Leif-Erik Holm, November 13, 2025, De-industrialization and Energy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/40, pp. 4554-4555. 

Frau President. Right honorable citizens. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Yesterday, the new economic opinion of the experts council came out. The council expects a growth of 0.9 percent in the coming year; once again a shrunken prognosis; initially, it was 1.3 percent. If we then adjust the whole for the holidays – in the next year, many holidays unfortunately fall on the weekends – then we are at only 0.6 percent. Thus sick man Germany slogs further on. Yet you here now want with this present hour to celebrate yourselves for your economic success. This success simply does not exist. 

I was this morning with the expert, Frau Professor Grimm. She put the naked numbers on the wall: The industrial production breaks down, and indeed on a broad front. In all sectors, it recedes. There is no reason to celebrate anything. Germany unfortunately is abolishing itself as an industrial country if it so continues. And you present no solutions. You only daub a bit of plaster, and administer the downfall – nothing more. 

            Nicklas Kappe (CDU/CSU): Which solutions do you have?

You want to speak in this present hour on your reliefs: On the lowering of the grid fees and the introduction of an industrial electricity price. Yes, in the near term we need to do something to get away from the dramatically high electricity prices. Only, why then don’t you do what benefits all businesses and budgets? Where remains the reduction of the electricity tax for all? That would be a correct step. 

This, what you are doing – I already said it last week – is “left pocket, right pocket”. I want to tell it again: The surcharge for the grid fees, 6.5 million euros, the taxpayer now pays; the costs of the industrial electricity prices, 1.5 billion euros, the taxpayer now pays; the costs for the EEG assessment, 16 billion euros, the taxpayer already pays; the electricity price compensation, 3 billion euros, will be paid by the taxpayer; and the the gas storage assessment, 3 billion euros, the taxpayer pays. That is 30 billion euros. You hide the costs of the dead energy transition in the budget. It’s simply not noted that the entire climate racket doesn’t work. 

Without these billions in subventions, nothing more would be left of this seemingly pretty fairy tale castle. The budget meanwhile also correspondingly appears. Only by your special indebtedness can you still camouflage something. The problem remains: Energy is scarce and is much too expensive. Only an expansion of the supply and a reduction of the state impact on the energy costs – for all, note well – can change something therein. We require secure power plant performance. We allow no demolition of cooling towers. Much more, we need to re-activate nuclear power plants and build anew.   

            Tarek Al-Wazir (Greens): And which cost nothing, or what?

As long as you don’t pick up and as long as you don’t prepare a lower energy price in the market, and in fact without subventions, so is there here, God knows, nothing to celebrate. 

Frau Minister – she is unfortunately gone –

            Catharina dos Santos-Wintz (CDU/CSU): She is at the Budget Committee.                                               You know that!

it is nice that the bust of Ludwig Erhard is again in the Ministry. That is good. Yet I also want to say, Frau Reiche: If you really want to be the government’s ordnungspolitische wise man, then more than an overcoming of symptoms, more than short-term plaster, is required. Your draft budget laws, which now come in series to the plenary session, are basically, as before, Habeck laws. Here and there, a bit was slimmed down, yet where are the promised changes in policy? They occur only after the comma. Your subventions orgy which now continues through the budget will soon no longer function. The cost of debts rises dramatically, and of that also the economic wise man Veronika Grimm has written to you in a register – cite: 

            “From 2029, we expend the entire intake of the state for Soziales, defense and                                           interest payments.”

End citation. And – another cite: 

            “This finance planning is a declaration of bankruptcy.”

Frau Grimm is right. Herr Finance Minister, since you speak similarly – he is now here – say readily something on that. This finance planning is a declaration of bankruptcy. Truly! 

2029 is for us also as the AfD an important year’s number. Then we will here in this sovereign house be the governing delegation. 

            Sandra Stein (Green): Do we perhaps still have elections, or what?

We will form the government. We will then need to regulate that. That will become a show of strength. Yet I promise: We will take care that this expensive wrong way ends. It does not work. 

One thing still to promise: First we start in the States. It begins in 2026 in Sachsen-Anhalt and in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. I therein rejoice. 

Thank you. 

 

[trans: tem]

Hans Neuhoff, November 25, 2025, European Armament of the Ukraine

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)11-25(2-0031/34/36-0000). 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

It is completely right that the European states want to themselves command the technological and industrial bases of their defense capability. It is however completely wrong to include in these the Ukraine as an equal and even privileged partner. Since the country finds itself in a war which it threatens to lose, and is crippled by notorious corruption. Promotion of the Ukrainian arms industry? In no case! 

Secondly, it is right that the strategic autonomy can only be developed by a small group of leading states. It is however wrong to give large strategy programs into the hand alone of the Council of the European Union without participation of the affected national parliaments. 

With the EDIP [European Defense Industry Program] decree, the bases for a supra-national defense union will be created. The ESN delegation will thus not vote for this decree. 

…Herr Sieper, many thanks for the question. As a result of its time frame, the Ukraine will in no way be able to use the EDIP. What it will effect, however, is that a strong incentive is presented for Russia to move the western border in the Ukraine, the contact line, as far as possible to the west. And that is not in the interest of the Ukraine. 

…Herr Sieper, your assumption is wrong, that it would be in the Russian interest to rule over, to control the Ukraine in its entirety. Since the invasion would not have been entered into with such a small army. Russia’s goal is: No NATO membership for the Ukraine and the Ukraine’s return to a status of neutrality, as was the case prior to 2014. That was and would be the best for this country and therefore we should support that. 

 

[trans: tem]

René Aust, November 26, 2025, Peace in the Ukraine

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)11-26(3-0029-0000). 

Herr President. 

Finally, a glimmer of hope; U.S. foreign minister Rubio speaks of considerable progress in the Geneva peace talks, and hopes for a rapid agreement. Now, in this historic hour, required are politicians who are supporting every credible peace initiative, instead of slowing them down. 

Peace treaties are no request program. They arise by means of – oftentimes, very painful – compromise. Yet they are the first step to a long-term order of peace. They are thus not at the end of a peace process, but are frequently at the beginning of a reconciliation.

 Peace ends suffering. Yet peace also ends costly spirals of military armament. Then we can make investments where they are really needed: In future technologies, modern infrastructure, education, healthcare, families and in affordable housing. On that account, we now need to grasp every chance for peace.

  

[trans: tem]

Alice Weidel, November 26, 2025, Deutschland Plan

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/43, pp. 4947-4951. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable Herr Chancellor. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

This end-stage coalition ever more recalls the bridge of the Titanic: Germany lists, the bulkheads break open. Yet you have the ship’s band play on with the same soothing melodies. 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): The country is thus bad-mouthed!

The Captain has nothing more to say and simply looks on because the First Mate has snatched from him the Captain’s cap. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): And the ordinary seaman stands at the speaker’s podium.

Germany can no longer continue to afford this clowns theater which you here allow for half a year. The crisis is here and it is not only one iceberg, it is at least five which rip open the hull of our ship of state. 

Crisis site number one: The social state. The social security system is out of control and becomes unaffordable. A third of the Bund’s total tax income in the coming year alone will need to be expended for stabilizing the pension account. In that regard, the demographic costs resulting from the retirement of the high birthrate cohorts have been acknowledged for decades. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Explain for once to the citizens how you want to                                          finance your pensions package! 70 percent!

42.3 percent of non-wage costs. That is a record and warning sign. Instead, when it is much too late to reform the system and form reserves for the future, you still pulverize the at hand financial scope of action so as to gain time. 

The social state crisis is inseparable from the migration crisis. Millions of people have in the last ten years streamed uncontrolled into the country. They have in large part immigrated directly into the social system. The consequent costs one-sidedly burden the working population – the tax-payers and those who pay contributions. They shall stabilize, with renunciation of benefits and higher contributions, the unaffordable healthcare system and they need bear the costs of the Bürgergeld, long since become migrant money which continues out of control. Every second recipient is a foreign citizen and is provided for without cost and contribution. What of that is sozial justice? 

Your SPD coalition partner braces itself against even symbolic policy corrections. To merely remove the Ukrainians sustained by the benefits terms in the last half-year is not even a drop on the hot stone. In Germany, there are one million rejected asylum applicants; yet of your grandiosely announced deportation offensive nothing continues to be seen. Despite receding asylum numbers, each year a large city immigrates by abuse of the asylum law, and an additional large city comes after by way of the family reunification. 

The citizens who need pay for this moreover lose their Heimat. In 275 Bavarian school classes sits not a single native German-speaking child. That is a declaration of bankruptcy. 

The migration crisis kills the right of entire generations to an orderly education. And while the borders remain open, our Christmas markets are transformed into fortresses or will even be entirely cancelled. 

Needing to bear these burdens is a country which for over three years is stuck deep in a recession. The industrial core erodes at a breath-taking speed. The German automobile industry has lost 50,000 jobs within one year. Down-sizing and exodus take hold of the entire production industry. 41 percent of the operations plan in 2026 a further down-sizing. A never before seen wave of bankruptcy sweeps across the country and decimates the Mittelstand. Credit insurers fear the number of insolvencies could climb in the coming year to 30,000. 

What drives the businesses and workplaces out of the country is primarily the homemade energy crisis; the industrial chiefs, who unfortunately were silent for much too long, now say this to you.

The artificially increased expense of energy by means of the so-called CO₂ pricing will still further accelerate the de-industrialization. You raise an arbitrarily imposed tax on the air, artificially drive it further to the heights, and still call that a market economy instrument, Herr Merz. The green nonsense can scarcely be further driven to the extreme. 

The dogmas of open borders and climate protection drive our country, our beloved Germany, to ruin. Instead of coming about, your coalition steps on the gas along this wrong way, and wants with a “new boost” for the international climate protection bless the entire world with the downfall. 

And because you do not want to acknowledge all of that, but toss around money which does not belong to you as if there was no tomorrow, Germany is also stuck in a binding finance and state indebtedness crisis. 

With the financial coup d’état, euphemistically called “special funds” [Sondervermögen], you have burdened Germany with the largest mountain of debt in post-war history. Of that will remain only the interest and tax costs for the tax and contribution payers. Every second euro of the special funds supposedly foreseen for investment will, according to your planning, be mis-appropriated for consumption expenditures. That quite clearly does not conform to the constitution. Your budget does not conform to the constitution. 

            Sven Lehmann (Green): Your party does not conform to the constitution!

Instead of, as promised, eliminating superfluous spending and consolidating the budget, you toss the money by the handful out the window. A billion for a dubious tropical forest, six billion  moreover for an international climate protection, 11.5 billion for the Ukraine without knowing whether or not the money yet again lands at corrupt war profiteers. Gott sei Dank – Gott sei Dank! – we have with Donald Trump a real chance of peace, to which you have contributed no part. Quite the contrary. 

The fivefold crisis is not a fatal destiny but a direct consequence of false political decisions. It cannot so continue; you also quite precisely know that, and I do not want to again do the math for you, for you of the SPD just so not. 

            Jürgen Cosse (SPD): You do the math!

You are stuck so deep in the morass of the socialist superstition of redistribution that you cannot grasp what you, with your ideological wrong way, have generally done to our country. 

            Dirk Wiese (SPD): What do you say of your members’ Russia travel?

Primitive Antifa screaming 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Which was good! 

            Alexander Hoffmann (CSU/CSU): Why? The Antifa is pleased to be in Russia!

and mindless, anti-democratic Verbot fantasies for you replace the competition of political ideas. The stereotypical cry for more and still higher taxes and for more and higher debt for you take the place of economic expertise. 

            President Julia Klöckner: Frau member, do you permit an interim question from                                        member Wiese of the SPD delegation?

No, that is unusual in the budget debate; you know that. 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): That is not at all unusual. You simply do not dare! 

            Alexander Hoffmann (CSU/CSU): You are scared, Frau Weidel! You are scared!                                         Nothing other! You are scared of the interim question!

No, I am not scared, anyway of you. You are scared. Might I please continue? 

            Alexander Hoffmann (CSU/CSU): The answer is not in the speaking                                                         notes, ne?

             President Julia Klöckner: Excuse me. She or the member herself decides                                                whether he or she permits an interim question. 

            Sven Lehmann (Green): Yes, but not with the reasoning. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): It is nevertheless possible for all to speak. What is this?

            President Julia Klöckner: We need not now comment on that here.                                        Please continue.

How you here smirk! That, the voters will exactly note before all things at the impending State legislative elections! 

            Frauke Heiligenstadt (SPD): You don’t smirk, ne? 

            Sören Pellmann (Green): That’s certainly a level in the early morning!

You, dear colleagues of the Union, know quite precisely what you do. Some of you even speak ever again of what actually needs to be done. Yet you do exactly the opposite. 

And you, Herr Merz, have in the election campaign announced and promised all possible things, what is of bitter necessity and needs be urgently done. You thereby grandiosely helped yourself to our election program. 

            Jens Spahn (CDU/CS): Oh mann, oh mann, oh mann!

Yet then – since otherwise Herr Merz would not be Herr Merz – you broke every single one of your election promises. You left the citizens in the lurch and wore yourself out with slander and insult of the opposition, instead of addressing the problems in our country. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): Get a handkerchief!

You have thereby wasted valuable time and intensified the crisis, and all of that because you make yourself a prisoner of the leftist unity front as a result of your firewall. 

            Günter Krings (CDU/CSU): Do you come to the content?

 You let yourself be led about one time after another by the SPD. The SPD’s favor, upon which your chancellorship depends, is more important to you than the good of our country and of your own party. 

This tactic has failed. Germany requires an immediate program for reform of the state, economy and society. It is time for the Deutschland Plan of the Alternative für Deutschland. 

It is a twelve point plan to again get Germany on its feet. 

First, we require advantageous and secure energy. That is the basis for economic impetus and prosperity. We therefore need to immediately end the failed experiment of the energy transformation. We need to immediately end the destruction of nuclear power, the demolition of nuclear power plants, and push the re-entry into nuclear power and we need to buy natural gas and oil where it is most advantageous, and that is in Russia. 

            Reinhard Brandl (CDU/CSU): Now it comes out! 

            Alexander Hoffmann (CSU/CSU): Ah!

And that is in our national interest, and the Americans want that, too. And that is why there are these peace negotiations: Because the Americans represent their national interests, which you for Germany have forgotten, dear CDU. 

            Steffen Bilger (CDU/CSU): Here, it’s about Russian interests! 

            Reinhard Brandl (CDU/CSU): Which interests do you represent?                                            The mask has fallen!

Second. We need to end the wind and solar electricity subventions and, without replacement, eliminate the ruinous CO₂ pricing and the emissions trade. And we need to immediately abolish  the unhappy heating law which cold expropriates countless owners of real property. 

Third. In economic policy, the fundamentals need again apply: Market economy Ordnungspolitik instead of eco-socialist planned economy. 

            Claudia Roth (Greens): Oah!

That means the abolition of the combustion engine Verbot and all supply chain laws at the national as well as the EU level. We will end the Politik of Verbot and manipulation. 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): Because human rights for you simply play not role at all!

Fourth. Our economy requires an unleashing program for setting free market economic powers which liberate them from bureaucratic regulations and drastically lowers the cost of taxes and duties. 

Fifth. In Sozialpolitik, we need to return consistently to the solidarity principle. Full social benefits only for members of the solidarity community who also make their contributions to the social security systems. I certainly do not know what you have against the solidarity principle. That, I find interesting. 

            Jürgen Cosse (SPD): Do you actually pay taxes in Germany? 

            Sven Lehmann (Greens): Against you we have something.

In place of the unfortunately baptised by you Bürgergeld, an activating basic security needs to enter which in fact drastically sinks the costs. 

Sixth. So that the statutory Pension Insurance remains affordable, it needs to be completely relieved of all non-insurance benefits and be supported by means of additional funded pillars. 

            Ines Schwerdtner (Linke): Neo-liberal!

To that also belongs a pension state fund, a so-called equalization [Ausgleich] fund for a stabilization of the statutory pension of the first pillar. The officials pension needs to be reformed, the civil service status strictly limited to a few sovereign areas of responsibility. Politicians, officials and holders of mandates need to be included in the statutory Pensions Insurance. 

Seventh. The absent migration change needs to be introduced by a Politik of the closed door. That means in clear text: Seamless border controls, turning back all illegals without exception, finally a rigorous deportation which the law besides prescribes, and an end to the multi-million violations of the law. 

Eighth. The migration magnets will be turned off. For asylum applicants, there is only benefits in kind instead of cash. Naturalized will be only those who, according to strong criteria and at earliest after ten years, are standing on their feet and fully at work. Naturalization by claim will be abolished. 

Ninth. State spending needs to be decisively slashed. Instead of unlimited new indebtedness, the public hand needs to get by with the tax intake. The state needs to keep itself out of the economy and out of the private life of the citizens, and confine itself to its core duties: Domestic and external security, maintenance of the state of law and public order. 

Tenth. Clientele policy subventions will be eliminated. The public financing of pseudo non-political organizations will be forbidden. The Antifa as a terrorist organization will be forbidden. The public broadcasting fees will be abolished. The squandering of tax money in all the world  ends. We require our remaining resources for our own country, for our own citizens. 

Eleventh. Urgently necessary is a structural reform which deconstructs the bureaucracy, clears away the funding jungle and leaves tax money in economic circulation with the citizens and business. 

Twelfth and last. A Tax Reform 25 with uniformly lowered tax rates, family splitting and a high allowance relieves the large majority of citizens, families, and before all the middle class. The solidarity surcharge will finally be completely abolished. 

That is our Deutschland Plan, that is our immediate program for Germany. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Bravo!

The most important and urgent measures to correct the damages we could in common immediately decide. Immediately! The majorities for that would be at hand in this house if the bürgerlichen powers of reason come together 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): You are not bürgerliche! 

            Derya Turk-Nachbaur (SPD): Extreme right is other than bürgerliche!

and finally fulfill the will of the voters, the majority of whom voted for a bürgerliche center-right Politik. 

            Michael Schrodi (SPD): Extreme right! 

            Claudia Roth (Greens): You are not bürgerliche!

It is thus about namely a center-right Politik, 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): Extreme right!

a bürgerliche Politik and no progressive leftist-green Politik. You here have walled yourselves in. Make reasonable Politik for the citizens and business. 

It thus lies with you, right honorable colleagues of the Union, whether you want to continue to allow yourselves to be led by leftist apron strings and green losers, or 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): …whether you continue to surround yourself                                                 with right-wing extremists!

whether you are ready to place the good of the country above personal vanities and ideological prejudices. We are ready for that, out of love and responsibility for Germany. 

I am grateful. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): So simple-minded!

  

[trans: tem]

Ulrike Schielke-Ziesing, November 14, 2025, Pensions

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/41, pp. 4777-4780. 

Right honorable Frau President. Dear colleagues. Esteemed citizens. 

This motion here was already twice on the daily order; you have twice set it aside, the last time four weeks ago. That’s not so bad; since there is already another motion: “Reform of the Politicians’ Pensions – Admit Bundestag Members into the Statutory Pension Insurance”. Exactly which is from us and which we have also debated. I need say: I have seldom experienced such a dishonest debate, full of false assertions – an unbelievable lack of respect for the voters. 

“Nothing in the world is so powerful as an idea whose time has come”, it is said. Yet here the Herr Hugo did not know the German old parties. One of these ideas is the reform of the politicians’ pension, as it was prepared already in 2013 by the independent commission on questions of members’ rights. Which was set up in 2011 by the elders council, and then indeed due to the sustained criticism of the existing system. Norbert Lammert was then Bundestag President and he said the principal problem is – cite – simply not avoiding, by means of the statutory construction, the suspicion of self-serving. For all that, he spoke only of a suspicion. 

The results of the commission we all since 2013 have passed on like a hot potato from government to government, and I say: Many of today’s colleagues apparently wanted that all of this remains so, as it is, otherwise you would not have so done down our motion. In that regard, the inclusion of the Bundestag members in the statutory Pension Insurance is nevertheless something you all supposedly want – as far as Herr Heveling. For colleague Grau, that was even a question of rectitude. Colleague Dieren was also quite firm, as besides his entire delegation. Only: Why did he then for an entire six minutes talk past the theme of statutory Pension Insurance? What should that be? And in the Union too is the thought, ja, not entirely unknown. 

Yet, as we of the AfD reminded you of that with our motion, it was again set aside because we supposedly were in the wrong, as Herr Grau meant. Note: When we as AfD want the members to pay into the statutory account, then naturally it’s not out of fine motives like your party, but so to divide or make the parliament ridiculous, to sow mistrust, or – fully besides the point – to keep people in a psychological dependency. To such a need it again comes! That came from Herr Nacke who for half his speaking time insulted us with citations from a book from 1978. I call that conspiracy blather [Verschwörungsgeschwurbel]! 

Dear colleagues, it can be done so; I understand that. But I betray to you a secret: It’s all the same to the citizens out there. The citizens out there have a nose full of your partisan purity  orders [parteitaktischen Reinheitsgeboten], they also no longer want to hear of all that does not go. The citizens want you to get on the ball and show that you don’t take yourself as more important than the interests of the citizens. 

It is thus quite simple: Either you are for the inclusion of the Bundestag members, thus with us, in the statutory Pension Insurance – then go and work up a concept with your government majority; nothing other do we require with our motion – or else you do not want it; then leave it and let the voters decide what they think of it – nothing more and nothing less. But please stop further cackling [weiter zu verkackeiern] at the citizens. 

I thereby come again to the motion which is presented here today to us and which unfortunately – and I say this with real regret – once again turns out to be the usual socialist cheese. Here is found for example the demand for doubling the income threshold, and indeed for all. That would presently be around 17,000 euros. 

            Sören Pellmann (Linke): It would be a first step!

And as always, higher pensions would be cut. With other words: When all alike are poor, you are happy. In the end is the single pension. 

            Sören Pellmann (Linke): Read and understand such a matter!

To that extent, it is insolent of the Linke colleagues to accuse us, as it happens, of wanting to enrich ourselves because we – note well, only for members – want to moderately raise the income threshold, and rather tall talk from this kind of a party of the greedy for which it’s basically always about the money, namely other people’s money.   

Dear colleagues, a pension system is not reconstructed with redistribution. Where that leads, we also presently see in the pension package. Only here the money comes not from the rich, but from the young who at sometime need to pay for the entirety, and indeed without any guaranty that, from that, something remains for them. It cannot so continue. 

Dear colleagues, it is five before twelve. The business associations, the employees, the experts council, and not last the young, at least those of the CDU, know this. And the citizens know it, too; they no longer believe a word from you. 

What use is it then to write into the law horrendous sums of tax subsidies beginning in 2029 for   the pension when these billions are not there? And I say: They are not needed, since the solution lies at hand; it’s called pension reform. This however would mean not to again shove off the responsibility to a commission and until the cows come home, as you now for decades have practiced, but finally to begin with the measures which are needed. Then you could renounce namely dubious tricks like the setting aside of the catch-up factor. 

There are so many possibilities: A more rapid increase in the capital-covered expansion – for that, we have already put forward in the last legislative period a substantially better alternative for an early start pension with our motion for a Junior Savings Deposit – , the relief of the Pension Insurance from the ballast of non-insurance benefits, the inclusion of additional groups in the statutory Pension Insurance. And we require measures to prevent old age poverty. It is nonsense that, for example, the new mothers pension should be counted in the basic security. As the AfD, we for years demand a 25 percent allowance for the elderly in the basic security. 

And I thereby come to an additional false assertion which is here gladly called in against us, that namely the AfD had no proposals of its own, as it better goes. And that’s not right. We even have a better alternative to the so-called active pension, a motion in which the self-employed plainly do not again remain outside, and in which employees are plainly not as ever disadvantaged. This motion is also put forward. Additional motions for private and occupational [betrieblichen] provision will follow. 

Dear colleagues, you see there are many opportunities in the pension area, only – and thus the circle closes – the motion put forward does not belong to that. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Christine Anderson, November 17, 2025, Digital Omnibus

EU Parliament, Brussels, November 17, 2025, P-004565/2025 Commission. 

Written Question. 

The Commission has signaled that the forthcoming Digital Omnibus may introduce changes to concepts of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) such as compatible use, purpose limitation and secondary processing. Since the GDPR forms the legal foundation for the European digital identity wallet, digital travel credentials (DTCs) and other identity and biometric systems, any modification of these concepts could materially affect the guarantees on which these systems were legislated. 

1. Will the Commission explicitly confirm that any expansion of ‘compatible use’ under the omnibus will not enable personal, identity-linked or biometric data collected under the revised Electronic Identification and Trust Services Regulation (eIDAS 2.0) or for DTCs to be repurposed for analytics, AI training, or security or intelligence objectives? 

2. How will the Commission ensure that identity or travel-related data cannot be further processed beyond the purposes that were originally authorised by sectoral legislation, even if the horizontal GDPR framework becomes more permissive? 

3. Does the Commission commit to maintaining strict purpose limitation for all identity and authentication systems irrespective of any omnibus-related GDPR adjustments?