"An issue like this can bring movement to negotiations"
The budget negotiations will take longer than planned - this has been admitted by the traffic light coalition. One person who knows how these negotiations can succeed explains. FDP budget politician Fricke has been dealing with this topic for two decades. He explains how an agreement could be reached.
ntv.de: Mr. Fricke, how confident are you that Messrs. Scholz, Habeck, and Lindner will agree on a budget for 2025?
Otto Fricke: I am optimistic. As a Rhineland native, I am optimistic by nature. But I have been doing budget politics since 2002. If the three cannot make progress in their negotiations, we would have many more open rifts. Then we would hear a lot more about what's not working.
We do have these rifts. The SPD has been saying all along that they won't save on pensions, social benefits, or other social expenditures. The FDP wants to abolish the solidarity surcharge for everyone. As for the debt brake, that's another story.
Yes, but nothing new has come up. We went into coalition negotiations with these positions. It's not new. And what Christian Lindner is saying is often just a matter of law. They all know that.
That may be the case with the abolition of the cold progression, but not with the abolition of the solidarity surcharge.
No, that desire is not new. What and how much is at stake, we'll have to see. I'm focusing on something else. The talks are still taking place in private. Nothing is leaking out. I see that very positively. Each side will have to give something. At the end of the day, no one can be a loser. That means no one can be the shining winner either. So far, it's still going well.
That may be so. But the coalition will not meet the self-set deadline of July 3.
This deadline was set by the cabinet as a whole. As a parliamentarian and budget politician, I don't need the draft budget until July, but in July.
How should one imagine the negotiations between Scholz, Lindner, and Habeck? Are they going through every single budget item and looking for a few million here and a billion there? Or is it only about the big picture?
They are already going through positions. Where the three set the threshold, I am cautious. But take the topic of black work with social benefits. That's only about a low-million euro budget, but it was still discussed.
Isn't that just a symbolic issue?
You say that. But such an issue can bring movement into the negotiations. Many voters from the SPD and Greens are saying that it's right to temporarily withdraw funds from total refusers and black workers. That makes it easier to talk about such issues with the SPD and Greens.
They won't agree to cuts.
But we can talk about whether there are cases in certain social benefits where the benefits should not even be paid out. Where it's unfair or unsocial to pay out a benefit. That can also have a saving effect without cuts in the actual sense. The effect is already quite good.
You're grabbing at every straw.
In the end, you don't solve a budget with revolution, but always only with evolution.
It bothers you that Defense Minister Pistorius wants an additional 6.7 billion euros, and that the Interior, Foreign, and Development Aid ministers have also filed additional requirements?
No, the realist in me is coming through. Of course they are trying to get as much money as in 2023. I don't mind Annalena Baerbock trying to do the same. But she is going against her own decision made in the cabinet. That bothers me already.
The basis for the budget negotiations is the financial plan that was adopted by the entire cabinet in 2023. In it, the individual budgets for the ministries were roughly set.
Approximately 25 billion Euros need to be saved. Consensus seemed to be that the defense budget should be increased. That's not happening.
The defense budget is stable. The criterion is to allocate two percent of the Gross National Product for defense. If the GNP decreases, you need less money to reach two percent.
The money from the special fund is used up by 2028. Then, the two percent must be cut from the federal budget. Shouldn't the defense budget then shrink piece by piece?
If I increase the defense budget, I need less from the special fund to reach the two percent. Then I would have longer to use the special fund. That would also be an option. But if I give more from the budget to defense now, then I increase the consolidation pressure in other areas. But it's true: The question is, will there be a major crisis in 2028? This question must be answered in the government's financial plan, not in the current budget.
But politically, one could already think: How are we going to do that then? Scholz and Lindner have repeatedly said that the two percent should be financed from the federal budget in the future.
Right. Then we will see that in the federal government's financial plan. But why should I, as a parliamentarian, make hypothetical thoughts about what the federal government will do in 2028? That's the business of the federal government.
Is the FDP still willing to compromise? You weren't ready for the debt brake. One could also declare a state of emergency.
No! I cannot make compromises with the constitution. The Constitutional Court has clearly stated: Politics cannot simply declare a state of emergency as it pleases. It must actually exist. The constitution is not a self-service store. One cannot simply say: I declare the Ukraine conflict a permanent state of emergency. It must be a new emerging crisis that cannot be controlled.
But after the budget negotiations in December, the coalition agreed: We will look during the year if we can suspend the debt brake due to Ukraine.
It's always about the question, is there a qualitative difference? For example: What happens if Donald Trump becomes US President again? But even then, the Constitutional Court is clear: I cannot simply declare a state of emergency. As long as Ukraine aid is recurring costs, the budget must be adjusted.
Is the debt brake a question that could cause the coalition to break apart?
No, I don't believe that. So far, I have not experienced one of the partners breaking the coalition agreement.
You accuse us of that constantly.
No, no! We are aware that we won't be able to fulfill it. But not that we have broken it. It was always clear that the debt brake would not be infringed. That's the business basis. We didn't even forcefully continue the operation of nuclear power plants.
Sometimes it feels violent how we deal with each other.
When a coalition partner doesn't say what they stand for, everyone says: You don't differ from each other anymore. When someone then says what they stand for, the accusation comes: You're arguing. One must clarify where one stands. Then one looks for a compromise and no one leaves before the question is clarified. Then one must clearly state who achieved what. Otherwise, it just looks like wishy-washy.
Do you have an idea how a compromise could look?
I do, but I won't talk about it. If I speak about it, it means: Look, the FDP man is making concessions here and there. Then it will simply be taken and further negotiated, that would be stupid.
CDU leader Friedrich Merz said in the Bundestag this week: The traffic light is only holding together out of fear of new elections. It's all about power retention.
And Merz is only about gaining power. I could just as plainly counter that. But that's not my style.
Do you agree: If the government doesn't agree on a new budget, it's over.
I would formulate it this way: If there is no new budget for the coming year by January 1, 2025, there will be a provisional budgetary management. Unlike in the USA, there will be no shutdown. Salaries and social benefits will continue to be paid. We can even terminate ongoing projects. But we cannot start new ones.
But politically, that cannot be enforced.
We managed that at the beginning of 2024 as well.
But there was only the judgment of the Federal Constitutional Court in November.
I am also a constitutional patriot. The Constitution says: The budget should be in the lawbook at the end of the year.
Should the FDP leave the coalition if no agreement seems possible?
No. Why should we do that? So that a new Grand Coalition or Black-Green spends even more money? If necessary, we will go into provisional budgetary management. I can live very well with that in terms of my mandate as a budget politician and parliamentarian.
You are a very experienced budget politician. Are these the most complicated negotiations you have witnessed?
No. The negotiations during the Euro and Financial Crisis in 2009 were more complicated. I was even called to Berlin several times urgently within a week due to developments on the stock exchange. Now the challenge is: We are coming out of a phase where there was more money every year. That's over for now and means hard work. But that's what we were elected for.
With Otto Fricke spoke Volker Petersen
Otto Fricke, despite the ongoing rifts between the coalition parties, expresses optimism about reaching an agreement on the 2025 budget. He highlights the importance of compromise and ensuring that no one is left as a loser in the negotiations.
In addressing the topic of the solidarity surcharge, Fricke acknowledges that the FDP's desire to abolish it is not new, but the extent and details of the abolition remain to be seen. He emphasizes the need to approach the budget negotiations with evolution, not revolution.
