Now Merkel is stabbing Merz in the back: Last autumn she was still being celebrated by the CDU and its chairman.

Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung Letters to the editors dated February 3, 2025 4 hours • 5 minutes reading time Now Merkel is stabbing Merz in the back: Last autumn she was still being celebrated by the CDU and its chairman. I have no understanding for Merkel Regarding “Merkel criticizes Merz’s behavior as wrong” (F.A.Z., January 31): For three years (1995–98) I was one of the four deputies of party chairman Helmut Kohl together with Angela Merkel on the CDU federal executive board, and for eight years (2005–2013) I was Parliamentary State Secretary to the Federal Minister of the Interior thanks to an appointment by Chancellor Merkel. The memory of these times often gave me reason to defend Angela Merkel against increasing criticism and to appeal for understanding for decisions made during her time in government, including decisions whose effects are now proving problematic or even fatal (exit from nuclear energy, suspension of conscription, acceptance of Nord Stream 2). Despite my actually positive bias towards Angela Merkel, I have no understanding whatsoever for her current criticism of Friedrich Merz and the CDU/CSU faction. It may be that she does not share the CDU/CSU faction's position on migration policy. But the fact that she publicly voices her criticism of majority decisions of her own party and faction with moral standards and considerable severity in an office statement without being asked, disappoints and alienates me to the utmost. I wonder about the motives of my former party leader. Is she not aware that her office statement is not only grist to the mill of the red-green coalition, but also a perfect opportunity for the AfD?! What understanding of parliament, what ideas of parliamentary majority formation underlies her intervention? As a member of the city council of Halle (Saale), I could currently report on municipal decisions in which the SPD, the Left and the AfD jointly formed majorities against the CDU. Angela Merkel appears to have little awareness of the crucial question of under what conditions freely elected representatives should be excluded from forming a majority in a democratically constituted body. Perhaps the key to understanding this statement lies in the fact that Angela Merkel has never been a member of a local council or a state parliament in her impressive political career. Otherwise she would probably know better what limits states and municipalities are currently facing in dealing with the challenges of migration policy. She would then also know more precisely what difficult problems of finding a majority in some East German state parliaments must be solved. Christoph Bergner, former Prime Minister, Halle What Merkel has forgotten Regarding “Merkel criticizes Merz’s behavior as wrong” (FAZ of January 31): I have rarely been as outraged as I was by Ms. Merkel’s comments on the outcome of the vote after the migration debate in the Bundestag. Ms. Merkel accuses Friedrich Merz of, among other things, an election-tactical maneuver. Has the former chancellor forgotten that she herself decided to phase out nuclear power – not the only one of her historic mistakes – for electoral reasons just before the state elections? Has the former chancellor forgotten that it was her uncontrolled refugee policy that made the AfD so strong? Both mistakes will continue to preoccupy German society for decades to come and will have a lasting impact on Angela Merkel's political legacy. Angela Merkel will have to accept that Friedrich Merz is now trying, against the deliberate resistance of the SPD and the Greens, to contain the complex consequences (for internal security, the housing market, health care, schools) of migration that has been out of control since 2015. He can be sure of the support of the vast majority of the German population, who are tired of being fobbed off with empty promises after hearing about the number of deaths. If Mrs Merkel has not yet had a public word of concern or sympathy for the numerous victims of her open border policy, she should at least refrain from her chutzpah and kicking Friedrich Merz. Max Heyder, Munich Because Merkel broke European law This criticism by Angela Merkel of Friedrich Merz (FAZ, January 31st) is extremely strange. She scolds the CDU leader because the AfD agrees to proposals that the CDU considers to be correct. The proposals are wrong and Merz should act in accordance with European law. What Ms Merkel is careful not to mention: The AfD only came into being because she, the then Chancellor, had broken European law: During the euro crisis, Ms Merkel ensured that Germany financed the national debts of Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland through bailout packages worth billions. She did this even though European law (Article 125 TFEU) clearly states: “A Member State shall not be liable for the obligations . . . of another Member State and shall not assume responsibility for such obligations.” The AfD was only founded because of this breach of law. Professor Dr. Bernd Lucke, Hamburg Uncertain grandparents On the editorial by Berthold Kohler “We are fed up” (FAZ, January 24): As grandparents of our two-year-old granddaughter, we are appalled by the words of our Chancellor Olaf Scholz after the terrible murders in the park in Aschaffenburg. The Chancellor is “sick of such acts of violence happening here every few weeks”. On many days we go with our granddaughter to a large park that is frequented by all kinds of visitors to relax there. This terrible attack, in which a two-year-old child was also murdered, has shocked us and caused us fear and uncertainty. Our relaxed attitude has evaporated, we only go for walks in pairs and take a closer look at our surroundings, often looking critically behind our backs. Angela Merkel’s “We can do it” has now become pure cynicism, the trail of blood left by recent attacks shows that our state is no longer able to solve this problem. Neither the influx of migrants nor the organization of migration in the country could be efficiently regulated; they have become too much for the state to handle. After the federal elections, the elected government will have the dominant task of correcting and reforming migration policy so that citizens can live in greater security again. A situation must be restored where kindergarten groups with their teachers and grandparents with their grandchildren can walk in the park without fear and without worry. Tibor Hevesi, Pforzheim More like a hospice than an intensive care unit On “Intensive care patient Germany” (F.A.Z., January 23): Compliments, that was a real Reinhard Müller again! For me, it was a brilliant fireworks display and a champagne cocktail at the same time. I would like to make a gentle correction to the diagnosis of the German patient: I diagnose hospice rather than an intensive care unit. A complete recovery would still be possible in the intensive care unit. The tragedy of the "German patient", however, lies in the following reasoning: This country can no longer act in the state and economic spheres as it should. A spider web of laws, implementing regulations, rules and decrees delays or prevents vital decisions in the economic and state sectors. And when these laws, etc. mentioned above, are not enough to stifle necessary action, politicians like to refer to higher-level European legislation. The idea of ​​suspending or repealing laws if they harm the country no longer occurs to anyone in Germany. The crazier a country's laws are, the more likely it is to "go down the drain". Peter Lang, Darmstadt