Nehammer makes it clear: – “Adaptation must be a given”

“Kron”: At the ÖVP event in Wels one name was dominant: FPÖ leader Herbert Kickl. Did the ÖVP overlook the effect of Kickl being upgraded like this?
Chancellor Karl Nehammer: The preliminary program was a clarification of the political scene, where the SPÖ and the FPÖ also appeared. In my speech I wanted to show that 2024 will be a year of decision-making between a dark and a bright future that can take shape. One group lives in a dark past. For me it’s about giving people courage for a bright future.

You announced the duel with Kickl. However, in various studies they are eight percent behind. Where do you get the optimism that you have a chance?
I take it from the present past. Pamela Rendi-Wagner was also in first place for a few months. Surveys are a snapshot. How people vote in the voting booth is different. As Chancellor, you can get an idea from me that I live what I talk about.

SPÖ leader Andreas Babler seems – at least to you – to no longer play a role in the duel for the chancellorship. How do you come to the conclusion that the studies show a different picture?
A duel is always two. I am the incumbent and Kickl is challenging me.

A three-way battle is also possible…
If you look at Andreas Babler’s stool sample, it speaks for itself. Babler is already using the crowbar to get media attention.

Let’s get to the content. They want to stop the regulatory madness and regime change in the economy. The ÖVP served in government for 37 years and provided the Minister of Economic Affairs. Given this fact, isn’t your claim a travesty?
I see it exactly the opposite. We are still a good location, every second job depends on exports. This means that economic policy must have been good so far. But you should never stop working to become more productive. For me it was important to show without compromise what Karl Nehammer and the ÖVP stand for.

They also announce tax cuts. These alone cost 31 billion euros. The state coffers are not well filled after the pandemic and the energy crisis, because subsidies from the budget of 170 million euros will be needed over the next four years to finance pensions alone. How is this all going to end?
Firstly, our budget is fitter than claimed. For the Maastricht debt criteria we are around 2.7 percent and below the three percent limit. Not many countries in the eurozone have achieved this (this sentence only applies online). Second, our state does not have a revenue problem, but rather a spending problem. When we cut taxes and deregulate, economic growth and productivity increase, which in turn generates tax revenue. We also want to reduce savings and structural subsidies.

For you, integration means adaptation. A new buzzword in the migration debate. What exactly do you mean by that?
For me, adaptation means adopting the cultural rules of the country I am voluntarily going to.

Refugees do not come voluntarily…
Everyone who comes to Austria comes voluntarily because we are not an external border country of the EU, but a landlocked country. Therefore, adaptation must be a given.

They are committed to a dominant culture. Is there a concept of what you mean by this?
I do not want to leave this term to right-wing extremist forces. That is why Minister of Chancellery Susanne Raab is given the task of developing a legal framework so that the dominant culture becomes visible and what is meant by it.

Can you give a concrete example so that you get a better idea of ​​the legal framework?
There must be an orientation: what is the dominant culture of Austria. It starts with the Constitution and from the derivation of the Constitution there are defined basic values ​​and also symbols and also a history that is not that complicated to distill. Finding a legal framework is complex. However, I believe that it is necessary to address this issue and thus also provide guidance for regulatory policy. I don’t want to leave the issue to the extremes who use it to divide society. Austria is a country where society has always been in motion. The question is whether this is an orderly process. There must be order in the system, so that tolerance and diversity in society can grow. My path is a counter-model to the story: we must build a wall.

You have been announcing your Austrian plan for a week now. Tell us, when are we going to vote?
The plan is in the fall. I never participated in the speculation.

Then we wonder whether the situation will still look the same in four weeks…
Politics is always a process.