(de-news.net) – Senior CDU leaders have reaffirmed their opposition to cooperation with the AfD, arguing that any weakening of the political firewall would endanger both the CDU’s identity and Germany’s democratic order. While leading Christian Democrats defended continued isolation of the AfD, former SPD Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück suggested that the firewall could eventually be reconsidered if the party changed fundamentally, while rejecting efforts to ban it outright.
Senior CDU officials have reiterated their warnings against any form of cooperation with the AfD, emphasizing that such a step would place the party’s internal cohesion, political identity, and long-established principles at risk. According to media reports, several prominent Christian Democratic figures argued that dismantling the long-standing political firewall separating the CDU from the AfD would carry serious consequences not only for the party itself but also for the broader stability of Germany’s democratic political landscape. Their remarks reflected a continuing effort within the CDU leadership to reaffirm the party’s position toward the AfD amid ongoing political debate.
According to reports, Dennis Radtke, chairman of the CDU’s labor wing, the Christian Democratic Employees’ Association (CDA), maintained that any move toward reconciliation or cooperation with the AfD would effectively destroy the CDU by provoking profound internal divisions and conflicts. Similar concerns were expressed by Hamburg CDU leader Dennis Thering, who warned that cooperation with the AfD following the upcoming state elections in eastern Germany could trigger substantial disruption within the party. In his assessment, such a development would not merely create temporary tensions but could represent the beginning of a broader process of political and organizational decline for the CDU.
Karl-Josef Laumann, deputy federal chairman of the CDU and labor minister of North Rhine-Westphalia, likewise argued that active cooperation with the AfD, whether through formal collaboration or coalition arrangements, would mark the end of the CDU in its current form. Reports indicated that he believed such a scenario would prompt the departure of numerous party members, including himself. Although Laumann reportedly regarded such an outcome as unlikely and stated that no significant faction within the CDU was actively seeking an alliance with the AfD, he nevertheless stressed that the underlying principles of the two parties were fundamentally incompatible. In his view, the AfD challenged key elements of the CDU’s postwar political tradition, including support for European integration, Germany’s transatlantic orientation, and membership in NATO. He therefore presented the issue not merely as a tactical political question but as a matter of preserving the party’s core ideological foundations.
Laumann also rejected proposals to replace the existing firewall with a framework centered on politically defined “red lines.” While he argued that CDU legislative initiatives should never be formulated with the expectation of AfD support, he simultaneously maintained that the party should not refrain from introducing proposals solely because the AfD might ultimately vote in favor of them. Drawing on examples from Saxony and Thuringia, where democratic parties had continued to keep the AfD politically isolated, he contended that minority-government arrangements did not automatically weaken the CDU’s position. Rather, he suggested that such cases demonstrated the possibility of maintaining political distance from the AfD while continuing normal parliamentary activity.
From firewall to red lines? German politicians assess strategy
Additional criticism of the AfD came from Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul during a speech before the Stresemann Society in Mainz. He accused the party of acting contrary to Germany’s national interests and of aligning itself with Russian authoritarian objectives. Wadephul further characterized the AfD as a political force that fostered exclusion, isolationism, and growing social fragmentation. Similar concerns were voiced by Herbert Reul, interior minister of North Rhine-Westphalia, who described the AfD and its underlying political outlook as a significant threat to Germany’s democratic order. Reul reportedly argued that the issue permitted no room for compromise and required a clear and consistent response from democratic parties.
The debate has gained additional prominence as opinion polls continue to place the AfD in a leading position across several eastern German states. This polling strength has intensified discussions within the CDU regarding the future of its approach to the party. While the CDU leadership has largely defended the existing policy of political separation, some members have increasingly questioned the effectiveness of continued isolation and have called for renewed consideration of how the party should engage with the AfD in the future.
Former SPD Finance Minister Peer Steinbrück, by contrast, argued that the firewall should not necessarily remain in place indefinitely. Although he acknowledged the current rationale for maintaining it, he suggested that its long-term future should depend on whether the AfD could evolve from a far-right political force into a conventionally conservative party. Rather than supporting a permanent and unconditional barrier, Steinbrück advocated the establishment of clearly defined political “red lines.” Under such an approach, he argued, the continuation or relaxation of the firewall would be determined by whether the party adhered to or violated those substantive political standards.
Steinbrück also opposed efforts to pursue a formal ban of the AfD. He argued that such a measure would neither eliminate the party’s voter base nor substantially reduce its political support. Moreover, he emphasized the considerable legal difficulty of securing a successful judgment before the Federal Constitutional Court and warned of the potential political consequences should such an effort fail. As an alternative, he proposed greater use of existing constitutional mechanisms that allow certain political rights to be withdrawn from individuals judged to be acting against the constitutional order. In this context, he cited AfD politician Björn Höcke as a possible example of an individual to whom such measures might be applied.
Audio: TTSFree
