did it once. So he said like, look, we need to have these reforms like one, two, three, otherwise we're going to leave the country. So then you got the Brexit decision in Great Britain. Not so clear. That was such a great thing for us. Well, well, this is open for this discussion. I think Great Britain has different problems now. But let's stay at Germany because we are in the European Union and we are the main financer, financer, right? Financier of the European Union, we think we need to build back the European Union and have the competencies in the sovereign nation states while having a free trade area. Therefore, this would guarantee actually the welfare of all nation states, which we had in the past. We think the development we had also after the introduction of the Euro has been quite harmful for the European Union because through the or by the means of introducing the Euro and the, for instance, the German people were promised that Germany would never take the debt of other countries. There was a promise to the Germans, the Germans were never asked of introducing the Euro. [00:09:11] Speaker 1: I want to get the bottom line of this, which is we are where we are given where we are now. Should Germany leave or should it not the Euro? [00:09:21] Alice Weidel: We believe that the Euro, the Euro area is not or the Euro is not a stable currency, unfortunately, because a lot of mistakes have been made due to the fact that the nation states are not a so-called optimal currency area. And the policy maker should have known that right from the beginning. But we are now where? Wait, wait, wait, it is very important because we have a highly inflated currency. We are we are we are we are coming from a German Deutsche Mark Welt world. We we always had a relatively stable currency. And for the German economy, it is quite something like the introduction of the Euro. We need to go back to a stable currency. And this is what we propose, that we need to stick these institutions that have been implemented above the national currencies. They have to stick to the rules. It should be a rules based what they do and shouldn't inflate the balance sheet. [00:10:28] Speaker 1: An interview has come out with Marine Le Pen and she is arguing for more ECB financing of infrastructure. Of course, it's so cheap for France. You have she is likely she is leading in the polls, too. She may well become president of France. What is a Europe going to look like if you're leading it with your views and Marine Le Pen is leading it with her views? Well, the explanation is very simple. [00:10:58] Alice Weidel: Germany is the main financier of the EU and France receives the money as well as other countries. Of course, she wants to from her perspective, I would do the same thing. She she wants to do the best thing for a country. She wants to have free debt financing, even though France is already in a huge debt crisis, like with skyrocketing interest rates. I don't know what they're going to do at the capital markets, right? But Germany already is in the same situation, almost in the same situation. Our state debt is skyrocketing. [00:11:36] Speaker 1: You described very, very clearly the different perspectives that you and Marine Le Pen have. Isn't there a risk that as financial markets digest what you're saying and what she's saying, that Europe really does have a bond market crisis? [00:11:49] Alice Weidel: Oh, certainly. Certainly we're going to have a bond market crisis. So with such a high state debt, and it's not only France, it's also Italy, Spain, Portugal, and it's also Germany. So with this new debt program of Germany, we already have rising interest rates at the capital market. And we are also a indebted country. And with this high debt over the next three years of this Friedrich Merz government, we are, I think we we are at 80, we climb up to 82 billion. And so I'm a number person, so sorry for bothering you with all this stuff. [00:12:41] Speaker 1: I'm a number person. [00:12:42] Alice Weidel: Yes, that's very good numbers. We pay the Germany pays right now interest rates, the capital market roughly 40 billion, 40 billion. [00:12:54] Speaker 1: We climb up the interest bill, the interest bill. Yes, the interest rates are of course, amongst the lowest in Europe, your interest rate. [00:13:02] Alice Weidel: Yes, but with a risk prime that will certainly come, we have an exploding interest rate burden, which we have to handle from today. 40 billion up to in three years time, up to over 80 billion. And this is this is a number. This is not bearable anymore. And this has been self-inflicted by stupid policies like throwing out the taxpayers money, like with for ridiculous projects like the climate transition. And I could sum up so many things right now. But but in Germany, and this is my point, is also in a deep financial crisis. And we need to go back to financial resilience and seriousness, stability that you make that point very powerfully. [00:13:57] Speaker 1: And when I look at your manifesto of last year, you proposed increased pension spending and you proposed a considerable number of tax cuts, both of which would add to the deficit. So when I and I read your program carefully, it really didn't seem to me like a particularly fiscally frugal program. [00:14:19] Alice Weidel: Well, the numbers add up if you set careful priorities. So for instance, we have Bürgergeldempfänger like social money. So yeah, the payments for social welfare. Yes, social welfare, mainly for foreigners, adding up to 50 billion. And then we have development aid like in billions. And then we have the cost for climate, so-called climate and energy transition. This is really important because cutting the the transition cost for the energy. So this implies cutting subsidies. There are also billions of subsidies of a energy transition plan that doesn't work for an industrial country such as Germany. So and mentioning the pension plan for us in a proper pension system should be vested in three pillars. Like one is Umlageverfahren like the redistribution scheme. And then the second pillar is the company's pension pension plan. And then the third pillar is a private pension plans by every individual. And we calculated it through because right now the second and the third pillar, they're not sustainable. And and also the first pillar, we should add individual accounts like of capital financed devices, which is not existent right now. And if you diversify the pension system like this, like our reform agenda, you can reach complete different numbers of pension, what is it, replacement rate. [00:16:16] Speaker 1: So just to be clear, you would not spend more public money on pensions. What do you mean state money, the state pension would not become more costly under the AFD? No, absolutely not. [00:16:29] Alice Weidel: Because because we would we would lift and especially for the second and for the third pillar, for the private pension scheme, we would lift the taxes. So it's tax free. So it's tax deductible. But that adds to the deficit, right? [00:16:45] Speaker 1: That makes it more costly. [00:16:46] Alice Weidel: I'm trying to work out the fiscal consequences. No, no, no, no. Because we have the highest taxes. We have the highest taxes and social security expenditures. And this this is all on the disadvantage of the individual worker. So therefore, we need to lower the taxes. But also, on the other hand, we need to cut these huge expenditures by our state. And also, like, I would like to talk about the huge cost of a illegal, out of control, mass migration in our country. We still have open borders and this is very costly and not having mentioned the disturbances for our public order. [00:17:33] Speaker 1: You're 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 by clicking the link above. Now back to the interview. I think people have trouble when they look at your plans, working out how the numbers add up. And I think that will be something and you've explained the logic, but it is hard to see how lower taxes, higher pension spending equals a smaller debt and deficit. But but let's leave that. And let's just talk about defense, because one of the reasons we have and I love the phrase you use, you say Chancellor Mertz has an orgy of debt. But one of the reasons Germany's debt break was lifted was to enable a big increase in defense spending, which is the country has just started. Do you support that increase? And specifically, do you support Germany reaching the target, the NATO target of three and a half percent of GDP on hard defense by 2029, which is what the Mertz government has said it will do? [00:18:35] Alice Weidel: Well, Germany hasn't spent even two percentage to the NATO budget in the past. So we have been lacking quite behind, I think at one percent or something, one point two. So therefore, we need to spend more. But I think military spending and defense spending, as the word says, it should be vested in our own defense capacities. And now I'm coming to this topic that Germany is in the position right now to be the main financier and also giving away our munition and everything to the Ukraine. So we are the main financier of the Ukraine right now. The other European states are pulling back. Trump is out already. So therefore, our government, in our point of view, forces a policy which is not only harmful for Germany because it it touches our national security interest, but also the other European nation states. We think and this is our our our opinion that this policy being undertaken undertaken by the German government right now is very harmful for the national security of Germany and also for the other European states. is therefore proposing that we need to go immediately and that we need to enforce peace talks to end this terrible war in the Ukraine. [00:20:27] Speaker 1: I think everyone would like the war in Ukraine to end. Let's unpack what you're saying here. Firstly, not our government, actually. Well, let's unpack this. One of the main reasons for the increase in NATO spending and for Germany's is that many countries in Europe and many people in this country see Russia as a threat. Do you see Russia as a threat beyond Ukraine? Do you think it is a threat to European countries, to NATO members? [00:20:55] Alice Weidel: I think it's not a question about threat or not being a threat. I think German foreign or Germany's foreign policy should be evaluated by by the criterion if it serves our national interest or not. And being or acting like this is our government currently. It leads to a situation that is very harmful for us. I haven't mentioned the sanctions. Well, while we impose like one sanctioned package after the other, Donald Trump talks with Vladimir Putin about the delivery of further diesel and also about oil and gas, right? Well, we would like to have the same thing for Germany because we need to lower our energy cost. So therefore, we are very pragmatic. We would like to have a peace that also serves the interests of the Ukrainians and also the security interests of Russia. But it is and this is our stance. It is not our war. And it's very dangerous and it's very costly, especially for us. Germany has spent, you have to measure this number. Germany has been spent over 100 billion of euros for the war in Ukraine and this is quite dangerous and also in dangerous Germany as a state because right now we could be already a target. [00:22:41] Speaker 1: Well, there was a foiled, luckily, attack on Leipzig airport from the Russians. [00:22:48] Alice Weidel: Well, to be honest, I'm not so I'm not a eyewitness of that and I'm not an advocate for for pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian policy. For me, it is relevant. What evidences do we have? Well, let's see what we do. No, no, because now it is very important, like with this so-called drone or attempted drone attack. Well, we haven't seen any evidence in the parliament. Russia said, but what we have in the in the sea is we have destroyed Nord Stream pipelines. And that was a state terror attack on the German infrastructure, being very harmful for Germany, for us, like destroying like like an energy infrastructure being being like worth like, I don't know, like over like almost 30 billion euros and like cutting off the entire Europe, cutting off Europe and especially Germany from Russian gas and gas especially. And I think like we need to we need to follow the facts. And we see that that the facts, like with the terror attacks on the Nord Stream, they are ignored by our politicians. And the other one, there is evidence missing. So we ask for evidence and there's no evidence. [00:24:29] Speaker 1: Can we just step out? I agree with you, the importance of following the facts. And the facts are that in February 2022, Russia attacked Ukraine. And Russia has since then been attacking Ukraine. And you say that you want a peace that is good for Ukraine. I think many people want a peace that is good for Ukraine. Ukraine is under constant bombardment. I was in Kyiv just a few weeks ago. I was there for a week in Ukraine. I have witnessed it myself, the constant bombardment from Russian drones ahead from Russian ballistic missiles. Ukraine is trying to defend itself against an aggressor. Do you not think it is appropriate for Germany and for other West European countries to support a country that is a democratic country trying to defend themselves against this outright aggression? [00:25:13] Alice Weidel: Well, it's as democratic as it is. They have no elections anymore of a new president. That's a reason why the American president, he claims new elections for the president, because he thinks that Zelenskyy is not the right person at the right time. And so like the framing. They don't have elections right now because it's a war. Yes, but it's still, but it's still. When we talk about a aggressor and someone not being aggressor, we also criticized the Russian attack on Ukraine because Ukraine is a sovereign country, full stop, there's no discussion about it. But now, as you said before, we are in the state status quo right now and the status quo is terrible, not only for the people dying and for the families losing their sons and the damaging of infrastructures, refineries, with skyrocketing diesel prices and incredibly high security risk for all countries, especially European countries. So therefore, we need to put this to an end. And this is in this is in our because I'm a German politician. I have to judge every foreign policy of Germany. Is it in our national interest or is it not? The prolongation and the measures being taken by the German governments right now impose a huge risk on our country. And we think I think it is wrong to continue with a prolongation of a financing of a already lost war. The Ukraine, unfortunately, you can say really like the Ukraine is too small. The Ukraine cannot win against Russia. [00:27:21] Speaker 1: It is impossible when you say it's an already lost war. Yes. Does that mean that you would be comfortable with Ukraine ceasing to exist as an independent country? No, of course not. So if you if Ukraine should exist as an independent country, it will need support to do that. Do you agree with that? [00:27:41] Alice Weidel: Well, you cannot you you cannot come to a peace agreement if you if you if you prolong this war. [00:27:50] Speaker 1: But Vladimir Putin has no interest in peace. The Ukrainians say they would have a ceasefire. This is what you say. Can you give me one piece of evidence that he is interested in peace? [00:28:03] Alice Weidel: Can you give me one piece of evidence that Zelensky is interested in peace? [00:28:06] Speaker 1: He's constant. He's offered an energy ceasefire. Now they are they were in Florida talking about peace deals. The Ukrainians are absolutely willing to start talking about peace. It is Vladimir Putin who is not interested in a peace deal because he thinks that he can pulverize Ukrainian cities over the winter as he is now doing. And it seems to me that what you are suggesting and I just want to make sure I've understood this, you are suggesting stopping all German financial and military support. all European support. Is that right? Is that your preferred policy? [00:28:37] Alice Weidel: We already spent over 100 billion. No other country has spent that much. And we are highly indebted. Yeah, I have the interests of my country first. It's Germany first. And this war is not in our interest. And it's very it's very dangerous for our national security. And I am repeating myself. If diplomacy sits at the table, there's always history sitting at the table as well. So we need to view the development not only on the single event of February 2022. And this is not a justification of the attack on the Ukraine. It is not a justification. What I'm trying to say is that there's history about the encroachment of NATO to the Russian border. Russia emphasis this problem like several times. how why nobody listened to the Russian concerns when there were like rocket system being put at the borders, especially at Romania. And then like being able to to carry nuclear devices such as the Aegis rocket system. I don't know the English word, but there there what I'm trying to to say is that there's a lot of history. I agree with that. In order to have a peace in the Ukraine, we need to take not only Ukraine security interest into account, but also Russia security interest into account. And this was in the past. And this is and this has been the major mistake like the 20 years before to not acknowledging the security concerns of Russia. [00:30:38] Speaker 1: I agree that Ukraine and Russia's security and concerns need to be taken into account. But I would argue that if, as you are suggesting, you cut off military and financial support to Ukraine, it will be impossible for Ukraine to survive. But more importantly, I agree with you that history matters. But the history and Vladimir Putin is a big student of history and and Vladimir Putin has shown no signs of acknowledging Ukraine's right to exist. And more broadly, he would like to recreate the former Soviet Union. And so I think the real threat that you you you seem to gloss over is that there is a threat beyond Ukraine, a threat to the Baltics, a threat to countries inside NATO. Do you are you absolutely confident that there is no risk of that? Well, prolonging the war [00:31:33] Alice Weidel: and shooting drones like into the hinterland of Russia, destroying refineries, destroying also housings and buildings near Moscow. It is a huge provocation. It's defending itself. Look, look, look, no. I mean, no, it is very, no, every night. [00:31:54] Speaker 1: It's risky and ballistic missiles drained out. [00:31:57] Alice Weidel: It is very risky, the strategy. And we have been criticizing this strategy. We want to end this war and it doesn't help if a country goes for drone attacks against a country that have nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense. I'm sorry to say. And it's very risky and it's very stupid. And I I just I keep repeating myself. We need to end this and we need to actually put pressure on the Ukrainian president to have the willingness to end the dying and this very risky strategy for entire Europe. Like the US, for instance, they have the Atlantic in between. It's not so. So it's not in their security interest. Not at all. We are affected as Europeans and therefore we should have we should have the major interest to end this war. [00:33:06] Speaker 1: You've made your position very clear. I understand it now. I think, as you can tell, I don't agree with it, but that doesn't matter. I completely understand it. Let me let me turn to another subject that you mentioned briefly earlier, where I think people are trying to understand exactly what your party stands for. You mentioned what you call mass migration and you increasingly use this word re-migration. you say you are in favor of re-migration. Can you explain to me exactly what re-migration means? [00:33:34] Alice Weidel: Yes, absolutely. Remigration for us is the consequent implementation and execution of existing law. Therefore, illegal people who crossed our borders illegally are having having no right to stay in our country whose asylum seeking has been rejected. People who commit crime. These people, they are obliged to leave our country and we only want this law enforcement which is already in place, but there is no execution by the existing government. That's very clear. Yes. And this is our definition of re-migration. That's very clear. [00:34:33] Speaker 1: Nothing more, nothing less. That is along the order of 260,000 people. Yes, yes. But it is not because there are people in your party who talk about millions of people being re-migrated. Millionen müssen raus. Millions of people. Do you disavow that? Because they must include foreign-born naturalized Germans. They must include people who are here. Can you categorically say, because I think there are many people of foreign background who are very frightened by the AFD in this country. So it would be helpful, I think, for you to be very clear on this. People who are here legally, whether they are Syrian or Afghani or whatever, they can stay here and they are welcome by you. [00:35:14] Alice Weidel: Well, to be honest, our law states, our asylum law states that in the case that the reason for coming to our country, like especially for the Syrians, let's take that example because you mentioned that, that the reason is gone, for being here because they are refugees, asylum seekers, they need shelter, here they get tons of money from the state, but it doesn't matter right now, they have to go back to their country. They have to leave our country. What is our government doing? The government's doing nothing to send these people, Syrians, back to Syria because the Syrian, I think, foreign minister, he already said like, look, of course, we are not taking back our Syrian citizens because there are a strategic asset in Germany. So and this says everything, right? Our chancellor, he just talks and doesn't do anything, no reform, nothing. He said like, oh, we need to send back 80 percent of the Syrians. It's Chancellor Friedrich Merz. No one has been sent back because a strategic asset has to stay here. Therefore, the law enforcement is very clear in Germany. 100 percent of the Syrians, because the war ended in Syria, 100 percent of the Syrian citizens have to go back to their country, as well as the Afghans, which our government decided to actually fly into our country. I don't know like how you would possibly come to this obnoxious policy to fly in Afghans out of Afghanistan because our crime rate has been skyrocketing since 2015, since the border opening. And the main group of the of the worst crimes like raping, like killing people, Rohheitsdelikte, it's called Rohheitsdelikte. So the main category are Syrians and Afghans. So we need to send these people back and we need to detain criminals and also religious extremist leaders. We don't want a califat in our country. So and of course, the the Syrian president, for instance, he maybe wants to have that. Otherwise, his foreign minister wouldn't talk about a a foreign asset, like a strategic asset in Germany, like keeping the people here. So therefore, we we are having severe problems of integrating these people. And I haven't mentioned the Ukrainians also, the Ukrainians have to leave our country when this war will be ended. So and this is this is a sum of millions of people because it adds up to four to five million for roughly and they have to leave our country. But our government does the opposite. They throw away our German passport. After five years of staying in our country, you get our passport automatically. Why you need to everyone with a migration background. Every foreigner is welcome in Germany. We embrace people, professionals who want to work here, who make their contribution to our welfare system, to our society, being nice, not committing crimes. Everyone is welcome. I love it. Everyone loves it in my party. And we would like to to really to to send these people back and and execute existing law. [00:39:35] Speaker 1: Can I just play two of those? You've said that you want to send all Syrians back, all Afghans back, all Ukrainians as soon as the war is over, which you want, you've told me you want to finish very soon. You've also said everybody who is skilled is welcome here. You just said Syrians are the biggest group of foreign born doctors in Germany. There are, I think, a hundred thousand German doctors over the age of 60. It's about a quarter of the total. They're going to retire very soon. You have a huge shortage of doctors coming. You already have one. Are you really saying it is a sensible policy to throw out Syrian doctors and send them back, given the short year? I use that as a concrete example, but it's true across many aspects of Germany because you have a rapidly aging population and a serious shortage of workers. [00:40:24] Alice Weidel: I think in this discussion, which is very important, we shouldn't mix up the asylum system on one hand and then our and then people coming to Germany with a working visa, with a qualification, being a professional, paying taxes. These people are welcome. So therefore, we shouldn't mix it up. I talked about people that are still unrightful here because law is not implemented. I didn't talk about the professionals like the professional Syrian, for instance, or other qualified foreigners. We didn't talk about them. We need them, of course, because because we have disadvantages demographics like other countries as well. So therefore, we need to attract professionals. But we cannot attract professionals if we leave criminals who actually foreign criminals who distort our public order, who distort our welfare system, leaving our borders open. We cannot attract these people anymore because they say like, look, it's very dangerous being on German streets. Right. And the taxes are very high and the bureaucracy is ridiculous. These professionals, we are not able to attract anymore. The people don't want to come to Germany to work. And also we have a different effect. Hundred thousands of qualified Germans, they leave our country now we have we have a huge brain drain because the reason is always the same. They say like, look, the taxes are too high. We cannot finance our family. We cannot finance to buy a house. And then we don't know if we are secure in our public transportation system. What's about the educational system for our children? They're safe like coming, like being safe in school because we have a lot of violence in school, it's being imposed by I'm very sorry to say, but we have to talk about it by children of Muslim descent like beating up our children in school. So therefore, the people are very afraid and they say like, look, we have to leave our country because something went into disorder and they they rather work in the US or in Switzerland or somewhere else, but not in Germany anymore. And we need to be attractive. [00:43:02] Speaker 1: So just to make sure I understand, you want those who are here illegally and those who have failed asylum applications need to go. And yes, and you but you welcome professional skills. But then your colleagues in the state of Saxony Anhalt in their recent manifesto wrote that Germany should not rely on, quote, culturally alien skilled workers. Kulturfremde Fachkräfte. That was a bad idea, they said. That phrase, which is really a dog whistle for Muslim doctors, for skilled workers from Muslim countries, is one that I think is very, very scary for many people. It is an extreme phrase. Do you disavow that phrase or do you also agree that Germany should not have culturally alien skilled workers? [00:43:56] Alice Weidel: Good question. Thank you very much for asking me. And I would like to clarify the sentence, which is not that scary to me. We have indeed examples that, for instance, in a professional work, women are not accepted. So we have here in Berlin, wonderful Berlin, in the police of Berlin, we had like a couple of years ago, it's a case that policemen of Muslim descent, they didn't shake the hands of their female co-workers. They didn't do practices in the swimming pool, swimming practices because women were in the water before. then we have language difficulties. It is it is very important that a doctor understands the patient right and also shakes their hands and doesn't think that a woman is inferior to a man. And I think this is what my colleagues meant by this. this is common sense. It cannot be a case in a freedom loving society in which men and women should be equal. Right. [00:45:24] Speaker 1: Does that mean then you think Germany should have fewer people of Muslim descent? [00:45:30] Alice Weidel: No, I'm not saying that. I just named some examples where it doesn't work. right. And I wouldn't put a quota now because there are there are many Muslims who suffer under this situation or suffer in the situation. And there are well integrated people who work in our country who also think that something went wrong in our integration policy because there are unfortunately too many people and this country is not able to integrate all of them. [00:46:15] Speaker 1: So it's a question of integration and behavior, not of face, skin color. It's it's you are happy for people who are integrated. You are concerned about people who are not. Is that right? [00:46:28] Alice Weidel: Thank you for mentioning the skin color, the skin color. It doesn't matter and it shouldn't be because otherwise there is a racist argument about it, right? For us, we don't care. I don't care if somebody is dark colored like my wife or white colored. What what counts is merit. We need to have a merit based system and not a quota and anti-discrimination quota. [00:46:57] Speaker 1: When you speak and in our conversation, you've described yourself as a libertarian conservative. I sometimes scratch my head about what a libertarian conservative is. Why? But you you focus on personal freedom. But when I read and I read the I think it's all 252 pages of the manifesto of your colleagues in Sachsen-Anhalt and I understand it's a state manifesto. It's not the formal parties federal manifesto. But there are a number of things in there that do not sound very libertarian to me, that sound really very extreme. And I'm asking this because, as you know, many people worry that you are an extreme hard right, far right party. I know you deny it, but that is what and when when I read this manifesto, I thought I can understand why people worry about it. The manifesto calls for removing the children of refugees and disabled children from school classrooms. It calls for Heimatkunde, a study of, you know, the country's history. It wants more Bismarck, less Hitler in the curriculum, a punishment for offending the German state. It seems to me that this is a manifesto for a party or it's to actively use the state to create a particular kind of Germany. That's not libertarian. That's much more like what most people call the far right. [00:48:12] Alice Weidel: Well, for us, we actually some examples I like, like for instance, Heimatkunde and more Bismarck and Goethe and Schiller and less Hitler, yeah, would be good. Yeah, because people forget our history, a long history and but I don't want to talk about that. I just want to explain the position of my colleagues in Sachsen-Anhalt, who won actually 45 percent of the votes there, that they want to have a Germany that is in order. We have a positive vision of Germany. We want to have secure borders. We want to have families who are able to afford a house, who are able to afford a family and having secure streets, secure schools. And I think it's common sense. And I'm very sorry. this entire framing of being hard right, far right. It's not true. Why should it be the case? Why is it far right, hard right, extremist right to to to be an advocate for secure borders, against illegal migration, being against the destruction of our energy infrastructure? It is, from my perspective, common sense. And therefore, we would like to preserve the positive values of our countries and extrapolate it in the future. And we want a country that is normal and in order and being on a level playing field with our European partners and also being a partner to to Great Britain, to the US, to Russia. And I think we are on the wrong path, but not only in Germany, also in Great Britain and in our and in other countries. we talked about it and I think what we are lacking is normal policies for the people. And that is the reason why why we advocate for common sense policy. And I wouldn't call it far or far right or extremist. [00:50:36] Speaker 1: So let me just it's very normal, actually. Let me just quote you one more one, which says, quote, an intact family consisting of mother, father and children is proven to be the best prerequisite for good and healthy child development. That is what it says in the manifesto. You mentioned your wife. You and your wife are raising two children in Switzerland. She is Sri Lankan born. You clearly do not follow this description. [00:51:02] Alice Weidel: Well, I don't need to. Well, I don't need to because because actually my wife is Swiss. That's the reason why. And it's always a fun fact. But anyway, I can advocate for a family comprising of a man, of a woman and children, because this is a model in which over over 90% of the children grow up. I can I can I can be for this model and I also sign this and the party, for instance, completely tolerates a model like me and it but it may be also the fact I'm I'm very liberal about lifestyles. I think I think everyone should live his own life and the state should not interfere in every aspect of life. that I'm completely opposing the queer policy and gender stuff. I think this really distorts people, especially when they are young. For instance, in Germany, they got this law in the last government that young people can change their not only young people, but starting at the young age, that people can change their gender once a year. I'm sorry. And this is this is this is ridiculous and very disturbing and irritating, especially for young people, for teenagers. And we need to go back to a normal policy and not having constructions like social genders and not having biological genders. I think it is the wrong way and really distorts especially young people. [00:52:55] Speaker 1: I understand that. But just to be clear, you're confident that your party would respect the rights and freedoms of families like yours. Absolutely. You're 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 by clicking the link above. Now back to the interview. You describe yourself as a as a libertarian and I actually I'm pretty sure you are. But there are in your party very clearly small but clear, frankly, neo-Nazi elements. There are no. I mean, Björn Höcke twice found guilty and fined for using Nazi slogans. Just recently, these reports about four advisers in your Saxon to your leader in Saxon-Anhalt. They were part of the banned neo-Nazi youth movement. Are you denying that there are there is you're saying there's nobody in the AFD with any proto-fascist tendency? [00:53:53] Alice Weidel: Oh, my goodness. This interview has been going very well. No, I mean, it's important. Yes, yes, it's really important. [00:53:59] Speaker 1: But it's but it's completely these accusations are completely unfunded. OK, then then categorically tell me that that is not the case. And if there were, you would throw them out? Well, absolutely. This is not the case. The accusations are unfunded. So Björn Höcke, he has been found guilty and fined for using Nazi slogans. Everything for Germany is a Nazi slogan. [00:54:21] Alice Weidel: It's ridiculous. OK, Germany first. This is what he said. [00:54:26] Speaker 1: Do you think it's a Nazi slogan? I don't think so. So you don't think there is anybody in, you know, the party in Saxon-Anhalt, in Thüringer, who has any Nazi proto-Nazi tendencies? [00:54:39] Alice Weidel: The framing is very severe and we have nothing to do with that. And why are you asking me this question? [00:54:47] Speaker 1: I'm asking you because it is honestly probably the single most important question that people ask about the AFD. They say the AFD is an extreme right party and they worry understandably, given Germany's history, that there are people in your party who have sort of echoes of the 1930s. I don't think, you know, you know, my mother is German. I am, you know, I grew up, spent part of my time here. I'm not at all surprised that people are really worried about this. [00:55:15] Alice Weidel: Well, we had that before, that the framing of far right extremist is unfunded. I think that we stand for a common sense policy that I laid out in this interview and that the framing of the horrible time of the Third Reich, because you've been mentioning this now several times, that the framing and putting the Alternative for Deutschland in a continuation of this horrible, terrible times of the Third Reich, it's just used against us to harm our reputation. And nothing can be more untrue, to be honest. [00:56:04] Speaker 1: That's interesting. But do you agree that there are many people, people who take part in demonstrations against you, who worry about the extreme elements in your party? And what could you do as you are continuing to grow in popularity? Do you think it's a priority to reassure those people that they have nothing to worry about? [00:56:25] Alice Weidel: Well, you know, we don't have extremists in our party. We are not an extreme party. It's an unserious framing to be very harmful to our reputation. It doesn't work anymore. We reached, as you mentioned right at the beginning, we reached over 30 percent on a federal level, putting the chancellor's party at below 18 percent already, having a delta of 12 to 13 percent already. And the people, also the German voters, they don't believe this anymore. [00:56:59] Speaker 1: I think you said last year that your goal is to get over 40 percent, which would be an impressive, but still not enough to govern by yourselves. And right now, as you know, Germany has the firewall, the Brandmauer, no one will deal with you. But do you think, first of all, that that will go? And secondly, do you think you are prepared to make some compromises to work with others in order to be in power? [00:57:24] Alice Weidel: You know, I think the Brandmauer, the firewall is very harmful for the chancellor's party that slipped below 20 percent now at 17 percent. You have to imagine that's chancellor's party and it's very harmful for them. And it's also very harmful for our country because the voters keep voting for for a coalition of CDU and AFD or AFD right now and CDU, because we are we are we are much stronger right now. We overtook the CDU and I think our country deserves it to have common sense, good policies for our country. And yeah, having a undemocratic tool such as such as a firewall, it manifests the the hard left parties like imposing very severe, as you can see here in Berlin, we may have a leftist government and making them stronger. So therefore, the entire strategy of a firewall like strengthens the leftist block parties and imposing such as high taxes and also Enteignungen. And yeah, let's let's see what's going to happen. [00:58:51] Speaker 1: But if it were to go, would you make compromises to work with others? Why should we? Because politics is often about compromise. [00:59:00] Alice Weidel: I think on our main points that I've laid out in our interview, there are no compromises to be made because our country and our people, they deserve it. And I think the CDU has to move first. And if the CDU doesn't move very quickly, they perish very soon. [00:59:22] Speaker 1: That is a very strong note on which to end and it's vital. Thank you very much for joining me. Thank you very much for having me. Thank you very much for having me. [00:59:32] Speaker ?: Thank you.