SPD: Juso boss Türmer threatens to cancel the grand coalition

Mr. Türmer, for CSU-Boss Markus Söder make the exploratory results “desire for more”. For you too?

It is to be welcomed that we have clarified the financing question beforehand. However, there are points in the areas of work, social issues and the migration, which I have to reject out of the deepest conviction should also be in a coalition agreement.

The debt package for the infrastructure is on the brink because the Greens reject it. Has black-red failed before it even starts?

The fact that Merz did all the time as if the Greens were already on board was an embarrassing mistake. The Greens put a few justified points with which Merz now has to deal seriously. It is important that in the end there is a result that makes the way free for a reform that makes up both defense spending and investing from the debt rules.

The SPD Suddenly has many points in migration policy, which the Union recently also pushed through with AfD votes in the Bundestag. Where is the furor of the Juso chairman?

I am simply shaken in the field of asylum and migration. It should be deported to Afghanistan and Syria, “starting” with criminals and endangered, it is said – as if there should be more. Massive deportations to Syria, among other things, where, according to current reports, 300 Alawite civilians have just been murdered, the minimum human rights standard.

Returns to the limits for asylum seekers are also planned …

… in “voting” with EU partners, but this is apparently interpreted by the Union as simple knowledge. This is neither acceptable by humanitarian nor from a European perspective.

The SPD insists on agreement with the EU neighbor. Repeats black and red the traffic light error, to write down many things, but not to be agreed between the lines?

You have to have this impression. If it remains with the interpretation of the Union, Germany puts its EU neighbors in CC of an email, so to speak, “Hello everyone, we do it from now on.” This would give us the solidarity within the EU – and that at a time when more common European approach is needed. But there is another point that makes me stunned.

That double nationals should be withdrawn from German citizenship. This describes an unconstitutional path and exceeded a red line. This is an absolute dealbreaker that must not be portable for us.

It should be checked whether terrorist supporters, anti -Semites and extremists can be withdrawn from German citizenship if they have further nationality.

The withdrawal of citizenship is excluded in the Basic Law, as a teaching from the Nazi era and GDR dictatorship-people were dismissed with the instrument of expatriation. Now it is very vague in the exploratory paper that, among other things, “extremists” should be withdrawn from citizenship. This would open the pandora rifle, a second -class citizenship and a way to withdraw people after discretion.

Don’t you overdo anything now? Many Germans will find this passage completely correctly.

Imagine that the AfD should be involved in a state government at some point – which we hopefully know how to prevent. But from the perspective of an AfD authorities, everyone who is currently clearly located in the democratic center is an extremist.

Citizens’ money is to be renamed and redesigned. In the future, a placement of placement should apply again to convey faster in jobs. Agreed?

We did not come up with the citizens’ allowance for fun. In the Hartz IV system, people were conveyed in jobs that neither met their skills nor interests. The result: the employment relationship was short -lived, many ended up in basic security. Therefore, it was right to end the placement of placement and instead put it on cooperation agreements. To handle this again would be a massive step backwards.

A complete deprivation of performance for total refusers should also be possible in the future. Isn’t that just?

No, that would be clearly unconstitutional. In our welfare state, people are guaranteed a subsistence level by the Basic Law. I expect from all democratic parties, especially from the SPD, that it defends such achievements and does not attack and dismiss.

Does the SPD give up ideals to be able to enter a coalition?

It is still a exploratory and no coalition paper, but many social democratic ideals seem to wiggle my feelings. In this exploratory paper there are many points that are not justifiable for a social democratic party. This has to be hard negotiations now, without compulsory agreement.

Isn’t the failure of a black and red coalition a chimrene? What would be the alternative, should the conversations burst?

An option would also be, for example, that you will continue to negotiate one round. We are now in an extremely difficult situation in which nobody is allowed to make it too easy. Due to the election result, the starting point is extremely challenging.

The SPD members will vote online via a coalition agreement. Where will you and the approximately 70,000 Jusos not be able to go?

At the point of the double citizenship, a stop sign urgently need to be set, and the SPD leadership will still have to improve in the areas of work and social issues, and I have clearly expressed the criticism in the field of asylum. Overall, the whole package has to get better – otherwise it will be very difficult with the support of the Jusos. I could not agree with a coalition agreement with this content.

The SPD wants to become a People’s Party on the left of the middle. How is that supposed to succeed in a center-right government?

It won’t be easy. We have to honestly face the programmatic problems that have led to a great loss of credibility in the SPD. Many people have the feeling that we only move in a government logic in Berlin, far away from their real problems. These people cannot be found in our vision because we do not credibly embody them. We urgently need to do it.

At the end of June, the party leadership is also to be re-elected at the SPD party conference. Should Lars Klingbeil and Saskia Esken free for a fresh start?

We Jusos want a programmatic reorganization that must also be visible to the outside world. This also affects the faces that represent a party as a whole- whether at the party and faction leaders, but also possible government members. It is logical that a realignment needs especially fresh faces. Anything else would be a strange signal.

So far, the SPD leadership has handled it in such a way that party and government office was strictly separated. Should it stay with?

The regulation is generally accepted in our party. I see no reason to change her now.