TV review Maybrit Illner: The Union is trapped

Everyone is talking about the new Pope. For two days, the most exciting television program was the livestream of the fireplace in the Sistine Chapel; now, something unheard of in German politics for a long time, enthusiasm about the election results is spreading. On a day like this, German television could have actually been "talking" about the political dimension of religion and the religious dimension of politics.

Admittedly, no one knew beforehand how long the cardinals would remain in the conclave. What they did know, however, was that the broadcast was scheduled for May 8, 2025. And on Liberation Day—the 80th anniversary of the end of the war—a political discussion on the threatened world peace, including the Polish, French, but also American, and perhaps even Russian perspectives, would have been almost inevitable. Markus Lanz at least made up some ground here.

Instead, Maybrit Illner once again addressed the start of the new federal government, a "false start," as the show's title not entirely unreasonably described it. It didn't go into much depth, however, but rather a nearly hour-and-a-half-long balancing act by the new Federal Minister of the Interior, who was heavily criticized by all the other guests.

That was indeed the concept: four women (including the moderator) against Alexander Dobrindt, a kind of tribunal marking the start of his term. And all four – in addition to Illner, these included political scientist Julia Reuschenbach, deputy editor-in-chief of "Spiegel" Melanie Amann, and chairwoman of the Green Party's parliamentary group in the Bundestag Katharina Dröge – had good arguments on their side.

Dobrindt, who in recent months has clearly been trying to exchange his image as a hawk for that of a level-headed statesman, at least initially maintained a certain degree of composure. When asked whether the approach to the Left Party – which was needed for the two-thirds decision to hold a second round of voting on Tuesday – had already undermined the CDU/CSU's incompatibility resolution, he initially smiled skillfully away.

After the welcoming speech referred to "debacle, disaster, disgrace" in reference to Merz's failure in the first round of the chancellor election, Dobrindt attempted, with limited success, to change the narrative: It was an "encouraging sign" that they had managed to find a solution to an unsatisfactory situation together. Was the emergency solution, in which the Greens and the Left Party were stepping in to support the governing coalition (still "in the making"), a shining example of constructive cooperation? Melanie Amann wasn't the only one who didn't quite believe this. She pointed out that the two parties now needed had been "defamed" during the election campaign ("quite an overinterpretation," Dobrindt chimed in from the sidelines). Katharina Dröge also saw this as a bad omen. She argued that it was a "technical error" on the part of the government's three parliamentary group leaders not to know their faction well enough: "That's why this coalition is on shaky ground for now." Dobrindt seemed to be able to live with that, as long as it stands.

Nor did anyone want to take up Maybrit Illner's suggestion that the 18 dissenters could once again flex their muscles in future decisions. Dobrindt's carelessness on this issue was supported by Amann, who also believed that the horrified reactions were likely to have a disciplinary effect on the defectors. Things became more uncomfortable for Dobrindt when Julia Reuschenbach and Melanie Amann pointed out that some of the projects in the coalition agreement also required a two-thirds majority. Illner supported this with the statement by Chancellor's Office Chief Thorsten Frei a few days ago that, given the prevailing majority situation, the incompatibility resolution passed in 2018, which rules out cooperation with the AfD as well as with the Left Party, definitely needed to be reconsidered. Does this mean that cooperation with the Left Party will indeed be pursued in the future?

So smiling it off hadn't worked. Dobrindt now simply stubbornly pointed out that this was just the way the majority stood. The political differences nevertheless remained (no one had claimed otherwise), and therefore there was no need to "correct oneself." Jumping on a flippant formulation by Illner, Dobrindt made it clear that he would not abolish capitalism alongside Heidi Reichinnek. Reuschenbach concluded what she considered to be a too "cheerful" round with the remark that it would be tantamount to "growing up" if such decisions—in this case, regarding points of order—could be resolved among the democratic parties. Of course, the defamations would then also have to be mitigated, because otherwise, there would be a loss of trust in the political center. Dobrindt was thus able to ride out the major setback (the election debacle) and the CDU/CSU's first substantive shift toward the Left Party with charm and chutzpah.

But at the latest, with the classification of the AfD as "confirmed right-wing extremist" by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution – albeit currently with a pledge of non-disclosure – the equidistance between right and left is coming under pressure from the other side as well. The view of parliamentary group leader Jens Spahn, who had advocated a normal approach to the AfD, is not the right way, Dröge stated: "Jens Spahn has always had a fascination (...) with Donald Trump's policies." She even added: "I explicitly do not trust someone like Jens Spahn in this regard. I rely on many others in the CDU." There was no strong rebuttal from Dobrindt, perhaps also because Merz, despite his volte-face during the election campaign – the calculated acceptance of AfD votes for two votes – has since stated himself on the record that the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution's assessment is changing his view of the AfD. This, in turn, is a comprehensible statement, explained Dobrindt.

However, he did not know the details of the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution's report, "because I have not read the report yet, because I have not yet received it." Whether he, as Interior Minister, would publish this report – possibly in excerpts – was still for him to decide. However, the AfD would have full access to the report as part of the court proceedings anyway; their complaint that no one knew what they were being accused of was therefore unfounded. The slightly technical discussion about how to deal with this report did not solve the problem for Dobrindt, but it did, so to speak, put him on a slightly thicker shoal. The fact that there are different views within the CDU/CSU parliamentary group about how to deal with the largest opposition party remains an unresolved problem. Dobrindt therefore emerged from the second round with a black eye.

The final battle over the issue that Alexander Dobrindt in particular is now dealing with on a daily basis was even more heated: the limitation of migration by turning back asylum seekers at the German borders, which Friedrich Merz clearly announced during the election campaign. The CDU/CSU was of course always aware that this national solution initially contradicted European law; likewise, that its European neighbors would not be enthusiastic about the idea. But they simply believed they had to make this promise to their own supporters. In this context, Katharina Dröge castigated the new Chancellor's "basta policy," which he said sent an important signal by traveling to Poland , among other places, on the first day of his government. But he had broken china here rather than demonstrated unity. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk was so angry that he sharply criticized Merz for his unilateral approach to the borders, saying that this was driving Europe apart.

The opposite is the case, Dobrindt countered. Rather, the neighbors expect "Germany to have a stable government again, to become a country that flourishes economically again, that assumes responsibility in terms of security policy." This includes migration policy; "our neighboring countries know this." Translated, this response meant: Poland must therefore accept the rejections. But then Dobrindt backtracked on the matter, repeating what he had already said in his press statement: that the federal police presence would only be increased "bit by bit," that the neighbors would not be overburdened, and that vulnerable groups would be exempted anyway.

"They're caught in a trap of Merz's own making," Melanie Amann said, only to return the stern remark. A populist solution to the migration issue is simply incompatible with the goal of uniting Europe. Maybrit Illner coined the term "staging," meaning that Poland and other neighboring countries are being made to believe that not much will actually change, while internally propagating the opposite. Reuschenbach, the academic, gave the political style poor marks. One wonders how well thought out and prepared such decisions are.

Dobrindt, despite being asked directly several times, declined to answer how Germany was proceeding to avoid violating European law. He indicated that they were negotiating with the European Commission; European exceptions could play a role. On the question of declaring a national emergency, Dobrindt remained tight-lipped. A sensational media report on Thursday claimed that such a declaration was imminent; at around 6 p.m., government spokesman Stefan Kornelius refuted this suggestion: Friedrich Merz's government would not declare a national emergency. If that does not happen, but the Federal Police are informed, in a sense, by the revocation of an earlier directive that they can now also turn away asylum seekers (but do not have to do so), the responsibility – including for the breach of law – would simply be shifted onto the Federal Police, Amann criticized.

Dröge became even more aggressive: They could only continue on Nancy Faeser's path or break European law. And the following applies to the breach of law, which they had apparently agreed upon: "Then Germany will be renouncing the foundations of European cooperation." She even offered the ultimate low blow. With the car toll, it had already been seen that Alexander Dobrindt and the CSU were willing to break European law for an election campaign project: "That was embarrassing in Europe and expensive."

Dobrindt was so annoyed by the course of the debate that he resorted to the weakest argument, the insulted tirade: "For ten years, we have been hearing exactly these speeches in this country, saying everything that is not acceptable. Everyone can only explain exactly why it is not acceptable. This country is becoming increasingly polarized, this country is being destabilized, this country is becoming emotionalized." That may or may not be true, but it does not relieve a Federal Minister of the Interior of the task of seeking legally compliant solutions.

More by chance, he finally got his act together by jumping on an argument by Amann, who had emphasized the dysfunctionality of the existing Dublin rules. Exactly, Dobrindt concluded: the European rules don't work. And implementing dysfunctional rules can't be the way forward. So, in fact, the European system—including by changing the Common European Asylum System (CEAS)—is being made functional again. A brief grin escaped him: That's how quickly you can become a model European again with a single twist of argument.

The end of the show was inglorious, boggling down into largely incomprehensible gibberish, muddled speech, and denials, instead of clearly stating whether the government intends to establish legal compliance with an emergency argument. The show didn't need to be extended for this confused final debate. In any case, Alexander Dobrindt must have breathed a sigh of relief to finally be released from this cauldron. There wasn't much to gain here for him or the chancellor, who was elected with great difficulty (instead of pomp and circumstance).

Incidentally, there was one unifying bad habit between Dobrindt and Dröge: the excessive and almost always incorrect use of the phrase "at this point" in nearly every sentence. Perhaps they've also become more rhetorically similar than one would wish. But a sly fellow like Alexander Dobrindt will surely interpret this as an "encouraging sign." For eye level, or whatever.