There are proposals, such as that of Hans-Olaf Henkel, to create a north and a south euro. After the announcement by the European Central Bank (ECB) that it would buy unlimited government bonds, it was surprisingly quick to calm down.

There is no longer any legroom. He has signed a left-wing program that does not suit his person at all. There is a new party, the “Alternative for Germany”, which counts on the growing distrust of Germans towards the euro. Do you fear repercussions on the conservative camp? I hope this party will not take any votes away from us. It will obviously be very, very close in the federal election.

We need every vote and we court every vote. But I believe – like opinion polls and party researchers – that this party has no chance. She lacks the popular draft horse, a conservative Oskar Lafontaine. And one will be available until the 22nd

September will not appear either. You are co-author of a paper called “Modern Bourgeois Conservatism – Why the Union has to think more about its roots again”. One speaks of a social democratization of the Union, namely the CDU. Are you satisfied with the political and ideological state of your party? The conservatism debate began back in 2007 with the Einstein and Wagner circles. In the beginning I got involved until I didn’t like the direction anymore. The problem of the conservative camp of the CDU is that their personalities are very, very different and do not find each other.

In addition, it is not possible to agree on a clear manifesto that many can sign. Some people want the old CDU back, which will no longer exist like this … or can exist? It is probably a mixture of both. A lot has changed in family policy, for example. I support Frau von der Leyen’s family policy. The classic conservative issues have simply been lost.

Take the sticking to the institution of conscription, one of your topics, it was a misunderstanding conservative topic. I failed in the Junge Union with the application to suspend military service. Only Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg was able to get the party on the right track on this issue. We need a more flexible, more operational Bundeswehr that is better prepared for missions abroad.

That was no longer possible with compulsory military service. You have not ruled out military intervention in Syria. At the beginning of the Syrian conflict, I had hoped that we could live up to the “responsibility to protect” within the framework of a UN mandate. But that has become very difficult, if only because of the complicated course of the front: The Christians, to whom we are very connected, cooperate with the Alevites …… with ruler Bashar al-Assad. Exactly, and they fear for her if the Sunnis come to power Life. We have to support the opposition. But to intervene would mean clearly taking sides.write my biology essay service

And that can lead to ethnic cleansing that is now truly not in our interest. We have to get Russia and China on board. If you have geostrategic interests in Syria, you should take part in a blue helmet mission. Let’s get to the euro. How next?

There are proposals, such as that of Hans-Olaf Henkel, to create a north and a south euro. After the announcement by the European Central Bank (ECB) that it would buy unlimited government bonds, it was surprisingly quick to calm down. It has calmed the financial markets. It was clear, however, that this could not be the solution to the problem, it would only save time.

Time that the crisis countries must use to strengthen their own competitiveness and enforce savings discipline. Basically, it is about going back to the Maastricht criteria. But that doesn’t happen.

In Italy the political camps are divided, Greece is having difficulties implementing the reforms, Cyprus is struggling with itself, Spain is fighting, but still fails to meet its goals. The policy of expanding the money supply pursued by the ECB can save a maximum of time. That will not solve the problem, because the money that has flowed into the affected countries has not increased productivity. Economic growth is falling everywhere. In Greece, Cyprus, Spain, Portugal and Italy.

In France there is fear of slowing growth, in Great Britain too. Is the strategy right? We make the mistake in Europe of affording a welfare state that does not exist anywhere else in the world. Instead of investing, we consume, above all, in growth sectors such as broadband internet, in education, especially in early childhood, in new cell phone technologies.

At the same time, however, investments are made on credit in the social systems. That may seemingly lead to social stability. But that doesn’t make us more competitive. For Europe – and Gerhard Schröder is right there too – we need an Agenda 2020 in which we focus on education, on high technologies, on the internet economy. And we will not be able to avoid carrying out structural reforms across Europe, for example in the labor market.

There is absolutely no reason why there should be no more labor migration. However, there is massive migration into the social systems, as in the case of Bulgaria and Romania. We pretend we don’t need young Spaniards. Of course we do.

If there is a job here, why shouldn’t a Spaniard take it? It was once said that we want to create a political union in Europe. Now we are fighting mainly about money. If we manage to get out of the crisis, will there be more than a tightly working free trade area? Europe is also a community of values. The single European market will not exist for long without a political framework. I have only one concern about political union: this bureaucratic Brussels is just too aloof.

Martin Schulz, the President of the European Parliament, has certainly said a lot of wrong things. But he was right when he said recently that the EU would not be admitted to the EU because what is happening in Brussels is too undemocratic: Parliament does not represent the people because the calculation key is wrong, the Commission is opaque and too much bureaucratic. And the European Council with its 3,800 officials! All of this is far from the reality of life for the people in my constituency in Recklinghausen, Castrop-Rauxel and Waltrop. Let’s come back to you: What are your hip joints doing? (Laughs.) This interview is now ten years ago.

I am still often advised against it, especially by older people and those who are not interested in politics. They then say: You’re the one with the hip joint, aren’t you? However, the discussions are much quieter than they were then. Today, many people think about intergenerational equity.

Back then there was an incomparable wave of antipathy that hit me. I had to learn to deal with it first. You once said that the retirement age should be 70. What are your plans? You still have a lot of time until then. Philipp Rösler recently said that at 44 or 45, politics would be over for him. I don’t have such fixed plans.

But I don’t do the opposite either and declare that I will continue until 70. First of all, it’s about the federal elections in September, which we want to win together with Chancellor Angela Merkel. Manfred BleskinQuelle: ntv.de “” “While the other parties cheered the Karlsruhe adoption ruling, there was initially a rather embarrassed silence in the Union Not with CDU General Secretary Gröhe: In an interview with n-tv.de he made it clear that a full right of adoption for homosexuals was met with skepticism in his party, but he also emphasized that there were “good arguments” for the saying from Karlsruhe “We don’t want a black-green coalition,” says Hermann Gröhe. (Photo: picture alliance / dpa) n-tv.de: The euro area Cyprus only has money in the state coffers until the end of March, the country is asking for EU Help.

Why should one help Cyprus? Hermann Gröhe: The yardstick for Cyprus is the same as for the other countries that have received help in Europe: Aid makes sense if, in the event of non-aid, there is a risk of an impact on the stability of our currency. It is just as important that help in Europe is only available as help for self-help and subject to strict conditions. In Cyprus, this would primarily affect the banking system and the tax system. If it ultimately comes down to aid for Cyprus, the coalition could need its own majority for financial aid for the first time – the SPD and the Greens are already referring to the money laundering allegations against Cyprus … We do that too.

I just mentioned the Cypriot banks. Federal Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble has also criticized the hesitant enforcement of money laundering rules in Cyprus and pointed out that Cyprus’ banking system is probably a little oversized. But it is still too early to decide whether it would be right to agree to help or not. First the EU and IMF have to make a proposal. If this proposal is supported jointly by the European institutions, then everyone would do well to consider it seriously.

I don’t believe in any pre-determinations. Topic pensions: How far has the coalition working group come? There are still “difficult questions to be solved” for pensions. (Photo: picture alliance / dpa) The working group is still working, so no public interim reports are made Sense. When it comes to pensions, we as a coalition are very unanimous on many issues – such as additional earnings and the basic principle that employees who have paid into the pension fund for decades should be better off in old age. However, there are difficult questions to be resolved in the implementation.

We are working hard on that. What is so difficult about the parenting work of mothers whose children were born before 1992, as well as the parenting work of younger mothers? We want these mothers to be better off because we value their parenting work. But the conflict of goals is: on the one hand, we owe the mothers better recognition of their educational achievements, and on the other hand, we mustn’t put increasing debts into the rucksack for the children. Immediate equality would cost around € 13 billion a year. That adds up to almost 100 billion euros by 2020.

And I remind you that in 1992 it was not just maternal benefits that improved. At the same time, worsening pensions also came into force for younger people. Until 1992, for example, a so-called minimum income pension ensured that low pensions received a premium. In this respect, it is not enough to look at the evaluation of the parental leave. Labor Minister Ursula von der Leyen is particularly interested in a life benefit pension for low-wage earners – but only if they have paid into the pension fund for 40 years and have made private provisions. Aren’t these two exclusion criteria that are designed to leave the really needy outside from the outset? Red-Green introduced the basic security at the time.

We have now transferred the costs for this to the federal government. We are thus relieving the cities and municipalities in the billions. Basic security is, if you will, protection against old-age poverty, and that works to a large extent.

However, we want people to receive more after long periods of paid work and provision and, for example, not have to do without a car, large apartment or home. The FDP is moving with the financial transaction tax and minimum wages. How did you do that? I expressly welcome the fact that the FDP is moving towards a minimum wage. We are completely in agreement in the coalition that we reject a state-imposed minimum wage – as demanded by the SPD and the Greens.

Finding wages is not the task of parliaments, but belongs in the hands of the collective bargaining parties. And on the financial transaction tax, we reached an agreement with the SPD and the Greens in the context of the fiscal pact discussions in the coalition and then also in the Bundestag. Sales tax on financial transactions is a suitable means of making high-frequency trading less attractive.

The Union and FDP have always pointed out that Germany’s financial center must not be weakened. We now have a proposal that takes up important suggestions in this direction. I believe that we will solve the unanswered questions with the detailed work. If you have dual citizenship, do you come together with the FDP? A dual national must make a decision by their 23rd birthday at the latest. (Photo: picture alliance / dpa) The Union largely rejected today’s citizenship law with the option model. Today we have to state that the option model leads to the overwhelming majority of those who were dual nationals as children opt for German citizenship as adults.

Less than 2 percent decide against German citizenship. So I don’t see any need for action. When so many people with foreign roots admit their German citizenship as a matter of course, without having the feeling that their beliefs or their skin color stand in the way, then that’s a very positive development. Wait a minute, did you just praise red-green? Even then, together with others in the Union, I committed to reforming citizenship law towards an option model.

But I want to remind Red-Green what you said yourself back then: The option model was deliberately introduced as an alternative to the general recognition of dual statehood. Red-Green doesn’t want to know anything about this today. How do you justify the unequal treatment? The former Prime Minister of Lower Saxony, David McAllister, has two nationalities; the North Rhine-Westphalian CDU MP Serap Guler had to give up her Turkish citizenship when she became German. There are good reasons for exceptional cases.

For example, there are countries like Iran, which does not release its citizens from citizenship at all. But there is also the international principle of avoiding multiple states. Our society has become more diverse in terms of origin, religion and skin color and it is connected by a clear yes to this community.

I think it’s good that we say with children born to us: No matter how you look, no matter which church you go to, no matter where your parents come from, you are a German child like any of your classmates.