Rainer Kraft, Nuclear Power, March 18, 2026

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/65, pp. 7836-7837. 

Right honorable President. Valued colleagues. 

When I draw the comparison between the panic which presently prevails in that part of the room, and the utterly complacent arrogance in the 19^th and 20^th legislative periods, I need say: Yes, we of the AfD, we are on the right way; in this question, we do everything right. We take on this difficult task [Wir bohren diese dicken Bretter]. 

Let us start with an experiment. We ask an AI. Question to the AI: What happens when one does not correct a serious strategic mistake? Answer: A serious strategic mistake not corrected leads, as a rule, to wide-ranging, negative consequences which can extend from financial losses up to long-term failures of an organization or of a project. 

            Nine Scheer (SPD): That should give thought to you!

The most important consequences are destruction of resources, disadvantage of competitiveness, loss of reputation, and irreversibility in regards too late action. 

Let us leave the AI. Let us put another thought experiment. What if in 2002, instead of the atomic withdrawal, we had reached a decision which was no serious strategic mistake but a genial investment in the future, namely the massive entry into nuclear power. What would we have? 

First. The 2026 Federal budget need not designate 30 billion euros so as to subsidize inefficient electricity producers and compensate for their high electricity prices. 

Second. The question of Economy ministers Altmaier, Habeck and Reiche, “How many gas power plants and where?” will not be presented because we do not require these power plants. 

Third. 60 billion euros for a hydrogen network in Germany we can do without; it will not be needed. 

Fourth. 250 billion euros for the massive network construction parallel to wind and solar installations will not be needed. The money can be spent otherwise, or will be remitted to the taxpayers. 

Fifth. Around 180 billion euros for large storage batteries will not be required, since there are no more generation fluctuations which need be compensated. 

Sixth. Since the electricity costs just about half, a family of four saves around 750 euros per year in electricity costs. 

Seventh. The previous costs of around 600 billion euros for the energy transition remain with the electricity consumers and taxpayers. The asozial redistribution from below to above does not occur. 

Eighth. A subsidized industrial electricity price is not needed. The electricity is already well priced. Energy-intensive business does not abolish positions and does not emigrate to foreign lands. A recession does not occur. 

Ninth. The brown coal mining is ended. A structural change nevertheless does not occur; the workers switch to the nuclear power sector. 

Tenth. German nature parks on land and on water are not industrialized. Environmental protection in forests and tidelands continues.                                                                                                                         

Eleventh. Since electricity is available at a good price and in large quantities, electric autos and heat pumps enjoy a broad social acceptance. Subventions and laws to force these on the market are not necessary. 

Twelfth. The great availability of inexpensive electricity in Germany leads to a settlement of AI and tech concerns. Germany would in fact have one of the top ten global tech concerns. 

Thirteenth. An EU money penalty for non-fulfillment of climate goals of up to 34 billion euros need not be paid; the proceedings will simply not take place.

Fourteenth. Sweden with its withdrawal will not threaten the European electricity market, since Germany’s solid electricity network does not destabilize the electricity price in southern Sweden, as is presently the case. 

Fifteenth. Large gas pipelines and LNG terminals will not be needed because the gas requirement is much less. 

Sixteenth. Autocratic countries earn less with the sales of gas. War chests for support of terror and invasion remain empty and the world is a more peaceful place. 

I could name still additional reasons; but my time runs out. On that account, ladies and gentlemen: That the Chancellor can use majorities in this house, if he wants, was made evident last year regarding the intensification of the migration question. You thus do not have an excuse, all the same how very much you need it. 

As a result: The re-entry into nuclear power is for Germany’s future more important and more significant than the continued existence of this governing coalition. 

 

[trans: tem]

René Aust, March 25, 2026, Fuel Prices

EU Parliament, Brussels, P10 CRE-REV(2026)03-25(1-0141-0000). 

Frau President. 

Benzine and diesel over 2 euros, here and today. All say: On account of the Iran war. That’s partially right. Yet it is only half the truth. What no one says to them: Brussels has already concluded – in black on white – that the CO₂ price from 2028 will further rise. Citizens and business will need to grasp still deeper in the pocket for energy. Experts then figure 40 cents on top per liter – in addition. 3 euros per liter for fuel is then soon in range – 3 euros per liter for diesel and benzine [$13.29 per gallon, approx.]! 

And which does not fall from heaven! That is politically made and desired by the mainstream parties. All speak of Iran, while von der Leyen, the Greens, the SPD, the CDU, quiet and gentle, prepare the next price explosion. We say: Nein, the citizens have paid enough. Any CO₂ pricing needs to be abolished, and indeed now. That needed to be a theme at the European Council. Not the flight into world Politik, but the citizens’ everyday concerns need finally to be at the center. 

 

[trans: tem]

Paul Schmidt, March 19, 2026, New Nuclear Power Plants

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/65, pp. 7820-7821. 

Right honorable Herr President. Dear colleagues. 

The withdrawal from nuclear power was “a strategic mistake”, said Ursula von der Leyen as President of the European Commission. And Chancellor Friedrich Merz had previously on January 14 designated the withdrawal from nuclear power a great mistake.  Now he says, the withdrawal is irreversible. Yet that in fact is false, and we demonstrate that with our motion [Drucksache 21/4749]. 

We want that our nuclear power stations be examined, just as the CDU/CSU demanded in the Bundestag election campaign and in the coalition negotiations. The last three nuclear power plants disconnected in April 2023, Emsland, Isar 2 and Neckarwestheim II, we want in any case to again be put into operation, and also Brokdorf because there the dismantling has scarcely ensued. Measured by the branch association KernD, that is possible anytime within three years for one to three billion euros. 

In regards other stations, there are for us two different categories: For one, those which in view of their restart of operation need to be examined, and for the others, those where the construction of a new nuclear power plant is sensible. Of the latter, in our view, are two nuclear power stations in the east, namely Greifswald/Lumin and Stendal/Arneburg, and in the west, Obrigheim, Philippsburg 1, Neckarwestheim I, Isar 1, Stade, Würgassen, Unterweser and Gundremmingen B and Mülheim-Kärlich. 

Nuclear power plants which we want to newly build would be, for example, the European Evolutionary Pressurized-water Reactor EPR, 

            Harald Ebner (Greens): Yes, exactly.

a German-French development which has already been built in many countries, as in Great Britain, France, Finland and also China, or the American reactor AP 1000, which will be built in Poland directly on the German border in three blocks and permitted according to German safety guidelines. Both of these types are of relatively simple availability. There are however additional which may come into question. 

We need nuclear energy not 

            Harald Ebner (Greens): “We need nuclear energy not”, that’s right!

only because it is advantageous, robust and reliable, and makes unnecessary the further completion of the energy transition, for which we are certainly not paid, but also because it makes us independent of foreign countries. 

            Alaa Alhamwi (Greens): From Russia, yes!

 – Now listen! – Uranium we receive from Canada, Africa, Australia and Kazachstan. Yet in case of emergency, we still have it available in our own country as raw material, for example, in the Erzgebirge or in Schwarzwald. 

Following the oil crisis of 1973-1974, it was the government of Helmut Schmidt which quite decisively drove forward the build up of nuclear power in Germany: Nuclear power as freedom’s energy! 

            Harald Ebner (Greens): The renewables are the energies of freedom!

You should reflect on that, on Helmut Schmidt and his political reason. 

And please, Frau Scheer, do not come to me again with your “alternative facts”. You are the SPD’s energy policy spokesman, and with your “alternative facts” you have already two weeks ago in the debate in the professional world made a furor; that, I can say to you.   

In fact, our nuclear power plants can be daily reduced in performance by a third, and again ramped up, and that for months. Worldwide, in fact 66 nuclear power works plants will be built. We have produced the electricity in our blocks for 2.5 to 3 cents per kilowatt-hour. 

            Harald Ebner (Greens): 80 to 40 cents per kilowatt-hour!

And a basic load from nuclear power which is always available cannot be compared with photo-voltaic, which is available only 2,000 to 3,000 hours per year, and in autumn and winter as good as not. You can believe me. I myself have worked as plant physicist in steam reactors and pressurized-water reactors.  

Dear SPD, finally give up your blockade stance, since it is you who are permanently blocking the re-entry into the nuclear power. Vote for our motion! 

 

[trans: tem]

Marc Jongen, March 26, 2026, Global Gateway

EU Parliament, Brussels, P10 CRE-REV(2026)03-26(2-0059-0000). 

Frau President. 

In the multi-polar world order, influence, raw material and energy will be fought over in the Ukraine, in the Near East, or in competition with China in the developing countries – precisely for this, the Global Gateway program was created: As a European answer to China’s New Silk Road, as a geo-strategic instrument of the EU in global competition. 

Yet instead of a pragmatic interests Politik, the Commission continues the worldwide enforcement of climate goals, Herr Sikela, the export of woke values and the exclusive cooperation with like-minded partners. Energy and raw material projects are set in motion in the narrow framework of the Green Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals. Over 300 billion was so far expended for that. Frau Bentele of the CDU, you have rightly criticized that, yet some good critical approaches are unfortunately ruined in that you also want to export into the world the climate ideology which evidently furthers the downfall of Europe. No geo-political influence can thus be gained! 

Listen, if not to me, then to the German Industry and Commerce Chamber which just last year said to you that the Global Gateway does not work for German business. That, we can no longer afford. 

[trans: tem]

 

Peter Boehringer, March 18, 2026, German Gold Reserves

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/64, pp. 7742-7743. 

Frau President. 

The German gold reserves [Staatsgold] originate from the foreign trade surpluses of the early Federal Republic. The Bundesbank as trustee administered these gold assets for their producer, the German citizens. The book value of our 3,350 tons increases for decades, and has since 2024 alone doubled to 450 billion euros. 

Gold is an important psychological and material guaranty of stability for our currency. Its revaluation gain [Aufwertungsgewinn] alone amounts to more than 150 times the capital equity of the German Bundesbank. Gold is the sole substantial position in the balance. Without it, the Bundesbank would be over-indebted by ten times its capital equity. 

Following a successful citizens initiative and repatriation of a large part of our foreign gold, today 51 percent is stored in the Frankfurt area. Nevertheless, a stock worth over 220 billion euros is ever still found in foreign countries. For 60 years already, we have borne this risk of foreign location. Since the end of the Cold War at the latest, there is no more reason for this, and none military. 

            Frauke Heiligenstadt (CDU/CSU): Listen to the Bundesbank president!

In these 60 years, the price has risen around 15,000 percent. 

We nevertheless bring in our motion [Drucksache 21/4739] not because gold is the class of investment with the best return, and we also do not advise the motion because Donald Trump in matters of fidelity to contract and the honoring of property and international law in fact exhibits no good balance. In part, that is right throughout. 

This, colleagues of the other delegations have acknowledged: By chance, Stephan Mayer of the CSU: “The finance minister needs to answer the question of Germans whether our gold in the USA is…still…secure.” Yes, Herr Mayer, this question is justified and has been presented for 15 years, yet from the Union’s view, by the wrong ones. 

Even the Greens’ finance policy spokesman meanwhile demands a gold standard currency in Germany. Please show that you seriously mean that, colleague Beck! 

Trump is thus indeed not the primary problem – that exists independent of him – yet we rejoice in every case when the colleagues now finally come to the right conclusion. 

For centuries, gold establishes sovereignty. It is free from the risk of a debts default, and cannot be politically devalued. It is an instrument of strategic security [Absicherung] to protect oneself against debt, inflation and systemic risk, which are often, as presently, still united with geopolitical crises. 

Almost every second state presently increases its gold reserves. Ever more central banks fear that they may not recover their foreign deposits of precious metal. The location of gold currency reserves in foreign countries is not to be justified. 

The Bundesbank’s long-term counter-argument, whereby in a crisis situation the metal, as it happens in New York or London, needs be converted into foreign exchange, is for years absurd. Certainly in case of a global currency crisis, no one wants to have paper money. Certainly then market participants strive for what is physically tangible, as is seen presently almost daily in the gold and silver market. 

And the Bundesbank? It, as it happens, wants in a serious case to exchange the only asset position without third-party risk for demand paper, thus precisely into such paper which in regard world currency turbulences every other party wants to get rid of. No one understands that. It is ahistorical and irrational. 

In addition, gold would also besides be tradable in Frankfurt if in a crisis it really were seriously desired to sell the state gold, which of course no one should seriously want. 

And the Bundesbank’s concerns about a – cite – “Psychological harm for the German-American relationship” in case of a repatriation are absurd! We speak of German property over which we need to have complete power of disposal. 

Unfortunately, the Bundesbank thereby stands in a bad tradition. In 1928, Reichsbank president Schacht, in regards a futile attempt to find the Weimar gold in the treasury of the US Fed, suddenly no longer wanted to see this, and freed Fed chief Strong of proof of this gold, without any emergency. 100 years later, we are not one millimeter further. 

And the actually thorough estimate of the Federal Audit Authority needs in one place to be criticized when it suggested to the Bild newspaper an examination of the gold in 2025 has not ensued. Nein, a complete examination of the German gold in foreign countries has never occurred since 1951! 

            Frauke Heiligenstadt (CDU/CSU): That’s just not right! Is completely wrong!

Gladly put an interim question, Frau colleague! Then can I expressly answer it! 

            Mechthilde Wittmann (CDU/CSU): Ja, so far as it comes!

The Bundesbank loses itself in inventory data from foreign countries, in minimal spot checks. Smelting charges and inventory numbers replace no bar numbers. Abbreviated numbers contradict orderly bookkeeping. Double counting of bar numbers cannot be excluded, complete examinations were never carried out. In short, there are no clean bar lists. 

The Bundesbank continually emphasizes they have complete trust in the foreign banks. Blind trust is however no examination strategy. In crises of an instance of tension, the right of ownership without simultaneous possession is not guaranteed. 

Trust also replaces no sovereignty. Gold is a strategic anchor of value. Its availability at home is a prerequisite for our country remaining, in regards international instability of a systemic crisis, able to act in matters of currency. 

All of this is an awareness of responsibility. It is no fear-mongering, as in recent days was dictated by you in the press. 

Many states since 2013 want to repatriate their gold holdings from New York and London. Blind trust, in times of dwindling certainty in international and financial law, is today no longer appropriate. The AfD therefore welcomes that this ancient debate on the overdue repatriation of the gold is now resurrected, even if in part for a false reason. 

No fear-mongering – awareness of responsibility! Thus strike the same out of your script where you probably again have the word “fear-mongering”. 

            Frauke Heiligenstadt (CDU/CSU): Exactly!

Strike it out! Dear viewers, it’s not true. Only that which we are doing is responsible.

Show today that your concern about gold, which you in recent months in the bloc have dictated,  is authentic, and was no crocodile tears. Vote for our motion! And in case your firewall fetish forbids that, then simply bring in one of your own! 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Christine Anderson, March 9, 2026, Political Speech Regulation

EU Parliament, March 9, 2026 

Written questions to EU Commission E-001160/2026 

Documents disclosed in a report from the US House Judiciary Committee show that, as part of the EU Internet Forum, the Commission promoted a handbook of borderline content in relation to violent extremism that explicitly classifies ‘populist rhetoric’, ‘anti-EU content’, ‘anti-elite content’, ‘political satire’, ‘meme subculture’ and ‘anti-LGBTIQ content’ as problematic categories to be monitored or limited by platforms, even though these are in themselves lawful forms of political or social expression. 

1. How does the Commission justify equating lawful Eurosceptic or anti-establishment speech and political satire with ‘violent extremism’ in an official handbook, and on what precise legal basis did it urge platforms to use these categories for content moderation beyond what is strictly illegal under EU or national law? 

2. What safeguards did the Commission put in place to ensure that such guidance would not result in systematic discrimination against peaceful opposition movements, conservative viewpoints on migration and gender, or satirical criticism of EU institutions and policies?