The criticism from the leadership of the FDP parliamentary group of the second supplementary budget, with which the reserve is massively increased in the Corona crisis, can hardly be surpassed in its clarity.

“It violates the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany.” In addition, the Federal Audit Office found that the second supplementary budget impaired essential constitutional principles such as annuality, due date, truth and clarity.

And for anyone who is not convinced, the FDP politician adds: "A constitutional lawyer who is recognized across all party lines has also found that this federal budget is unconstitutional."

Manfred Schäfers

Business correspondent in Berlin.

  • Follow I follow

This admission comes from none other than Christian Dürr, the current chairman of the FDP parliamentary group.

Of course, this was not aimed at the submission of Federal Finance Minister Christian Lindner, who is ultimately his party friend, but at the supplementary budget of his predecessor Olaf Scholz (SPD).

The whole thing will take place in the summer of 2020. The FDP was in opposition.

Today she rules with the SPD and the Greens.

The group would better hold back with criticism.

But since the traffic light government itself refers to the procedure in the previous year, Dürr now has to live with it when his statements from back then can be dug out with relish.

Redistribution unconstitutional?

With the supplementary budget, the red-green-yellow coalition wants to push 60 billion euros into the energy and climate fund in order to be able to dispose of it if the Corona exception in the debt brake no longer applies. In the pandemic, Parliament had identified an exceptional emergency situation and enabled new debt of 240 billion euros this year. The federal government doesn't need that much money after all. Nevertheless, she does not want to let the credit authorizations expire. This Monday, the federal government will launch the draft law.

Dürr's fundamental criticism of the reallocation of Corona loans can be read in the minutes of the Bundestag on July 2, 2020. In a final reading, the MPs discussed the draft law of the black-red coalition. At that time, the Lower Saxon spoke as Lindner's deputy. He was and is a close confidante of the FDP chairman. The parliamentary deputy hit it with relish, time and again: "I don't understand why you can only make a career in the SPD in Germany if you submit unconstitutional budgets, like its federal chairman Norbert Walter-Borjans," he railed in the direction of the former North Rhine-Westphalia -Finance Minister. “He did it four times and was convicted by the state constitutional court in North Rhine-Westphalia.“At the end of 2019, Walter-Borjans and Saskia Esken prevailed against the duo Scholz / Klara Geywitz in the fight for party leadership. This weekend, “No-Wa-Bo” said goodbye to the SPD leadership. Scholz has been Chancellor since Wednesday, Geywitz Federal Minister of Construction.

The Court of Auditors sticks to its judgment

Back to Dürr's general accounts.

At that time, not only did the SPD get rid of its fat, but also the co-ruling Union.

He does not understand “why the CDU / CSU parliamentary group is becoming an accomplice to a possible breach of the constitution,” said the FDP parliamentary group vice-president.

“I think that's a huge mistake.” Eckhardt Rehberg, at that time budget spokesman for the Union parliamentary group, intervened: “We decide, not the Federal Audit Office.” Dürr countered: “Why is the Union taking the Federal Audit Office, which is beyond any doubt, why take it Do you not take note of this statement? ”He considers this to be a gigantic mistake.

The Federal Audit Office had demanded that the previously accumulated reserve be released so that the new debt in the pandemic does not have to be higher than necessary.

"On the one hand, this step seems constitutionally necessary," he argued.

On the other hand, waiving the use of the exception provision is financially possible.

Exceeding the standard debt limit is prohibited if other options are available.

Unlike the FDP, the Court of Auditors has remained what it was then, an independent authority.

It is not to be expected that he will now judge differently than last year.