I am firmly convinced that the parties of the democratic centre will be responsible enough after the election, and that they all want to ensure that Germany is governed well and stably. That is why we should consider everything that happens running up to the election in the context of an intensive election campaign. But some of the rifts have indeed become deeper. There has been enormous polarisation in recent weeks, which revolves primarily around the issue of internal security, the refugee question, and illegal immigration. To put it diplomatically, that does not make forming a government any easier.

Since recently I have no longer ruled that out myself.

Of course, we have major challenges in the area of ​​immigration. That cannot be argued away. It is what worries people. However, I completely agree with you that the topic has received disproportionately high publicity in recent weeks. What will happen to Germany as an industrial location in the medium to long term in an increasingly complex geopolitical environment should be more in the foreground. This is currently being neglected.

We are still experiencing a war of aggression by the Russians here in Europe against Ukraine. We are still in a situation where we hear about new decisions by decree from the American president almost every day, which can have far-reaching consequences for Germany and Europe. We are in a recession, have energy costs that are too high compared to other countries, and have too little investment activity. I would like to see these issues come to the fore again in the final stretch of the election campaign. But it is even more important that the governing parties quickly address the various challenges after February 23 and that the refugee issue does not overshadow everything again.

Donald Trump was President once before. That's why this is nothing new. We must not immediately panic at every demand that comes from the USA. Europe must now focus above all on its own greater sovereignty. We are a strong economic area with 450 million people and incredibly strong companies and industries. We do not have to hide – neither from the USA nor from China. It does not help us to look across the pond from morning to night and think about what Trump will come up with next. In the end, we must concentrate on defining our answers.

If you look at the newspapers and the articles around the turn of the millennium, people said: Germany is the sick man of Europe. Germany has been left behind. If everything had happened like that after 2000, then the last 20 years would have been pretty bad. After Agenda 2010 we had had the longest economic upturn in the history of the Federal Republic. And things have been going pretty well in Europe too. At the time, Germany had the strength to reform to drive innovation and investment and to strengthen competitiveness. Why shouldn't it succeed today? What we need is a new agenda for Germany and of course also an agenda for Europe, together.

Among other things, the issue of affordable energy, de-bureaucratisation and deregulation, defence capability, and a European trade and economic policy that strengthens important industrial sectors. We need our EU investment programmes, similar to what is now being done in the USA. Where necessary, for example in the area of ​​data sovereignty and future technologies such as AI, we must make a joint effort to reduce the enormous dependence on the USA.

People always pretend that our country is mostly doing badly. Our country is mostly doing well. Almost all of the companies we advise are doing well. There are individual areas with major challenges. The automotive industry is certainly one of them. Although I do not have the impression that our major automotive companies are not doing their homework. In addition, we have a medium-sized base of companies in Germany that are international leaders. We have a national debt ratio of around 60%. We are the country with the lowest level of debt in the G7. That means we have incredible substance – and more fiscal policy leeway than most other industrialised countries.

We need a new agenda for Germany. I would like to make a small comparison. By 2020, after German reunification, 1.6 trillion euros had been invested in the „reconstruction of the East“. Today, we would immediately be able to mobilise an amount of at least 500 billion euros for investments. In Germany alone. Looking at Europe, completely different amounts are conceivable. I am thinking of the expansion of roads, bridges, rail infrastructure, the expansion of networks and energy infrastructure, investments in education, research and, as I said, future technologies. Due to our fiscal strength, we have every opportunity to think big in terms of competition policy.

To be honest, it irritates me that anyone is surprised at all. After Russia's war of aggression, energy costs rose, as due to the dependence on Russian gas the supply chains were disrupted. This caused inflation to rise sharply. The ECB counteracted this within a very short space of time with massive interest rate increases to combat inflation. When interest rates rise, this always comes at the expense of investment. And that in turn comes at the expense of the economy. These special factors are currently balancing each other out. So I am not that pessimistic about the future. But we must make decisions now and invest boldly to get our country fit again.

A company that doesn't invest will eventually lose its competitiveness. A state that doesn't invest will also eventually lose its competitiveness. Of course, a constitutional debt brake is important because it protects future generations from being sensibly and rationally incurred at the expense of the future. But I am in favour of reform. The challenges we face cannot be met with the harsh interpretation of the current debt brake rules. We need three-digit billions just for investments in defence capabilities. We need three-digit billions for the backlog of reforms, investment backlogs and our infrastructure. And we need three-digit billions to invest in education, research and development and the future viability of the country. In addition, enormous efforts to create more housing. You will arrive relatively quickly at the 500 billion euros I mentioned. No growth is poison for our country in the long term. Of course, we also need consistent consolidation of the budget, and prioritisation in the use of funds. But saving ourselves to death won't get us anywhere.

Because an important component is missing. We need to manage to mobilise more private capital, and I always feel that this is neglected in the discussion. On the one hand, this can be done by becoming more attractive to investors from abroad. And of course also by mobilising more domestic capital. To do this, we could adapt the investment guidelines of asset managers or insurance companies and create additional incentives. There is enough money in Germany – but unfortunately, it is all too often not invested where it is needed. A triad is needed: We need to create opportunities to combine private capital with investments that come from the federal budget and can be financed with debt. That's why I find the idea of ​​a German fund quite appealing. I am relatively certain that by amending the investment guidelines, we could mobilise hundreds of billions of euros, which would then go into VC, infrastructure and future-oriented investments.

No, that is also the issue where I really disagree with the FDP. The saying that we must not leave future generations with more debt is too simplistic. Should our future generation inherit a dilapidated infrastructure, a dilapidated economy and dilapidated schools? We all know that if I don't maintain it today, I will have to pay for it three times over tomorrow. We also have a responsibility to hand over an intact country to future generations.

If you have a company and for years you don't invest in your machinery, in innovation, in research and development, because you always just want to get as much out of it as possible, then you will eventually drive the company into the wall. And it is no different with the state. I expect politicians to tell people openly and honestly what is important in the future. We need an investment programme. And above all, we must create the conditions for this to get underway in the next two years. We are running out of time.

We must of course be careful that Brussels does not make policies that are perceived as inhibiting competition and growth. And that is unfortunately the case in many cases. The CSRD and the Supply Chain Act are frequent topics of discussion. I have a clear opinion: Both should be suspended for the time being. At a time when major companies are undergoing a major transformation, we cannot burden them even further with fines. That does not mean that we lose sight of the important goals. But we also cannot knowingly continue to burden our economy while in China and the USA, all the floodgates are being opened to strengthen competitiveness.

Everything is possible. Every decision made today can be discussed again if macroeconomic requirements change. You also have to have the courage to do just that. I expect courage from politicians in Germany as well as from the EU. If our economy continues to be weakened in the long term, it will not help the environment, the climate or social standards. In the long run, it will harm our prosperity.

If there is one positive that can come as a result of Donald Trump – and I hope that European governments learn their lesson – it is the awareness that Europe must work much more closely together – also on economic and industrial policy issues. We as Germans have a vital interest in a strong European economic area because no other country benefits more from it. Everything we do for Europe from Germany contributes to our interests. Germany must take on a pioneering role.

I would have liked this government to finish governing with a budget approved, and then move to elections. Now we have a situation in which important decisions can no longer be made and we will probably not have a budget until autumn. And who benefited in the end? The FDP is fighting for 4%. The SPD is, as in the current polls, stuck around 16%. The Greens are at 14%. None of the three traffic light partners have benefited. Neither has the Union. I would like to see a stable majority for a two-party government – a coalition comprising the Union and SPD, or the Union and the Greens. Anything else would not be good for the business location, and carries the risk that the right-wing populists will continue to gain ground until the 2029 federal election.

Experience from recent years shows us that you can no longer negotiate a coalition agreement for the entire legislative period. You have to concentrate on certain key points. And then you have to have the courage to revise the contract every twelve months. What worked well? What worked badly? What do we need to correct? How has the world changed? A government has to be agile and adapt to new situations very quickly. You can't do that by negotiating a coalition agreement in detail for four years.

Investments in infrastructure, competitiveness, research and development. De-bureaucratisation. A real housing construction offensive. A smart clarification of the immigration and refugee issue. And we should rethink the departmental structure of the ministries.

We need an independent digital ministry because digitization, AI, and the investments that need to be made here also make a significant contribution to reducing bureaucracy. If you ask me, the climate area should be assigned back to the Ministry of the Environment. I would take research out of the Ministry of Education and assign it to the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The importance of foreign trade and exports must be significantly increased in the responsibilities of the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Close coordination is required here. Development aid competencies should also be assigned to the Ministry of Economic Affairs. The Ministry of Construction could be concentrated in the Ministry of Transport. We must get out of the silos and dare to completely rethink responsibilities.

Absolutely. Very strict regulation in the EU inevitably leads to higher competitiveness for other countries and economic regions. And then investors go to countries where many things are simpler. I am not against regulation. But we have to regulate intelligently and sensibly and not overdo it. We cannot simply ignore the rest of the world.

As I am a forward-looking entrepreneur, I naturally try to prepare my company for the future. As it was to be expected that there would be changes in US politics, namely with the election of Donald Trump, it was clear that I would align the company more closely to these requirements. Then there were two options: Either I build up my capacities or I take over a company that has a strong North American network. From today's perspective, it was the right decision. Another aspect is that we advise very large companies, corporations and strong family businesses that all operate internationally. Even without the prospect of a change in politics in the USA, I would have made the same decision.

With the new structure of Christ Capital and a strong, independent consulting division, we have the financial resources to take over consulting companies that could potentially be for sale. We are also continuing to hold discussions.

We will also increasingly invest in company successions. Wherever opportunities arise. And not like an equity investor to buy and sell later, but to continue the companies in the long term. We are also looking at one or two restructuring cases. These are the other two areas in which we will continue to diversify my group of companies in the future. We will continue to make tech investments. Two years ago, we successfully concluded the largest German AI deal to date with G2K. We are invested in Aleph Alpha. However, I would like to see more large deals in this area with German and European participation.

Specifically, I am currently looking at four companies, and interesting opportunities come to the table every week. But we are in no hurry. We are doing very well – and fortunately, I don't have any investment pressure like a private equity fund. However, our stable and strong balance sheet, our equity ratio of 90% and our financial resources enable us to conclude quickly at any time.

In the area of ​​company succession, for example, there are companies from the retail, consumer goods and service sectors. But also real estate companies or companies from plant construction.

I think there are others who can do it better. I'm staying away from topics that I know nothing about.

I didn't know for weeks. But I have known for a few days.

No. But it will be a party from the democratic centre, that much I can say.