Speaker A
Alice Vital, thank you for joining me on The Insider.
Alice Weidel (AfD) discusses the German economy, energy policy, the euro, Ukraine, migration and identity politics in a wide-ranging Economist interview.
Key Takeaways
- The AfD's economic critique centers on energy policy and bureaucracy, and it proposes deep structural rather than incremental change.
- Weidel's position on leaving the euro remains unclear, despite the party's earlier manifesto language.
- Her stance on Ukraine and Russia has drawn significant criticism, especially regarding Ukraine's sovereignty.
- Migration and gender policy are central to the AfD's identity and are framed as defending national interest and merit.
- The interview exposes ongoing debate over whether the AfD is a mainstream conservative-libertarian party or a far-right one.
What the video covers
- Weidel argues Germany's economic crisis stems from the Energiewende, including nuclear phase-out and reliance on wind and solar, leading to high energy costs and company bankruptcies.
- She calls for cutting bureaucracy and restructuring the economy, describing the situation as needing a fundamental rebuild rather than minor repairs.
- Weidel says the AfD does not seek to leave the EU but to reform it into a free-trade community of sovereign states, opposing what she calls a bureaucratic, planned-economy Commission.
- On the euro, she describes it as unstable and says Germany should return to a stable currency, while the interviewer presses her on whether Germany should leave; her answer is ambiguous.
- On Ukraine, she says the war is not Germany's and that German support is costly; she suggests Russian security interests must be considered in any peace settlement.
- She was pressed on whether she would accept Ukraine ceasing to exist as an independent state, and her response drew scrutiny.
- On migration, she calls for secure borders, deportations of rejected asylum seekers, and a merit-based immigration system, saying Germany struggles to attract skilled workers.
- She criticizes gender and queer policy, including self-identification laws, and opposes anti-discrimination quotas in favor of merit-based systems.
- She rejects the characterization of her party as far-right or extremist and is questioned about Nazi-linked tendencies, which she dismisses.
- The interview highlights tensions between the AfD's economic liberal rhetoric and its policy positions on the EU, euro and foreign policy.
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
Thank you for having me.
Speaker A
So the party you co-lead, the Alternative for Germany, is riding high.
Speaker A
You came top in two recent state elections, Saxony-Anhalt and Mecklenburg-Vorpommern.
Speaker A
You're the biggest opposition group in the Bundestag, and you consistently come absolutely at the top of the polls nationally.
Speaker A
And I think your success, your rise, is reflecting a deep frustration amongst many Germans with the status quo.
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
So I wanted to start with the economy.
Speaker A
You are an economist.
Speaker A
Um, if you were to, let's imagine the German economy is a car, is it in need of a few repairs, or does it need a whole new economic model?
Speaker A
How big is the challenge for the German economy?
Speaker A
Actually, to be in your picture, you need to restructure and rebuild the entire car, because the car parts are also broken.
Speaker A
And I am going to explain to you why that is the case in Germany.
Speaker A
Um, I think Germany, just looking at the data, at the economic data, is in a deep crisis, and this crisis is multifaceted.
Speaker A
Firstly, one major cause is the destroying of our energy infrastructure by the so-called Energiewende.
Speaker A
So, the Energiewende is the energy transition policy that was self-inflicted and introduced firstly by the Merkel government and then continued by the following governments until now.
Speaker A
And these energy policies comprise the destruction of our infrastructure, just like destroying our nuclear power plants.
Speaker A
You have to imagine Germany in the past had 19 power plants, most modern ones.
Speaker A
So they were just switched off, and some got explosives so that they were basically destroyed, right?
Speaker A
And now Germany has zero nuclear power plants.
Speaker A
So I think Germany has the stupidest and dumbest energy policy worldwide, and it continues.
Speaker A
We have the energy transition basing our energy supply solely on wind power and solar power.
Speaker A
So when the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine, we have the so-called, I don't know the English word, so it is like when you have no power supply basically.
Speaker A
Then we are dependent on our neighbors importing energy for tremendously high prices.
Speaker A
And all of this leads to the situation in which the energy cost for our companies, for the German companies, and also for the Germans, is too high.
Speaker A
They're the highest in the world.
Speaker A
So therefore, we are not competitive anymore in the world market, and we face right now skyrocketing bankruptcy rates by German companies.
Speaker A
Either they go bankrupt or they go abroad.
Speaker A
And this is basically the situation here.
Speaker A
And I haven't mentioned yet the high bureaucracy burden on the companies.
Speaker A
So it's interesting that you mentioned both of those.
Speaker A
I think you have some very good points.
Speaker A
Germany does have incredibly high energy costs.
Speaker A
I think with hindsight many people in the government might agree that shutting down the nuclear reactors did not make sense.
Speaker A
And your manifesto last year also made very clear you want to cut red tape, both pro-growth, sensible policies.
Speaker A
But your manifesto last year also said that Germany should leave the euro.
Speaker A
And this is a policy that really has me scratching my head, because most economists would agree that for Germany, leaving the euro would be catastrophic for its growth.
Speaker A
Now, in the last few days there have been some reports that your party may be rethinking its policy towards the euro.
Speaker A
So I wonder if you could just state quite clearly: should Germany leave the euro?
Speaker A
Thank you very much for the question and giving me the opportunity to clarify something.
Speaker A
There is this myth, stemming from the framing of our party, that we want to leave the EU and that we want to leave the euro.
Speaker A
It's wrong.
Speaker A
Our program states that we would like to reform the European Union firstly.
Speaker A
We think that the European Union should be a community of sovereign states with a free trade area.
Speaker A
This is where we came from.
Speaker A
What we don't want is a European Union bureaucratic commission with a lot of bureaucrats, like a Soviet Union, something that interferes into your privacy, into companies, telling them what to produce, having, I would say, laws, bureaucratic democracy, and also telling the consumers what to buy or what to install.
Speaker A
We think that this is very harmful to a free economy and to a free market system.
Speaker A
We also see a democratic deficit, like the checks and balances.
Speaker A
We know from political philosophy that we need a system of checks and balances, on one hand horizontally, but also vertically.
Speaker A
So decisions should be made at the lowest level of decision-making, because there you can have control.
Speaker A
You can make things better, because you have the knowledge of the decision, but not a planned economy like a commission that is not elected and whose people have no idea how a free market system works.
Speaker A
You're watching an interview from The Economist.
Speaker A
To get early access to our upcoming interviews and watch others from our archive, subscribe to The Economist by clicking the link above.
Speaker A
Now, back to the interview.
Speaker A
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?
Speaker A
Well, um, I think Cameron did it.
Speaker A
So he said, like, look, we need to have these reforms, one, two, three, otherwise we're going to leave the country.
Speaker A
And then you got the Brexit decision in Great Britain.
Speaker A
Not so clear that was such a great thing for us.
Speaker A
Well, this is open for discussion.
Speaker A
I think Great Britain has different problems now.
Speaker A
But let's stay at Germany, because we are in the European Union, and we are the main financier of the European Union.
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
Therefore, this would guarantee the welfare of all nation states, which we had in the past.
Speaker A
We think the development we had after the introduction of the euro has been quite harmful for the European Union, because by means of introducing the euro, the German people were promised that Germany would never take on the debt of other countries.
Speaker A
There was a promise to the Germans.
Speaker A
The Germans were never asked about introducing the euro.
Speaker A
I want to get to the bottom line of this, which is: we are where we are.
Speaker A
Given where we are now, should Germany leave the euro, or should it not?
Speaker A
We believe that 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 an optimal currency area, and the policymakers should have known that right from the beginning.
Speaker A
So therefore, it is very important, because we have a highly inflated currency.
Speaker A
We are coming from a German Deutsche Mark world.
Speaker A
We always had a relatively stable currency, and for the German economy the introduction of the euro is quite something.
Speaker A
We need to go back to a stable currency, and this is what we propose: that we need to stick to these institutions that have been implemented above the national currencies, that they have to stick to the rules, it should be rules-based, what they do and shouldn't do, and they shouldn't inflate the balance sheet.
Speaker A
An interview has come out with Marine Le Pen, and she is arguing for more ECB
Speaker A
Ukraine? Do you think it is a threat to European countries to NATO members? 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 um evaluated by um by the
Speaker A
criterion if it serves our national interest or not and um being um or acting like this as our government uh currently um it leads to a situation that is very harmful um for us. Um I haven't mentioned the sanctions. Well, while we
Speaker A
impose like one sanctioned package after the other, Donald Trump talks with uh Vladimir Putin about um the uh delivery of further diesel and also about um um um oil and gas, right? Well, we would like to have the same thing for Germany
Speaker A
because we need to lower our energy cost. So therefore we are very pragmatic. We would like to have a peace um that also serves the uh interest of the Ukrainians and also the uh security interest of Russia. But it is and this is our
Speaker A
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 uh um um um imagine this number.
Speaker A
Germany has been spent over hundred billion of euros for the war in Ukraine and this is quite dangerous and also endangers um Germany as a state because right now um we could be already a target.
Speaker A
So therefore there was there was a a foiled luckily attack on Leipzig airport from the Russians. 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
Speaker A
pro-Russian policy. For me, it is relevant. What evidences do we have? Well, let's for the No, no, because now it is very important like with this uh so-called drone or attempted drone attack. Well, we haven't seen any evidence in the parliament. I was just
Speaker A
said, but what we have in the um in the um um um in the sea is we have destroyed Nordstream pipelines and that was a state terror attack on the German infrastructure being very harmful for Germany for us like destroying like like
Speaker A
an energy infrastructure being being like worth like I don't know like over like almost 30 billion euros and um like cutting off the entire Europe um cutting off um Europe and especially Germany from Russian uh gas and uh gas
Speaker A
especially. And I think like we need to we need to follow the facts and we see that um the um um that the facts like with a terror attacks on uh north stream they are ignored by our politicians
Speaker A
and yes please and the other one there is evidence missing. So we ask for evidence and there's no evidence. C can we just step back? I agree with you the importance of following the facts and the facts are
Speaker A
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 piece that is good for Ukraine. Ukraine is under
Speaker A
constant bombardment. I was in Kiev just a few weeks ago. I was there for a week in Ukraine. I have witnessed it myself.
Speaker A
the constant bombardment from Russian drone shads, 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
Speaker A
country trying to defend itself against this outright aggression? Well, um it's as democratic um um as it is. Um they have no elections anymore of a new president. That's the reason why the American president he claims uh new
Speaker A
elections to uh to um for the um president because he thinks that Silinski is not the right uh person at the right time. Um and um so like the frame they don't have elections right now because it's in the war and there's
Speaker A
but it's still but it's still when we talk about um a aggressor and someone not being a aggressor. We also criticized the Russian attack on Ukraine because Ukraine is a sovereign country.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
infrastructures refineries with skyrocketing uh uh diesel prices um and um incredibly high security risk for all countries especially 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.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
is wrong to continue with a prolongation of a financing of a already lost war.
Speaker A
The Ukraine unfortunately you can say really like the Ukraine is too small. The Ukraine cannot win against Russia.
Speaker A
It is impossible. So when you say what are we doing already lost war? Yes.
Speaker A
Does that mean that you would be comfortable with Ukraine ceasing to exist as an independent country? Of course. So if you if Ukraine should exist as an independent country, it will need support to do that.
Speaker A
Do you agree with that? Well, um you cannot you you cannot come to a peace agreement if you if you um if you prolong this war. But but Vladimir Putin has no interest in peace. The Ukrainians say they would have a
Speaker A
ceasefire. He refuses to have a cease. Can you give me one piece of evidence that he is interested in peace?
Speaker A
Can you give me one piece of evidence that Silinski is interested in peace? He's constant. He's offered a an energy ceasefire. Now they are they were in um Florida talking about peace deals. The Ukrainians are absolutely willing to
Speaker A
start talking about peace. It is Vladimir Putin who is not interested in the 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
Speaker A
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? We already spent over 100 billion. No other country spent that much and we are highly
Speaker A
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,
Speaker A
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 um 2022 and this is not a justification of u the attack um on the Ukraine. It is
Speaker A
not a justification. What I'm trying to say is that there's history about the encroachment of NATO to the Russian border. Russia um uh emphasis this problem like several times. So why nobody listened to the Russian concerns uh when there were like rocket system
Speaker A
being put at the borders especially at Romania and then um um like um being able to to carry nuclear um um devices such as the AGIS u rocket system um I don't know the English word um but um
Speaker A
there there what I'm trying to to say is that there's a lot of history I 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
Speaker A
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 Russia. I agree that Ukraine and Russia's security and concerns need to be taken into
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
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.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
NATO. Do you are you absolutely confident that there is no risk of that? Well, prolonging the war and shooting drones like into the hinterland of Russia, destroying refineries, destroying also um um housings and buildings near Moscow. It is a huge
Speaker A
provocation and this goes look look no every night it's risky and and ballistic missiles drained down rain down on very risky the strategy and we have been criticizing this strategy we want to end this war and it doesn't help if a
Speaker A
country um um goes for drone attacks um um against a 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
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
so so it's not in their security interest. Not at all. we are affected as Europeans and therefore we should have um we should have the major interest to end this war.
Speaker A
You've made your position very clear. I understand it now. I I think as you can tell I don't agree with it but that doesn't matter. I I completely understand it. Let me let me turn to another subject that you mentioned
Speaker A
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 remigration. You say you are in favor of remigration.
Speaker A
Can you explain to me exactly what remigration means? Yes absolutely. Remigration for us um is the consequent implementation and execution of existing law. Therefore, illegal people who crossed our borders illegally um having no right to stay in our country
Speaker A
um whose asylum um um seeking has been rejected. People who um commit crime. These people they are um um obliged to leave our country and we only want this law enforcement which is already in place but there is
Speaker A
no execution by the existing government. That's very clear. This is yes and uh this is our definition of remigration.
Speaker A
That's very clear and just nothing more nothing less. So that is along the order of 260,000 people who a size but it is not because there aren't people in your party who talk about millions of people being migrated
Speaker A
million and mus millions of people do you disavow that because they must include foreignb born naturalized Germans they must include people who are hit can you categorically say because I think there are many people of foreign background who are very frightened by
Speaker A
the AFD in this country so it would be helpful I think for you to be very clear on people who are here legally, whether they are Syrian or Afghani or whatever, they can and are w they can stay here
Speaker A
and they are welcome by you. Well, to be honest, our law states, our asylum law states that um in the case that the reason um for coming to our country like especially for the Syrians uh let's stay at that example because you mentioned
Speaker A
that um that the reason is gone, right? um for being here because they are refugees, asylum seekers, they need shelter here. They get tons of money uh from the state. Um but it doesn't matter right now. Um they have to go back to
Speaker A
their country. They have to leave our country. What is our government doing? the government's doing nothing to uh send this 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
Speaker A
citizens because they 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% of the Syrians.
Speaker A
It's Chancellor Frizz. No one has been sent back because the strategic asset has to stay here. Therefore, the law enforcement is very clear in Germany.
Speaker A
100% of the Syrians because the war ended in Syria, 100% 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
Speaker A
uh would uh possibly come to this uh 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
Speaker A
killing people Rohites dea it's called Rohites dea Um so uh the main category are Syrians and Afghans. So we need to send these people back and we need to detain um um criminals and also um religious um extremist leaders. We don't want a
Speaker A
khalifhat in our country. So um and of course the um the Syrian president for instance um he maybe wants to have that otherwise his foreign minister wouldn't talk about a um a foreign um asset like a strategic asset in Germany like
Speaker A
keeping the people here. So therefore we we are having severe problems of integrating these people and I haven't mentioned um the Ukrainians also the Ukrainians have to leave our country um when this war um um will be ended. So,
Speaker A
and this is this is a sum of millions of people because it adds up to four to five million four roughly and they have to leave our country. But our government does the opposite. They throw away our German passport after five years of
Speaker A
staying in our country. You get our passport automatically. Why? You need to Everyone with a um migration background.
Speaker A
Every foreigner is welcome in Germany. We embrace uh people, professionals who want to work here, um who make their contribution to our welfare system, to our society, being nice, not committing uh crimes. Everyone is welcome. I love it. Everyone loves it in my party. And
Speaker A
uh we would like to to really to um to send these people back and uh and um execute existing law that have Can I just play two of those back?
Speaker A
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 you've told me you want to finish very soon. Uh you've also said everybody who is skilled is welcome
Speaker A
here. Um, you just said, uh, Syrians are the biggest group of foreignb born doctors in Germany. There are, I think, a 100,000 German doctors over the age of 60. It's about a quarter of the total.
Speaker A
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 shortage? I use that as a
Speaker 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.
Speaker A
I think in this discussion, which is very important, we shouldn't mix up um the asylum system on one hand and then our um um um and then uh people coming to Germany with a working visa, with a qualification, being a professional,
Speaker A
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 uh other
Speaker A
qualified foreigners. I didn't talk about them. We need them of course because because we have disadvantages um um demographics like other countries as well. So therefore we need to attract professionals but we cannot attract professionals if we leave criminals
Speaker A
um who actually foreign criminals who distort our public order who distort our welfare system um leaving um our borders open. uh we cannot attract these people anymore because they say like look um it's very dangerous being on German
Speaker A
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 thousands of qualified Germans they
Speaker A
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 um our family. We cannot finance to buy a
Speaker A
house. Um and then we don't know if we are secure in our public transportation system. What's about the educational system for our children? Are they safe like coming like being safe in school?
Speaker A
because we have a lot of violence in schools being imposed by I'm very sorry to say but we have to talk about it by children of um of um u Muslim descent um like beating up our children in school.
Speaker A
So therefore the people are very afraid and they say like look we have to leave our country because uh something um went into disorder and uh they they rather work in the US or in Switzerland or somewhere else but not in Germany
Speaker A
anymore and we need to be attractive. So I just to make sure I understand you you want those who are here illegally and those who who have failed asylum applications need to go and and you but you welcome
Speaker A
professional skilled support. But then your colleagues in the state of Saxony Anhad in their recent manifesto wrote that Germany should not rely on quote culturally alien skilled workers.
Speaker A
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
Speaker A
phrase or do you also agree that Germany should not have culturally alien skilled workers?
Speaker A
Good question. Thank you very much for asking me. Um and I would like to clarify the sentence which is not that um scary to me. Um we have indeed um examples that um for instance um in a professional work women are not
Speaker A
accepted. So um we have here in Berlin, huh wonderful Berlin um in the police um um of Berlin um we had like a couple of years ago the case that um policemen um of Muslim descent.
Speaker A
They didn't shake uh uh the hands of their female co-workers. They didn't do practices in the swimming pool, swimming practices because women were uh in the water before. Um then um we have language difficulties. Um um it is it is
Speaker A
very important that a doctor understands the patient right and also shakes a hands and doesn't think that um a woman is inferior to a man. And I think uh um this is what my colleagues meant by this and this is common sense. It cannot be
Speaker A
um a case in a freedom loving society in which uh men and women should be equal.
Speaker A
Right. Does that mean then you think Germany should have fewer people of Muslim descent?
Speaker A
No, I'm not saying that. I I just named some examples uh where it doesn't work, right? Um and um I wouldn't put a quot because there are there are many Muslims um who suffer um um um under this
Speaker A
situation or uh suffer in this situation and there are well integrated um people who work in our country um who also think that something went wrong in our um integration policy. Y because there are unfortunately too many people
Speaker A
um and this country is not able to integrate all of them unfortunately. So it's a question of integration and behavior not of faith skin color. It's it's you are happy for people who are integrated. You are concerned about
Speaker A
people who are not. Is is that right? Thank you for mentioning the skin color.
Speaker A
um the skin color um it doesn't matter and it shouldn't be because otherwise there is a racist argument about it right for us it we don't care I don't care if somebody is dark colored um like my wife um or uh white colored um what
Speaker A
what counts is merit we need to have a merit-based system and not a quot and anti-discrimination quarter when you speak and in our conversation you you've You've described yourself as a libertarian conservative and I sometimes scratch my head about what a
Speaker A
libertarian conservative is, but I I 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 Saxonhut, and I understand it's a state manifesto. It's not the
Speaker A
formal party's 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
Speaker A
hardright 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.
Speaker A
The manifesto calls for removing the children of refugees and disabled children from school classrooms. It calls for Himat Kunda a study of you know the the country's history. It wants more Bismar less Hitler in the curriculum. a punishment for offending
Speaker A
the German state. It seems to me that this is a manifesto for a party that wants to actively use the state to create a particular kind of Germany.
Speaker A
That's not libertarian. That's much more like what most people call the far right. Well, for us, we actually some examples um I like like for instance Himat Kund and more Bismar and G and Chilla and lesser.
Speaker A
Yeah. would be good. Yeah. Um um because uh people forget our history, our long history and um but I don't want to talk about that. Um I just want to explain uh the position of my colleagues in Zaxon
Speaker A
Anal who won actually 45% of the votes there. Um that they want to have um a Germany that is an order. We have a positive vision of Germany. We want to have secure borders. We want to have families
Speaker A
um who are able to uh afford a house, who are able to afford a family and having sec secure streets, secure schools. And uh I think it's common sense and I'm very sorry. Um this entire framing of being hard, right, far right
Speaker A
um um it's not true. Why should it be the case? Why is it far right, hard right, extremist right to uh to to be a advocate for secure borders against illegal migration being um against the um the destruction of our energy
Speaker A
infrastructure. It is from my perspective common sense and therefore we would like to preserve the positive values of our countries and extrapolated in the future. And we want a country that is normal and in order and being uh
Speaker A
on a level playing field with our European partners um and also uh um being a partner um to uh to Great Britain, to the US, to Russia and um I think um we are on a wrong path but not
Speaker A
only in Germany, also in Great Britain um and in our uh and in other countries.
Speaker A
We talked about it and I think what uh we are lacking is normal policies for the people and that is the reason um why why we advocate for common sense policy and I wouldn't call it far or far right
Speaker A
or extremist. 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
Speaker A
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 uh description. Well, I don't need
Speaker A
to. Well, I don't need to because because uh actually my wife is Swiss. That's the reason why and it's u always um a fun fact. But anyway, I can advocate for a family comprising um of a man of a woman and children
Speaker A
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 signed this um and the party for instance completely tolerates a model
Speaker A
like me um and um it but it may be also the fact I'm I'm very liberal um about lifestyles. I think I think e everyone should live his own life. Um and the state should not interfere in every
Speaker A
aspect of life. And I'm completely opposing the queer um um 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 um can change their uh not
Speaker A
on young people but starting at the young age that people can change their gender once a year. I'm sorry. And this is ve this is this is ridiculous and very disturbing and irritating especially for young people for teenagers. And we need to go back to a
Speaker A
normal policy and not uh uh having constructions like uh social genders and not having biological genders. I think uh it is a wrong way and really distorts uh especially young people. I understand that. But just to be clear, you're
Speaker A
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 Amade, subscribe to The Economist by clicking the link
Speaker A
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 completely unfunded
Speaker A
twice guilt found guilty and fined for using Nazi slogans just recently these reports about four advisers in your Saxon to your leader in Saxon an unhut they were part of the banned new neo-Nazi youth movement are you denying
Speaker A
that there are there is you're saying there's nobody in the AFD with any protofascist tendency oh my goodness this interview has been going very well I will it's important Yes. Yes. It's really important.
Speaker A
But it's uh but it's completely these accusations are completely unfunded. Okay. Then then categorically tell me that that is not the case and and if there were, you would throw them out.
Speaker A
Well, absolutely. This is not the case. The accusations are unfunded. So, Bjon Hooker, he has been found guilty and fined for using Nazi slogans.
Speaker A
Everything for Germany is a Nazi slogan. It's ridiculous. Okay. Germany first. This is what he said. Do you think it's a Nazi slogan? I don't think so. And so you don't think there is anybody in you know the party in Saxon Anhard in
Speaker A
Turing who has any Nazi protonazi tendencies? The framing is very uh severe and uh we have nothing to do with that. And um why are you asking me this question?
Speaker A
I'm asking you because it is honestly probably the single most important question that people ask about the AFD.
Speaker A
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'm I
Speaker A
am you know I grew up spend part of my time here. I am not at all surprised that people are really worried about this.
Speaker A
Well we had that before that the framing of farright extremist um um is unfunded.
Speaker A
I think that we stand for a common sense policy um that I laid out in this interview um and um that the framing of the horrible time of the third r um because you've been mentioning this now several times that the framing and
Speaker A
putting the alter alternative deand in a continuation of these horrible terrible times of the third rife.
Speaker A
um it's just used against us um to uh to harm our reputation and uh nothing can be more untrue to be honest.
Speaker A
Okay, 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 you know you are continuing to grow
Speaker A
in popularity. Do you think it's a priority to reassure those people that they have nothing to worry about?
Speaker A
Well, you know, we don't have extremists in our party. We are not an extreme party. It's a uh unserious framing to be very harmful to our reputation. It doesn't work anymore. We reached as I mentioned right at the beginning we
Speaker A
reached over 30% on a federal level putting the chancellor's party at below 18% already having a delta of 12 to 13% already and uh the people also the German voters they don't believe this anymore.
Speaker A
you you I think you said last year that your your goal is to get over 40%. Um uh which would be an impressive but still not enough to govern by yourselves and right now as you know Germany has the
Speaker A
firewall the brunt mau 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? Um you know I think um
Speaker A
the brand mau the firewall um is very harmful for the chancellor's party um that um slipped below uh 20% now at 17% you have to imagine this chancellor's party um and um it's very harmful for them and it's also very harmful for our
Speaker A
country because the voters keep voting for uh for a coalition of um CDU and AFD or AFD right now and CDU because we are the we are we are much stronger right now. how we overtook the CDU and um I
Speaker A
think our country deserves it um to have common sense uh um good policies for our country and um yeah having a undemocratic tool such as um such as a firewall it manifests um the the hard left parties like imposing um um very um
Speaker A
severe as you can see here in Berlin uh we may have a a leftish government uh and making them stronger. So therefore the entire strategy of a firewall like strengthens um the leftish block parties and imposing such as high taxes and also and
Speaker A
um and um yeah let's let's see what's going on. But if it were to go would you make compromises to work with others?
Speaker A
Why should we? because politics is often about compromise. 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
Speaker A
CDU has to move first and if the CDU doesn't move very quickly, they perish very soon.
Speaker A
That is a very strong note on which to end. Alice Vital, thank you very much for joining me. Thank you very much for having me.
Topics:Alice WeidelAfDGermanyEnergiewendeeuroEuropean UnionUkrainemigrationeconomyGerman politics
