Leif-Erik Holm, May 22, 2026, Nordstream Power Plant

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/81, pp. 9779-9780.

Dear Citizens. Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Germany speaks of exploding energy prices, of a lack of supply security, of new gas power plants which shall be built. Meanwhile, the Federal government wants to give away a fully functional gas power plant in Lubmin.

It is a question of an important power heating coupling system which pre-warmed the gas arriving there from the Nordstream pipelines. Since the destruction of our critical infrastructure, this power plant can no longer do its service. We say: That need not remain so. The AfD positions itself strictly opposed to giving away our infrastructure. We want that this power plant remain in the Lubmin location in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, and I demand of you to include yourselves in that.

All Germany shakes its head that we, in times of tight accounts, give away our functioning facilities to foreign countries, 

Michael Kellner (Greens): Out of solidarity!

And then even to the state which with high likelihood had the Nordstream pipelines blown up, on account of which this power plant was idled in a moment. That is really just grotesque.

Michael Kellner (Greens): Yet no one needs that power plant!

Claudia Müller (Greens): Grotesque is your speech!

How much corn need one have drunk to make such a policy? The presumed perpetrator receives a gift wrapped in ribbons. Out of self-respect, that cannot be in our own national interest. 

Many citizens also see it so. I experience it directly on my tour through Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. At a stand in Greifswald-Wieck, practically right opposite from Lubmin, a man came to me and said: He previously had actually been a non-voter, but since he heard the story of the power plant,

Michael Kellner (Greens): Jaja!

he had now decided: It’s enough: He now votes AfD. That is actually a good decision. Who wants a far-sighted Politik, he votes AfD. 

What is it then if the Ukraine war – hopefully soon – goes to an end and relations with Russia are again normalized? The power plant would then be ready to again prepare unrivaled favorable gas. Precisely this gas we need for an affordable energy supply.

Michael Kellner (Greens): You want to again make us dependent! Na super! Hearty thanks!

Beatrix von Storch (AfD): We become independent by power plant giveaways, ja? There, we become independent?

I do the math for you, Herr Kellner: We still have an operable strand from Nordstream. Which could deliver some 27 billion cubic meters of gas per year. That would be a quarter of our requirement, in the future even still less. There would thus not at all be any dependence. That, you cannot here assert. That is rubbish!

We await a responsible Politik that takes in view such opportunities. No one today can seriously forecast how the geo-political situation will appear in five or ten years. Perhaps the new cold war quickly goes to an end, what we all of us would ultimately wish. And then? Who this power plant gives away with a swipe of the pen, he thereby knowingly destroys an important strategic option of Germany and thereby inflicts a serious harm on our country.

Alice Weidel (AfD): An additional serious harm!

Let us look at a new construction. The new construction of such a system would last three to five years – plus planning time, likely eight years – and the taxpayer would need again grasp deep in the pocket. Around 100 million euros would again be gone. That makes clear: Here, we should be making SEFE [Securing Energy for Europe, GmbH] facts which are then scarcely to revise. A responsible government, which thinks further than twelve to noon, would keep this system on board in the country.  

Michael Kellner (Greens): Clear! It thus stands around and gathers dust!

And in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern the opinion is clear on that. Thus a majority of the local government in Vorpommern-Rügen also demanded examining domestic options. In Mukran, a power heating coupling system is sought for the LNG terminal.

Claudia Müller (Greens): Yet you demanded the opposite! What now?

The motion besides came from the AfD and was also supported by the CDU. And CDU State Chairman Peters said: Critical infrastructure should initially be used here in the country, and in doubt preferably not leave the country. – Aha! And so you also should also keep it here, dear colleagues of the Union. Herr Amthor, you can for once respond the same.

Ladies and gentlemen, the giving away of the system would from every viewpoint be a serious failure at the cost of our citizens and businesses. Who wants good, forward-looking Politik for Germany, he would leave the Lubmin gas power plant in the country, and indeed ideally there where it is now, where it in the future can offer new opportunities.

Many thanks.

[trans: tem]

Hans Neuhoff, May 19, 2026, EU Defense and the U.S.A.

EU Parliament, Strasbourg,  P10 CRE-REV(2026)05-19(2-0383-0000).

Frau President.

The United States is withdrawing troops which in the course of the Ukraine crisis it had moved to Europe. That was politically announced and thus foreseeable.

Who is now concerned the U.S.A. would quite suddenly leave Europe in the lurch, can calm down, turning to the other page: Great powers tend to have their vassals tremble occasionally. Yet the U.S.A. will not choose to to give up its bridgehead to Eurasia. The true enemy of Europe is not the Russian Federation but the Islamic totalitarianism. It threatens the open societies not only from without but also from within – supported by the leftist-green zealots of this parliament. 

Thus the actual question is not whether America remains. The question is whether Europe will awake. Who preaches strategic autonomy may not at the same time order his security policy maturity in Washington [darf nicht zugleich seine sicherheitspolitische Mündigkeit in Washington bestellen]. It does not go well together to emancipate oneself rhetorically from the U.S.A., yet to practically always purchase new weapons from it. 

[trans: tem]

Marc Bernhard, May 21, 2026, Heating Law and CDU

German Bundestag, May 21, 2026, Plenarprotokoll 2/80, pp. 9558-9560. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Hurrah, the heating law will be abolished, and everyone can again install what he wants – that is the fairy tale which you of the Federal government want to tell us. Your proposal of a so-called modernization law [Gebäudemodernisierungsgesetzes] is nothing other than Habeck’s heating hammer through the backdoor. 

With your Biotreppe [Bio-stair] you obligate the people to operate new construction oil and gas heating with initially 10 percent, later 60 percent bio-gas or bio-oil. Ja, where then shall all the bio-gas and bio-oil at all come from? According to your own statements, you yourselves do not know. The green energy minister from Baden-Württemberg confirms that initially there is not enough of this bio-manure. 

You also do not know what this madness will cost, yet proceed on, according to your own testimony, it will be so expensive that, practically, the people will simply no longer be able to afford operating an oil or gas heating. The people thereby remain – 

     Vice-president Andrea Lindholz: Herr colleague, there is a wish for an interim                         question from the Union delegation. Do you want to permit it? 

Gladly. 

     Vice-president Andrea Lindholz: Herr colleague Koller, please.

    Hans Koller (CDU/CSU): Many thanks, Herr colleague, that you have permitted the interim question.     You indeed have said we ourselves did not know where all the bio-manure shall come from. Have you     actually, really spoken with the branch? In this week, the bio-gas council came together, the bio-gas         technical associations met and on all sides is clearly confirmed: We have this potential. We have here     structures, and we can also service this. Do you not want to know, or does this not suit your ideology? 

You should perhaps preferably know your government better. I have put precisely this question to State Secretary Bartel yesterday in the Building Committee. I put to him the question: Where will all of this bio-manure come from? And he then correspondingly said to me: That, we do not know. 

    Klaus Wiener (CDU/CSU): The branch! Perhaps not him, but the branch! 

In the summer there will be a commission which will be occupied with this theme. This is completely irresponsible, what you are doing here. You introduce a bio-stair, and do not know where all the fuel shall come from. That is the reality.

And the green Energy Minister in Baden-Württemberg has exactly confirmed it: This bio-manure is not on the market. You coax the people and introduce some kind of stairway into nothing. You will not thereby come to grips. Stop lying to the people! 

         Hans Koller (CDU/CSU): I’ld recommend that to you!

Finally make reasonable Politik for the people out there, that they then can again pay their heating costs! 

There is besides: You do not know what this madness will cost, yet thence end in the people will no longer have sufficient money to operate this heating. Thereby remains for the people only the warm pump or distance heating, exactly so as with Habeck. 

Not only Habeck’s heating hammer remains practically in force, you worsen the situation for not already today installed oil and gas heating to the point of inability to pay; namely, through the certificate trade in 2028, decided in common by you, CDU/CSU, SPD and Greens, already in the German Bundestag. That is in fact in one and a half years. All experts thence proceed on that the CO₂ tax will thus at least be quadrupled to quintupled. 

            Andreas Lenz (CDU/CSU): Rubbish! AfD experts council, apparently! 

            Lisa Badum (Greens): You have the source of the numbers? Nonsense!

In regards gas heating, that leads to a price increase of around 60 percent – just by the CO₂ tax. And in regards heating oil, we are speaking of a costs explosion of around 100 percent. Here, the CO₂ tax portion will climb from the present 21 cents to then almost 1 euro per litre of heating oil. 

            Andreas Lenz (CDU/CSU): That’s just not right!

That means added yearly costs of around 1,200 euros for gas and 1,800 euros for oil. 

That is to say: You are worse than Habeck, who simply verboten the people from newly installing oil and gas heating, while you act as if you would leave to the people themselves the free choice to decide which heating they install. At the same time you, however, make oil and gas so expensive that no one can afford it as well, thereby drive the people in fact to the warm pump and thereby force them to expend 100,000 to 150,000 euros for the installation and the necessary reconstruction and insulation measures. Most of all owners and landlords will simply not be able to pay that, and thereby they will have no other choice than either to need to sell their dwelling at far under value, or again install a gas or oil heating. 

Because you quite precisely know that many renters can no longer pay the heating costs on account of your CO₂ cascade of increases, you now want to defend the renters from your own Politik in which you leave it to the landlord to pay. The landlord in the future shall pay 50 percent of the CO₂ tax of their renters, even though they have no influence on the heating consumption. This is nothing other than a bad, immoral contract at the cost of a third  party. 

And is thereby long since fully clear that the heating hammer is fully ineffective, absolutely ineffective. Since the optimistic accounting of the former Habeck ministry itself proceeds on a yearly savings of just one, single percent of the entire German CO₂ emissions, thus the CO₂ quantity which China blasts into the air in just five hours. And, for that, you destroy the savings,  the old age provision and the prosperity of the people in our country. How insane are you, actually? Had you simply let just the last three nuclear power plants continue to run, we would each year save double as much CO₂ as through your entire heating hammer. 

Heating law becomes modernization law. Raider is now called Twix, but changes nix! 

            Lisa Badum (Greens): Children’s talk by the AfD!

  

[trans: tem]

 

Christine Anderson, May 19, 2026, EU Veto Right

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)05-19(2-0150-0000).

Mr. President, history teaches us something important: political systems tend to become more bureaucratic when confidence in their political leadership dwindles. Once democratic trust declines, institutions attempt to compensate through procedures, frameworks and mechanisms. Bureaucracy, however, must not ever replace legitimacy. As Hannah Arendt warned, bureaucracy easily becomes the rule of nobody, a system in which decisions are made everywhere, while responsibility is nowhere to be found.

An EU without the veto right of Member States would slide down a very dangerous slippery slope, which we are actually seeing already. A Union that struggles to build democratic consent falls back on permanent crisis, government governance and an ever-increasing institutional expansion, while gradually hacking away at the very roots on which it rests – the sovereignty of its Member States.

But Europe does not need a permanent machinery of governance, nor does it need a foreign policy detached from its nations and peoples. It needs democratic legitimacy, and it needs accountability, and it needs leaders capable of building consensus between sovereign nations. Because once unanimity disappears, the EU ceases to be a union of equal nations, cooperating freely. It becomes something fundamentally different, a union subjecting sovereign nations to its rule – a foreign rule. History has seen such systems before – Rome, the Soviet Union. Hit the books, read up on it and draw the lessons.

Christian Wirth, May 6, 2026, Immigration Law

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/76, pp. 9113-9114. 

Frau President. Valued colleagues. 

A nation consists of a citizenry [Staatsvolk], state borders [Staatsgrenzen] and state power [Staatsgewalt]. This has bestowed on us for decades security, prosperity and a solid sozial system and with which we improvise [damit wir die Notdürftigen auffangen]. This system since 2015 crumbles. It is characteristic that today two delegations, which are rather socialist oriented, put forward respective motions as if to say: All may enter, none need go. 

You have at least acknowledged that, according to German asylum law, anyone can be turned back at the border who comes from a secure third state or an EU state. Yet let us consider the Dublin decree. What is in the Dublin decree? In article 1 of the Dublin decree is that a state is responsible for the examination of the asylum application. That makes sense. 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): The rest of the article you have not read?

Since the 1990s, since the first Dublin treaty, two things were important: For one, asylum shopping shall be abolished, thus no refugees in orbit: Which is to say: No asylum applicant shall be able to seek out a system, a country, in which he receives the highest sozial payments. For another, no situation shall be created where no state considers itself responsible. That is the expression of article 3, paragraph 1, of the Dublin III decree whereby only one state is responsible for the examination and the execution of the asylum application. 

Who is responsible? That is in article 13 of the Dublin III decree. Responsible primarily is the state in which the member of the third state for the first time enters the EU. There are exceptions which are to be examined; for example, in regards family members in another state. 

How do we examine this? In article 20, paragraph 4, of the Dublin III decree is expressly provided that, for this, there can be at most two states: The state into which the third state member enters the EU, and, when he arrives in a further state, the state which then has to examine which state is responsible. That is in the rule of the first state, i.e., for Germany, when family members are there. 

Now comes the decisive sentence. In article 3, paragraph 2, is provided that every EU state is justified to then turn back at the border when it is clear that the processing of a member of a third state, of a migrant, is to be carried out by another state. That is nothing other than what is provided for in article 18, paragraph 2, of the Dublin III decree. And there provides: When another state is responsible for the execution of the asylum procedure, every EU state can turn back the refugee. That is precisely what German asylum law also says. 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): A proceeding is required! 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): We need do that once!

You demand the observance of EU law. I think, we are agreed: EU law is contract law. We have a contract between EU states and the EU. Everyone needs adhere to contracts – pacta sunt servanda – regulated in the Vienna convention on the law of international contracts. 

Now there is article 3, paragraph 2, of the EU Treaty which also applies to Schengen and to  asylum: There is provided: 

           "The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum and immigration and the prevention and combating of crime."

What did the EU do? It fulfilled none of these treaty requirements. We indeed have, in article 23 of the Basic Law, given over in part our sovereign rights to the EU. Nevertheless, the EU has obligations, and when it cannot fulfill these obligations there is, according to article 23, paragraph 1, of the Basic Law a regualtion – a subsidiarity principle – which says: We need to concern ourselves with our own affairs. That is to say: If we want to have security, order and an asylum system which function, then we ourselves need to regulate that, because, for that, the EU is not in position. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alexander Sell, May 19, 2026, Germany and the U.S. Military

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)05-19(2-0375-0000). 

Frau President. 

Angela Merkel has today here received a service order. She did almost everything wrong, yet in one matter she was right: Friedrich Merz can’t do it. 

Germany does not come out of the crisis: Industry emigrates, unemployment rises, the infrastructure crumbles, the sickness accounts are bankrupt, domestic security is lost and the special funds for the German Bundeswehr have fizzled out without effect. Yet instead of concerning himself with these problems, the Chancellor preferably plays the world politician: In front of schoolchildren in Sauerland, he declared that the U.S.A. had been humiliated in Iran. Trump consequently was so sour that he announced the withdrawal of 5,000 American soldiers from the Oberpfalz.   

German is not capable of defense – we want to change that! Yet we do not achieve that while we ignore our own problems and instead explain the world to the Americans. We first need to mind our own business. We need to deport illegal migrants so as to save our sozial system. We need to reactivate our nuclear power plants so that we do not lose our industry. And we need to better equip the Bundeswehr so that we are able, without American help, to defend ourselves. That would be the duties for Friedrich Merz. He wants that, yet we see: He can’t do it. 

 

[trans: tem]