Tino Chrupalla, July 9, 2026, Merz Government I

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/89, pp. 10868-10871.

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Dear 
countrymen. - Dear countrymen.

Herr Chancellor, I really need say before all things that, in regards the first part 
of your government declaration, I really asked myself: Where do you live, actually?
In regards your statements, your wishes which you spread here, your polling
results must have gone through the roof. If one looked at that, you spoke  
of the costs of failures - of the costs of failures! I say to you: The costs of the 
failures rise everyday so long as you are Chancellor. Allow me please to 
continue with a citation: 

"That which the Social Democrats can do well is to make
debts, raise taxes and ever higher state spending. Now they 
give money to foreign people. We now have almost 900 
billion euros in state income. Can we occupy ourselves for 
once with the thought whether we have a problem on the 
spending side?"

End citation. The former Chancellor candidate of the CDU and CSU, Friedrich Merz, 
spread these understandable thoughts about one and a half years ago on 6 February
2025 on X. One may therein see, Herr Merz, what interests you in your idle talk 
of yesterday. It can be said, that is a mirror image of your entire Chancellorship.
It is and remains for you a unique tragedy. No one can rely on your word. You wriggle 
through autumn of reform, through reform spring, into the reform summer. In 
regards the duration, we take it you've been quite a time in a reform jam on the decaying
streets and bridges. A quarter of your government time has already run out, and we all 
know that the remaining time of this legislature until 2029 will pass by more quickly
than you believe - even if you hold on so long. You nevertheless cannot make me believe
that you had at all thought out the contested themes in the victory whirl of the spring 
of 2025.

Exactly so dishonest do you behave in the face of the citizens. The loss of trust in the 
word of this Federal government is scarcely still to be figured. You say the one thing, 
and as a rule first of all do nothing. As soon as something in the form of a law reaches 
the German Bundestag, you in the coalition are at least disagreed in the media or 
contradict yourselves on the public stage. Honestly said, I thought you in your parties
are somewhat further. All in all, you paralyze the economic and social progress. 

The Union in addition still walls itself in behind a firewall; for the party enemy 
identified by you gains ever more in approval, and you lose support and, before 
all things, credibility. You underlined this today with your speech. What however
is still not clear is, Herr Chancellor: If you in angst need to hide from us behind your
firewall, why do you actually at the same time make use of the proposals which were
worked up in our Bundestag delegation? 

Let us name it by name: You already long understood that you and your party need
to make Politik with our themes so as not to be swept from the political market, like 
the erstwhile FDP. Out of pure opportunism, you have turned left in a green direction
and drive in a circle without success. 

Your business model thereby further exhausted, you negotiate bad deals so as to 

remain in power. As example I just want to recall the climate and transformation 

fund. The increase in the billions of this budget item clearly did no harm to your 

election as Chancellor in the second round. Only, it appears you were, in your time 

out of politics, not really thus prepared for the leadership of a state. And that is 

logical, since BlackRock stands, ja, on the other side of the recipients of hard 

earned tax means which secure the return of your shareholders. 

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Ach herrje!

And precisely this you make clear with the budget Politik of your Federal 
government. Your cabinet in the 2027 Federal budget wanted to expend a 
total 555 billion euros. For that, the Federal Republic of Germany will be 
indebted by an additional 118.7 billion; with that of last year, over 200
billion euros of new debts. That is already double that of the original planning.   
Besides: Of the European treaties like Maastricht, Herr Chancellor, we 
no longer need speak at all. You for long no more observe them.

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): How then would you 
do it, Herr Chrupalla? Tell for once!

I want to again remind you, Herr Merz: A state is no business firm quoted on the 
exchange, which in any case cannot at option be quickly purchased, wrecked 
and merged.

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU):  Ever the same speech!

What however you could know: In regards to personnel and to processes, a 
state needs to be set up lean. And also there, this Federal government uses no 
savings potential in which for example it consistently takes into the state 
pension system the servants of the state, Herr Hoffmann. That would be a real reform.

 
How then do you want to still longer explain to the citizens that, for example, 
officials without a high income have at their disposal 70 percent already at 
pension age, and all others need to secure their retirement portion through ETF 
financial business, by which apparently armaments concerns still earn money 
for your war. And just in times of rising insolvencies, weak economic growth, of 
de-industrialization in the chemical industry, of the de facto elimination of mini-jobs, 
in times of war which make necessary the rebate at the pump, the sozial 
splitting needs to have an end. And just that which is financed by the community
needs to act as a part of the community. 

President Julia Klöckner: Herr member, do you permit an interim 
question from the ranks of the Union delegation, and that is from
Herr Alexander Hoffmann?

Bitte schön.

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): Thanks, Herr Chrupalla, that 
you permit the interim question. I was of course well nigh 
astonished. You speak here for minutes and thereby do what you 
always plainly do: You bad mouth [quatscht] our country into 
a depression. 

Stephan Brandner (AfD): Na, na, na!

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): You bad mouth our people 
into a depression, Afterwards, Frau Weidel will speak. She does
precisely the same. Now I am happy that in your speech finally
for once occurs a position which was clear on how the AfD would 
do it.

Bernd Baumann (AfD): We say that continually every day!

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): That was the following position:
We reconstruct the pension account when the officials finally pay
into the pension. That was finally a concrete proposal. You have 
clearly occupied yourselves with funding it. I want to share with 
you - 

President Julia Klöckner: Excuse me. Quite briefly: It needs be 
possible when a member of your delegation permits a question
that you first listen to the question. Yet this also belongs with 
that: This is impulse control. Bitte.

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): Thus, you are the delegation 
with the most interim questions, then you can also listen for 
once when someone else asks. How would that be, actually?
The AfD thus finally makes a concrete proposal. The officials 
pay into the pension account, and we thereby reconstruct the 
pension system. Herr Chrupalla, there are various studies - 
besides, the preceding pension commission also occupied itself
with this question - which have arrived actuarily at a fully clear 
result: The pension account cannot thereby be reformed and, 
before all, also not be placed on a stable footing, since opposed 
were corresponding payments costs. Apart from that, the officials
provision is fundamentally protected on that account. I now 
confront you with these studies and would gladly have your
answer whether you, against this background, still want to 
adhere to this epic proposal. 

Thus first, Herr Hoffmann. When I permit to you the question - you speak frequently
of the "delegitimization of parliament" to which we, ja, allegedly contribute - and when 
the leader of the opposition gives a speech here, then he speaks, and does not "bad
mouth", as you label it. 

Point one: You nevertheless always speak of civility [Anstand], and then I at least 
expect that you as State group chief of the CSU also have this civility. Point two: 
Yes, we in our demands have also included that all pay into the system of the 
Pension Insurance, officials also. 

Alice Weidel (AfD): And politicians!

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): Do the math!

That is justice; it is about us. You have taken the politicians as a circle of persons 
which we have always supported. You espied this from us, because of course
ever more citizens demand this. That it does not proceed from today to tomorrow, 
that officials - with a terminal date regulation - should pay in, this is fully clear.
Yet it should nevertheless be. Why? A pensioner in Germany receives an average
3,400 euro pension for the same employment time 

Alice Weidel (AfD): Clearly less!

of a tradesman, a member of the Mittelsand, a quite normal doctor, a nurse, thus 
all those who have paid into the retirement system. The average pension of these 
is nevertheless 1,200 euros for men and 1,000 euros for women. Do you find that just?
Precisely that is the injustice, and that is the two-class society in the retirement which
we want to abolish. 

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Question not answered!

[trans: tem]

René Aust, July 8, 2026, Climate, Balkans, Taxpayers

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)07-08
(3-0021-0000).

Frau President. 

Europe and Germany already have a thousand heat deaths to lament 
and, during this, one wants to make the price for energy still more
expensive by means of the CO2 emissions trade so as to influence 
the climate worldwide. Precisely this is the distinction between theory 
and practice; this is the distinction between those on the left side and 
the patriotic powers of Europe.

We do not believe that higher taxes and an added burden for the citizens 
would somehow change the world climate - and this thesis has, ja, 
already failed in reality. Instead, we want to quite practically help the 
people; for example, in which old folks homes, care residences, 
hospitals, schools are outfitted quite completely and systematically
with climate systems. We want practical Politik instead of Cloud
Cuckoo Land. 

Something else which is on the daily order is the question of 
the expansion. The Balkans are an unbelievably important region
for us; they are strategically important for Europe. On that account, 
we also want that the Balkans and the European Union work together
much more closely; for example, by means of privileged trade relations
- that these be still further expanded. 

What we however do not want is that these countries in the present 
situation are accepted into the European Union. We do not want that 
additional recipient countries are accepted which at the end of the day
further and still more burden the German taxpayers.

The last expansion rounds have not been completely processed by the 
European Union. As before, there are large conflicts; as before, the 
institutional rules have not been laid out at this dimension. We first 
need to work out that this European Union and the European 
cooperation again become feasible, in which one concentrates on 
the essentials and to which are plainly not added ever new duties
and countries.

We want that the Balkans are brought up [herangeführt] nearer to us, 
but plainly without burdening the German taxpayers.

[trans: tem]

Alexander Gauland, June 25, 2026, Ukraine War

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/86, p. 10491.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Erich Maria Remarque’s best known novel ends with the protagonist Paul 
Baümer dying at the front while the army’s report for that day announces
„Im Westen nichts Neue“ [All Quiet on the Western Front]. The mass 
death in the trenches was by then nothing new.

The war in the Ukraine meanwhile lasts longer than the First World War. 
There will have died in 52 months hundreds of thousands. In the east, 
nothing new and no end in sight. We are accustomed to it. On the contrary: 
The Ukraine’s drone attacks far into the Russian hinterland awake brave 
hopes of some of those who dream of forcing back the Russians to Crimea, 
and perhaps even throwing them out of Crimea. I think that the Ukraine, 
in the sense of a reconstruction of the status quo ante, cannot win this war.

And for us, the war financially becomes the last straw. Self-evidently is 
Germany again the largest payer in the EU: 40 billion for the war so far; 
in addition, up to 35 billion for refugees. In the spring of 2026 alone, 4.2 billion 
euros in military aid were transferred. We send money to the Ukraine 
while in Germany poverty grows, the infrastructure rots, and the economy 
shrinks. The most recent results from the Deutsche Bahn are like the 
flaming writing on the wall. The Chancellor however has not rendered 
his oath to the Ukraine. If the Ukraine wishes to continue fighting, that is its 
good right, but not our business. 

Jürgen Hardt (CDU/CSU): Now you let the cat out of the bag!

For it is simply not true that the Ukraine also defends our freedom.

Peter Beyer (CDU/CSU): Oh, yes!

It is no NATO member, and its fight is a fight over the formation of the 
post-Soviet, indeed post-Czarist space. Even if we hold it to be false, 
it is the empire of Peter the Great which Putin wants to reconstruct.

Knut Abraham (CDU/CSU): Aha!

And, as is known, that reaches not to the Gate of Berlin, indeed not even 
to Warsaw.

Sara Nanni (Greens): Putin however speaks of coming to Berlin!

In German interest are the peace negotiations and an end of the war with 
a compromise. Yet in that the Federal government despite our own
failures in the past – we here have discussed it – deals with Putin as solely 
guilty and like a criminal, 

Sara Nanni (Greens): Like a criminal? He is a criminal!

Jürgen Hardt (CDU/CSU): He is a criminal! He kidnapped 20,000
children!

and grants Russia no legitimate interests in this conflict, it makes a 
compromise peace impossible.

The Ukrainian leadership wants to attain that the EU, better still the NATO 
becomes a war participant. Apart from proximate risks for us, that would 
for many years be the end of the peaceful relations with Russia. Cite: 

“A Ukraine in the EU would block any reconciliation with 
Russia in the future. And this reconciliation would 
nevertheless be decisive for the future of Europe.”

End cite. The last two sentences stem not from me but from Klaus Dohnanyi, 
my dear SPD.

The Ukraine war is not Germany’s war; yet all seek to make it that, 
with exception of the Linke. Germany expanded its support step by step. 
It began with helmets, with defensive armaments. Later came heavy weapons, 
air defense systems, panzers, and the training of Ukrainian soldiers for that. 
Now is again discussed whether we deliver Taurus cruise missiles whereby 
Germany would be in danger of being responsible for an attack on Saint 
Petersburg and Moscow. In the sense of the old formula “inter pacem et 
bellum nihil medium”, we are long since combatants.

No, the world does not go under if in the future eastern Ukraine belongs to 
Russia. It could however go under if the military escalation screws are
ever further turned.

Andreas Mattfeldt (CDU/CSU): Was that dictated by Putin?
Inconceivable!

There have always been spheres of influence. For the U.S.A., it is all of 
North and South America, as laid down by the Monroe Doctrine since 
1823. The U.S.A. acts accordingly and has always done so. Thus let us 
stop binding our own hands with fairy tales of the equality of all states, 
quite independent of their geopolitical situation. The end of the dying is 
more important, ladies and gentlemen. 

I am grateful.

[trans: tem]

Alexander Jungbluth, July 6, 2026, European Investment Bank

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, 
P10 CRE-REV(2026)07-06(1-0106-0000).

Frau President.

The report makes clear the growing role of the European Investment 
Bank within the European Union. With a balance of around 600 
billion euros and a record volume of 100 billion euros in financings, 
the EIB has become one of the most influential of Europe's financial 
institutions. This expanded role nevertheless needs to remain anchored 
in AEUV Article 309.

The EIB was created as an investment bank, and not as a replacement 
for a political decision process. Its strength lies in the financing of the 
European economy, not in the expansion of its mandate. 
True economic sovereignty begins with a strong productive economy; 
the investment priorities thus pose a question: While 53.5 billion euros 
are foreseen for climate goals, agriculture and bio-economy receive 
merely 6.2 billion euros.

Beyond that, ten percent of the EIB financing flows outside of the 
EU. Europe should nevertheless not afford itself this capital outflow. 
The EIB should undertake exclusively investments in our national 
economies, strengthen our member states, and promote industry, 
innovation and competitiveness.

The EIB should ultimately be measured by one, simple standard: 
Whether it helps strengthen Europe's productive economy and 
the interests of its member states. 

[trans: tem]

Gerold Otten, May 22, 2026, Defense and Artificial Intelligence

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/81, pp. 9774-9775.

Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

The 2015 annual report presented for arms control documents far more than 
one mere crisis. It describes the systemic erosion of the global security architecture.

The Federal government's analysis in that regard named three central fault lines.
In first place here is the unsustainable disintegration of the nuclear order. The 
end of the New Start Treaty and the uncontrolled expansion of the Chinese nuclear 
arsenal mark the crossing into an indistinguishable, multipolar world of rival
superpowers. At the same time, regional agreements fail, as for example, the INF 
Treaty between Russia and the U.S.A.

The second fault line is the unconfinement of modern conflicts. Space has become a 
military operations area. At the same time, we experience the withdrawal from  
verified arms control treaties, as for example the Ottawa Convention on the ban on 
anti-personnel mines, and by EU states; a direct consequence of the altered 
threat perception in the East.

The third fault line is the technological disruption. The deployment of artificial 
intelligence and autonomous weapons systems on the battlefield is no longer a 
theory but reality. These weapons systems dictate the speed of modern warfare, 
and in seconds decide over life and death. 

In all of these points the report delivers a plausible description of the situation, 
although the description alone falls short. We need to posit for ourselves a      fundamental, inconvenient truth: The structures which defended us for decades were the result of the Second World War and the Cold War. They are the products of a past epoch.     We no longer find ourselves in a transitional phase. We stand in the midst of a        completely fragmented, multipolar reality. The era of unipolarity, of the uncontested supremacy of the U.S.A., is conclusively past.

China has established itself as a powerful counterweight. Russia manages an unconfined power Politik and forges alliances in the global South. The middle powers there manage a purely transactional Politik of interests. They conclude economic agreements with Peking, purchase armaments in Moscow and cooperate in security questions with the U.S.A.

The result is no stable, rules-based order, but a phase of the radical new categorization.        It is thus unlikely to be able to successfully analyze the challenges of the present            within the structures and with the methods of the past. 

That is to say: On the situation analysis, we here today are indeed largely agreed.                Yet where we fundamentally differ is the methodological approach for the            achievement of the goal. This is exactly shown in the Federal government's arms           control strategy. Its declared goal is the global stability by means of multilateral    agreement, transparency and the regulation of technological progress. Demanded                   is the outlawing of fully automated weapons systems and new rules for cyber- and        outer-space.

We support these ordnungspolitischen goals, yet we doubt that they can be achieved        with yesterday's methods. Who closes the eyes before this reality, manages                Geopolitik in the rear-view mirror.

An arms control requires two fundamentals: Trust and geopolitical stability. Both                no longer exist in this multipolar world order. Worse still, Germany has blithely       squandered its traditional role as honest broker on the world stage. 

Instead of pursuing a foreign policy lead by interests, Germany hides itself behind the template of an ancillary leadership role, and thereby submits itself unconditionally to the Brussels transnational technocrats.

We all pay the bill for this misguided Politik. Certainly in Germany, we feel harder than ever before the economic and political censures [Verwerfungen] of this world order. Our view is accordingly, it must be a core duty of a wise German foreign policy to stand for that the described tectonic shift does not escalate to a global war, that it does not harm Germany. 

That however would presuppose the acknowledgment of interests of equal rights of allied partners, yet also of competitors. Only on this basis is possible a success of diplomatic strivings and initiatives for disarmament and arms control. 

This recognition is denied by the Federal government and by the parties long sitting here in moralizing self-complacency. 

The Federal government seeks instead an impossible balance. It wants to be a wide-ranging, moral court for the arms regulation, and at the same time create a most modern army efficient in war, yet thereby obviously fails in its own ideological blinkers.

 
As in a magnifying glass, that is shown in regards military deployment of AI: The Federal government dogmatically persists in the primacy of human control and also wants to enforce this concept internationally.

That is clearly intended to be ethically noble, yet ignores the technical realities which today are clearly shown in the Ukraine war. For the defense against hypersonic weapons and drone swarms, to name an example, the human reaction time is no security factor but the deadly bottleneck. Who here persists exclusively in manual control, consents to accept technological inferiority in an emergency situation. Who however irresponsibly accepts the inferiority of our armed forces, risks the lives of our soldiers and destroys every military credibility.

The same paralyzing spirit prevails in Federal German science. While Washington and China radically drive forward the civil-military fusion, a well-fed scientific estate clings to civil stipulations. This artificial separation blocks precisely that technology transfer which the Bundeswehr so urgently needs to at all keep pace. We brake the progress exactly there where it is most critical for the national defense.

The third hurdle is the over-flowing bureaucracy. AI development cycles are measured in weeks. Our procurement procedures, on the other hand, continue to administer a decades-long hardware process. An army which reacts to technological disruption with formulas, over-regulation and control mania, loses the connection before the first shot has even been fired. 

These dogmas in dealing with AI characterize the Federal German Politik. Without a fundamental turning away from these dogmas, the Bundeswehr will not become Europe's most powerful army, but a grave for billions in tax money without any added value in security policy.

Who hopes AI weapons technology threats can be enclosed internationally, and at the same time ignores AI's defense potential, makes himself ridiculous internationally. The armed forces plainly cannot be modernized and at the same time the technological progress be blocked as this government is doing it. Both mutually exclude themselves, when the goal should be to be the strongest conventional military power in Europe. 

This report is thus no future plan. It is the written document of a strategic sluggishness and of a moral complacency which endanger the security of our country.
Many thanks.

[trans: tem]

Anja Arndt, June 17, 2026, Genetically Altered Plants

EU Parliament. Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)06-17(3-0163-0000).

Herr President. Right honorable members.

Today is not about progress or stasis. Today it's about the trust, freedom of choice and 
control of our seeds, food and our agriculture. We vote on the de-regulation of so-called 
NGT1 plants. These plants are altered with new genome techniques and can end up in 
our food, feeds and in our farmlands. We will be told that this can theoretically arise 
naturally or through conventional cultivation, yet theory replaces not practical         experience, and speed replaces no security. 

Who broadens such techniques needs to guarantee control, transparency and free         choice. Yet precisely this is lacking because the labeling obligation is lacking.                 There is also no legally secured patent ban. NGT1 plants thereby become a 

gateway for bio-patents, concern power, monopoly and new dependencies for                     our farmers and breeders.

 
As long as labeling, traceability and a real patent ban are lacking, there may be no vote 
for the Council position. I welcome therefore the vote for all motions to amend which 
demand the labeling obligation and exclude ability to patent, and initially vote for the 
leftists' and greens' rejection.

[trans: tem]