Albrecht Glaser, February 21, 2019, Brexit

Albrecht Glaser

Brexit Legislation

German Bundestag, February 21, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/83, pp. 9785-9786 

[Albrecht Glaser is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the central German state of Hessen. He has a number of years of experience as a public administrator and elected official and is currently a member of the Bundestag finance committee.] 

Herr President. Honored ladies and gentlemen. Honored fellow citizens - those who are still there – a hearty welcome. 

On March 29, 2019, at 11 PM, the British exit from the EU will take effect. This step was desired by a narrow majority of the British electorate on June 23, 2016. Whether or not it will result in a treaty, we do not know – apparently not. 

In 1973 the United Kingdom joined the EWG [European Economic Community]. In 1975 this decision of the British government was also agreed to by a wide majority in a popular referendum. In the 70s and 80s a preponderance of trades union members and officials demanded England’s exit from the EWG. Since the 90s, an exit has been demanded by an Independence party founded for this purpose as well as by several conservative politicians. The question “National State or Union of States with Discernible Development into a Super-State” has thus been put to this country for decades and, with great import for world history, will now be answered in favor of a far-reaching national sovereignty.

Considered by the world norm, the Kingdom returns to normality. Other than Europe, on no other continent is there a process of de-nationalization and with it the de-democratization in favor of supra-national quasi-states. From China, Japan and Russia, across Africa to South America, is it nowhere discernible that such a development is appearing, although one could most nearly propose something of such a fantasy in South America due to language and cultural affinities. 

Generally in the world, there have continually been military conflicts between states, especially between neighbors. Nowhere in the world is the Über-state seen as a problem solver for peace, democracy and human rights. Europeans should reflectively concur on that. 

As is well known, the grumbling of the people is to be heard in Europe. Its denunciation as nationalism and provincialism will be properly taken as the arrogance of the economic and political elite. How one is to best build a secure as possible world is an open question. Europe thereby does not become the orientation standard for the rest of the world – and with its decreasing population, the steady regression of its portion of the world economic performance, and its military agony – from year to year always less so.  

Today we are to dispose of two drafts of exit accompaniment laws which should shield citizens and businesses from Brexit. We regard these from the financial perspective as being reasonable; they ought to be fashioned with the discretion as would have been necessary in earlier negotiations. 

In regards finance, ten laws in eleven articles will be altered, from income tax law to pension fund supervisory regulation, of which each of you has heard. The government with its draft has corrected much and, nevertheless, forgotten much. It would have been more fair to conduct a public hearing of experts and, in our view, more surprising were the numerous suggestions also actually converted into substance. 

To the original 20 specific alterations of law are now a further 11 to be added. They refer to inheritance and gift tax, the real estate earning tax, the payments service supervisory law and the securities transaction law. We see a difficult detail work which is nevertheless of great importance for the real life of citizens and businesses. To represent that – as has been suggested – I can cite: 

Due to Brexit’s legal requirements, a dwelling in England requiring repair must not be disposed of. Building savings banks must leave their invested capital in England. Damage clauses in insurance policies with English businesses shall, for an interim period, be able to continue in effect. The British business form of Limited Company in Germany can be converted into a business of German legal form without having to reveal silent reserves. An exemptions clause for family businesses in Germany which have a British share of assets and much else are further subjects of these regulations. 

Together with this legislation, the federal government contemplates the introduction of a special notice of affairs for financial institution risk carriers; there have been discussions thereon. It seems plausible and meets with our agreement. 

The consultation process – I want to expressly emphasize this – in the finance committee, as well as the news conferences, are conducted factually and seriously. 

            Fritz Güntzler (CDU/CSU): As always!

Accordingly, the results are good and the entire legislative proposal meets with our approval… We will reject the motions of the FDP and the Linke. 

Otherwise, it is as I have reported and I have reported throughout with great calm and joy. 

Hearty thanks.

[Translated by Todd Martin]

Rüdiger Lucassen, February 21, 2019, Arms Exports

Rüdiger Lucassen

Arms Exports

German Bundestag, February 21, 2019, Plenarprotokoll, 19/83, pp. 9710-9711

[Rüdiger Lucassen is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the western German state of Nordrhein-Westphalen. He is a retired army colonel and here responds to a Green Party motion on arms exports.]

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Secret agreements, to and fro. It is in the style of this government not to bring controversial issues before the public. The voters’ angst is great. Yet when it is about armaments cooperation between Germany and France, the question of export regulation sits like an elephant in the room. 

Who has the say when jointly developed tanks and combat jets are to be sold? So much was clear from the beginning: no weapons in war zones. To this German principle, however, France does not conform. So it is with the blind surrender of national sovereignty. As whenever one is no longer master in one’s own house. 

With the issue of arms exports, the EU fetishists of the left-wing camp are now in a pickle. There, one must now ponder: less nationality means more German weapons abroad. A difficult decision, ladies and gentlemen. Not so for the AfD. We accept that a domestic defense industry requires a certain portion of exports in order to survive. The Bundeswehr can no longer itself account for a sufficient quantity of armaments to be able to pay for development and production. Germany must also sell. 

The actual problem with this often affirmed Franco-German armaments cooperation is the surrender of key national technologies and nuclear capability to the benefit of France.

We see here that the treaty signed by the federal government with our neighbor is without exception to the disadvantage of our own defense technology industry, which is in all things of the Mittelstand, and thereby to the disadvantage of national security precautions. That doesn’t go with the AfD. 

It is true that Germany cannot sustain a purely national armaments program. Germany alone, for example, will no more be able to build sixth generation combat jets. Even in cooperation with France and Spain, we will no longer be able to keep pace in such technology. Primarily, Europe lacks the know-how, and secondly, the development is simply not affordable. The relevant treaty, signed last summer by the Defense Minister and her French colleague, is not worth the paper it is written on. Yet even this eye-wash has security policy consequences for Germany. Just a few weeks after signing this agreement, France warned the federal government that Germany should not replace its old Tornado combat jets with American F-35s – the best solution for the next thirty years, as former Inspector of the Luftwaffe Karl Müllner had repeatedly stated, but for his expertise was sent into early retirement by the Defense Minister. Should Germany nevertheless purchase the F-35, France will immediately terminate the common cooperation. 

            Karsten Hilse (AfD): Super! 

In a normal relationship, that is called something like extortion. But so it goes with the blind surrender of national sovereignty: one is no longer master in one’s own house.

For the Left-Green camp it is naturally not about home industry or defense capability. They would as soon give up all that today as tomorrow. It now dawns on them that, in the end, the French have sold weapons to any regime in the world that is sufficiently solvent. In France there is no export ban to Saudi Arabia on account of the murder of a journalist. On this account the hyper-moralists of this house now find themselves in a dilemma. That is the reason for this present session. 

Perhaps I can counsel them as how to free themselves of this awkward situation. Perhaps the problem of arms exports is only a question of framing. How about “The Good Arms Export Law”? 

The SPD definitely supports you there. 

Thank you.

[Translated by Todd Martin]

Beatrix von Storch, February 14, 2019, Asylum Policy

Beatrix von Storch

Asylum Policy

German Bundestag, February 14, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/80, pp. 9352-9353

 

 

[Beatrix von Storch is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from Berlin.
She is a lawyer and here responds to a recent proposal by CDU chairman Annegret
Kramp-Karrenbauer for a series of CDU workshop discussions concerning the
 government’s asylum and immigration policies.]

Right honorable Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

When catastrophe is at hand, then there is ultimately no one who wants it. Thus it is with Merkel’s asylum disaster. 

With the workshop discussions, the Union now attempts to draw a safe distance between itself and the Chancellor; an arm’s length, one might think. In the autumn of 2015, it was still “We can do it!” and Merkel was celebrated as Mother Teresa. Any who opposed was a populist or much worse. Now, with the Social Democrats, it is no longer “Refugees Welcome” but that the autumn of 2015 does not bear repeating. Dear Social Democrats of the CDU, I congratulate you on the belated insight. 

            Marian Wendt (CDU/CSU): Learning curve! 

You are where we already were in the autumn of 2015. 

That you also now at least verbally acknowledge a willingness to re-work the scandal in the confines of your reduced possibilities is, I might say, progress. However, this re-work naturally belongs not in the workshop of a party but rather here in the Bundestag.

Before you all lies our motion to set up an committee of inquiry. We have invited all delegations to conduct informational hearings. Should you want to factually and fundamentally re-work, then you can readily do so. 

We must re-work the past, and we must now solve the enormous problems produced by Merkel and her asylum policy. Before the election, the Chancellor announced a national deportation effort. After the election, there was Minister Seehofer with his master plan for migration. The consequences? None. 

We have nevertheless noted with interest the CDU proposal, the present Kramp-Karrenbauer workshop. The third trap. Since announcements cost nothing, there is now a whole series of them: Asylum procedures and rejections at the EU external border, national border control – and without consultation with the EU – 

            Armin-Paulus Hampel (AfD): Ultima ratio! 

- withdrawal of right of asylum for false statements, mandatory age verification by medical tests for alleged minors. 

Dear colleagues of the Union, that is excellent. That comes namely from us. That is AfD pure. 

            (CDU/CSU): What you wanted was firearms on the border! 

That comes from you only passing late. Obviously, you spent the years of the welcome culture on the far side of the moon. But we say to you, A hearty welcome back to Earth! 

We wish now to know from you which consequences does this have for the practical workings of the federal government? 

            Armin-Paulus Hampel (AfD): None! 

Any bets? None. There are two reasons why this will have no consequences. First, Angela Merkel. Merkel is not gone. She continues to direct the policy guidelines and she has no thought of altering her direction. And second: Your coalition partner, the SPD, and your desired coalition partner, the Greens, will never go along. 

Dear colleagues of the SPD and the Greens, use this session and tell the colleagues of the Union what you make of the workshop proposals. And then lastly inform the voters. 

Dear colleagues of the Union, here in this place sits your dilemma. It is not about this Chancellor and it is not about your coalition partner. For a change of asylum policy and for a solution to the fateful question of our nation, of our culture and of all Europe, there is a majority only from the right of center. One sees this in Austria. One sees this in Denmark. And in Germany, there is a right of center majority only with the AfD. 

For so long as you fail to place yourself in this reality, all your announcements will remain nothing but hot air.

 

Many thanks.

 

 

 [Translated by Todd Martin]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joana Cotar, February 21, 2019, Digitalisation Policy

Joana Cotar

Digitalisation Policy

German Bundestag, February 21, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/83, p. 9633

 

[Joana Cotar is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the central German state of Hessen. She is a communications manager and since 2016 has been the AfD’s social media manager. She here responds to a government paper on digitalisation policy.] 

Right honorable Herr President. Worthy colleagues. 

Digitalisation formation, Arbeit 4.0, Gigabit Society, Big Data, Disruption – buzz words which must not fail to be somewhere in any Bundestag speech. You mean to say: We have understood. The government concerns itself with itself. 

The speeches sound good, the promises are big. Yet the reality unfortunately appears otherwise. The important defining themes of digitalisation are actually not taken seriously by this government. That is quite clear in this transformation paper. It is mere piecework, not a coordinated strategy and is symptomatic of the government’s digital policy.  

In Germany there is no digitalisation ministry in which all the threads run together; each cooks his own soup. There is a digital state ministry without its own budget; a section for digital policy in the Chancellor’s office; a digital cabinet and a digital council. In all ministries there are countless consultants, sections, projects, commissions and agents which concern themselves with digitalisation. All want to join in the conversation and none supervises. And that is exactly the principal reason why all the pretty promises in digitalisation matters, which we have heard for years, have not been fulfilled. Declarations on any of the principal matters, ladies and gentlemen on the government bench, actually appear otherwise.

An example. Year after year, the government promised us high-speed internet for all. In 2009 Angela Merkel promised “broadband coverage for all by 2010”; in 2010 was that promise again converted. The Chancellor then promised that by 2014 75 percent of all households should have “at a minimum, 50 megabits” at their disposal. Soon she admitted that nothing would come even of that. Then a new promise: By 2025 at the latest, Germany with gigabit internet would have the best digital infrastructure in the world. And now we know that not even that this goal will be reached. A declaration of bankruptcy, dear government. 

In international comparison of internet speed, Germany is in 25^th place, behind countries like Roumania and Latvia. For mobile phone, it appears not much better; that every citizen knows who has despaired of conducting a long-distance telephone call while on the road.  

One of the most important themes of the present time: Cyber security. Without cyber security, this beautiful new world is worth nothing. Wishing to strengthen cyber security, the government yet again creates an agency; we certainly have too few of those. At the same time, the government not only fails to close known security gaps in its products, but rather uses them, indeed knowing what kind of damage can be effected by such exploitations. Backdoors in soft- and hardware will not be rejected. The surveillance must ultimately become comprehensive. With your permission, security does not thusly increase; you thusly drive the theme of cyber security to the wall, ladies and gentlemen. 

When I then read that the paper also addresses the internet and wants to strengthen media competence, then I propose that we begin both here in the Bundestag and at the EU level. He who in all seriousness wishes to destroy the freedom of the internet with the introduction of upload filters, wishing to introduce censorship in the grand manner, because he does not understand that algorithms have been completely unsuitable for the identification of violations of creators’ rights, then in digital matters he should simply hold his tongue, dear colleagues of the Union and SPD. 

In the coalition contract you have rejected upload filters as being disproportionate and have fallen down at the EU level, agreeing to the application of exactly these same filters. A petition with almost 5 million signatures did not interest you. Complaining e-mails from young people were ignored and, ja, more than that, these people were selectively denigrated as bots or as a mob. Shame on you, ladies and gentlemen. Shame on you to the ends of the Earth [in Grund und Boden]. 

Your coalition contract is not worth the paper it is written on and this vision-less transformation “strategy” for digitalisation is unfortunately nothing other than lots of words, scattered individual measures with little behind it. You do not thusly bring Germany to the forefront and the citizens are yet again left with the trouble.

 

[Translated by Todd Martin]

 

 

 

 

Rüdiger Lucassen, February 14, 2019, National Security Debate

Rüdiger Lucassen

National Security Debate

German Bundestag, February 14, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/80, pp. 9378-9380

[Rüdiger Lucassen is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the western German state of Nordrhein-Westphalen. He is a retired army colonel and here introduces an AfD motion calling for an annual defense and security issues debate in the Bundestag.] 

Herr President. Right honorable colleagues. 

The AfD motion under consideration requires what is self-evident. We want to debate here in the Bundestag questions of German security and defense policy.

Ladies and gentlemen, since the end of the Cold War, German security policy has lacked a compass. The government in the last three decades has not succeeded in sufficiently defining Germany’s interests in the world, due principally to the censure of Germany’s historical mortgage: the Second World War and the Holocaust. This censure however has degenerated into a lame excuse behind which the government hides itself, taking refuge in the useless generalities of a so-called peace policy. But this peace policy is in truth no policy. It is only a vulgar kind of pacifism according to which it is, in the end, the same whether people die or not; the main thing being that the political managers feel pure. Yet that is an illusion. The German refusals are guilty, guilty by inaction. Abroad, the German excuses are long since no more accepted.   

            Alexander S. Neu (Linke): It must come from the Greens, the motion! 

When the German past is not mis-used as an excuse, then the government takes refuge in an imaginary European interest. Such a thing exists neither in France nor Great Britain nor Italy. 

            Franziska Brantner (Bündnis90/Grünen): You are obviously quite suspicious.

It exists nowhere. Yet the government uses this illusion so that it need not deliver. The favorite phrase of the foreign minister is: That must be concluded at the European level.

            Peter Beyer (CDU/CSU): You know nothing of what that is! 

Its synonym is: For a long time now, nothing happens and Germany has no position. That must change.

German security policy belongs here in plenary session for two reasons: one is that security policy decisions in the last consequence are always decisions of life and death – not of the life and death of the decision-makers, but of the young men and women doing their duty in the armed forces. A parliament which refuses to debate why its soldiers give their lives is a disgrace. 

            Henning Otte (CDU/CSU): What? That is shamelessness!

The second reason has less to do with decency than with management security. 

Franziska Brantner (Bündnis90/Grünen): So many lies! That is not possible in one speech.  Nonsense!

Here, the righteous rage. 

Only when the strategic performance of German security and defense policy is defined can the operational routine of the government and parliament succeed. Since the government has never proceeded on this basis, all subordinate decisions poke about in a fog.  

Some examples. Since the government has never defined what Germany’s interests in northern Africa are, to this day no adequate strategy can be put forward for the Bundeswehr’s mission in Mali. Because the government does not want to say that it is the German interest to cut off the flight routes in the sub-Sahara, the Bundeswehr cannot be given a robust mandate to combat the smuggling gangs [Schleuserbanden]. The result: neither the people nor the troops actually know why the Bundeswehr is in Mali. Such a mission is senseless. 

Next example. Because the federal government evaluates the conflict in Syria according to domestic political flirtations, it has contributed nothing to ending the terrible war. To the contrary. For years, the federal government gave out the slogan, “Assad must go!” That was it, without stating an alternative, without proper engagement, without a plan. That is not a foreign policy, that is opinion politics; in other words, ideology.

It might have been appropriate to clearly state Germany’s interest in stability in the region and thereby arrange matters, since without stability there can be no peace. Only thus functions Realpolitik and thus only can German diplomats and soldiers clearly orient themselves. The mere wish for the possible disappearance of a dictator, without saying what comes after, is unworthy of Europe’s strongest nation. 

A final example. The German military technology industry. What is Germany’s strategic goal? We do not know. Which key technologies do we want to keep purely national?

            Markus Grübel (CDU/CSU): There is a pretty graphic at the BMVg! 

Which export quota do we require to attain that? Which foreign and security policy interests does Germany pursue with arms exports and which conditions do we tie to these exports? These are all questions which are never debated in this parliament and therefore never conclusively settled. 

            Henning Otte (CDU/CSU): Haven’t you listened to anything? 

Out of this lack of openness and democratic debate culture arises management insecurity. Out of this management insecurity arises German unreliability. Ladies and gentlemen, it does not suffice to point the moralist’s finger at the USA. Unreliability in alliance issues is a German invention. 

To what purpose are maintained the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Germany? That is in and of itself a simple question. Since 1990 has it no longer been sufficiently answered. The armed forces should defend us and our interests to the point of employment of force in an emergency. The British defense minister said exactly that on Monday in a speech to the Royal United Services Institute, an independent think tank for defense and security. The British have something there. And the British have something else: a broad public debate. Since when is there that in Germany? 

Germany today is no longer capable of defense, neither national defense nor in alliance. For that fact alone, should calm no longer be permissible in the Bundestag. You keep quiet as if you had nothing to do with this unsustainable situation. That is not acceptable. The parliament should compel you to declare yourselves. 

Germany must define its security policy interests. A condition precedent is dispute thereon in the  highest constitutional branch. Then must society thereon dispute. Dispute belongs to democracy. 

Tomorrow the security conference begins in Munich. Germany is host… 

Germany should however also be a participant. That presupposes the definition of one’s own security policy position. There is only one place to do that: that is in the German Bundestag. Thanks.




[Translated by Todd Martin]

Leif-Erik Holm, February 13, 2019, Nord Stream 2

Leif-Erik Holm

Nord Stream 2 and Climate

German Bundestag, February 13, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/79, pp. 9245-9247

[Leif-Erik Holm is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the northeastern German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern where for a number of years he has worked as a radio moderator. This state, where Chancellor Angela Merkel also has her constituency, includes Germany’s Baltic coast, the planned terminal site of the Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline coming across the bottom of the Baltic from Russia. Jürgen Trittin is a member of the Green party and a former Minister for the Environment.] 

Dear citizens. Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

It is significant and good that we today discuss the Nord Stream 2 project, although the title given to the bill by the Greens has confused me a bit. It is about the coherence of Nord Stream 2 with the EU’s climate and energy goals, as if that were actually the decisive point. 

I must say, Herr Trittin, your reasoning is adventurous. After nuclear power, after coal, now you also want to demonize the gas industry. In the future, from where please are we to receive a reasonable and steady flow of energy? I can actually only warn the citizens. When the Greens  govern our country, they will then transport us back to the Stone Age. 

What you are offering here is an energy policy run amok. To the contrary, it is correct and reasonable that in the future we need more gas, specifically on account of the botched energy transformation [Wende]. Only a flexible, readily accessible gas power grid offers the possibility in times without wind and solar power to keep this country running. Nord Stream 2 is thus a completely logical idea. This new pipeline does not endanger our energy security, rather it strengthens it, and that is important for Germany, for the citizens and business. 

That the new pipeline increases our dependence on Russia is bosh with sauce [Quatsch mit Sosse]. When the same Russian gas flows through Ukraine, are we then less dependent? No, of course not. On the contrary, we even have an additional risk; namely, when the transit states turn off the faucet. A bilateral pipeline is thus quite clearly in the German interest. 

A few relevant numbers: In 2017 we imported 117 billion cubic meters of gas, not half of which was from Russia. We ourselves consumed only half of that. It thus cannot be generally said that there is a dependence.  

Now I understand that the transit states find nothing good in the pipeline. That should be taken quite seriously. That can however change nothing of our basic decision. In private life one chooses that best and safest offer. It nevertheless also makes sense to cooperate so that Ukraine can continue to be supplied. Besides, with Nord Stream 2 we strengthen even the energy security of Ukraine, since the Baltic gas can naturally in case of necessity be forwarded in the direction of eastern Europe. 

Ladies and gentlemen, Nord Stream 2 is a completely sensible project, in which besides not only Russia and Germany have participated, but also businesses from Austria, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Great Britain. It is a private sector project which serves the public interest. It is a peace project. Those who trade with one another, do not shoot at one another.

Allow me to briefly address the issue of liquid gas. The fact that Germany can buy liquid gas from the USA now excites the discussion. I hold that to be completely absurd, since this gas is substantially more expensive than the Russian. Should it come to that, then one could only assess it as being a knuckling under to the U.S. administration’s improper policy of threat. That would the citizens correctly not accept. Germany must finally act as sovereign.

The construction of LNG terminals on our coasts, Herr Minister, we hold to be correct, and indeed primarily as security infrastructure. Naturally, we must be armed in any case where no more gas comes out of the pipeline, for whatever reason. But there is today not the least grounds for purchase of the significantly more expensive fracking gas from the USA. From the financial viewpoint and from the environmental viewpoint, that makes no sense. 

In conclusion, I want to say that I am really quite astonished here by the policy of the United States. The attempt at political browbeating reminds me of the darkest times of the Cold War, which should have long ago been surmounted. I think we Germans should do everything so that we are never again the plaything of the great powers. Let us straighten our backs and on the basis of reason and international cooperation defend our legitimate national interests. 

Many thanks.



[Translated by Todd Martin]

Peter Felser, February 9, 2019, Nord Stream 2

Peter Felser

Nord Stream 2

February 9, 2019

[Peter Felser is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member form the southern German state of Bavaria. He is an information technology businessman and sits on the Bundestag’s food and agriculture committee. ]  

… A German-French friendship treaty was recently staged with great pathos by Merkel and Macron and already one of the partners, France, assists American economic policy against the befriended Germany. Macron has with Brussels recently negotiated for the French energy sector the first exception regulations to the EU gas guidelines. He is now blocking the diversification of the European energy supply to the benefit of American and French energy concerns. With that is it quite clear how fragile and to whose detriment is the design of the “German-French Partnership”, the “Spirit of Aachen”.  

A diversified energy supply is in the German interest. Germany is not the self-service store of our American friends. The discreetly silent acceptance of U.S. ambassador to Berlin [Richard] Grenell’s blatant threats is unworthy of a sovereign nation. The presently negotiated compromise cannot remove disappointment over disunity in the EU and the federal government’s susceptibility to extortion.  

The financing of Polish and Ukrainian transit tariffs moreover burdens the German taxpayer and increases energy costs for the citizen. A promotion of independence in the energy sector would directly relieve those of low income.

[Translated by Todd Martin]

Joana Cotar, January 31, 2019, Internet

Joana Cotar

General Data Protection Regulation

German Bundestag, January 31, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/77, pp. 9056-9057

[Joana Cotar is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the central German state of Hessen. She is a communications manager and since 2016 has been the AfD’s social media manager. The General Data Protection Regulation is a European Union law in effect since the spring of 2018. Cotar here introduces a motion calling for extension of media privileges to those outside of professional journalism and institutions, the issue involving the reconciliation or adaptation of the EU law to German law. The EU law’s Article 85, paragraph 1 reads: “Member States shall by law reconcile the right to the protection of personal data pursuant to this Regulation with the right to freedom of expression and information, including processing for journalistic purposes and the purposes of academic, artistic or literary expression.”] 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable colleagues. 

The AfD motion presented today concerns itself with the General Data Protection Regulation [Datenschutz-Grundverordnung (DSGVO)]. Already before the DSGVO took effect in Germany, we of the AfD forewarned of the fact that it went too far. The EU and you, worthy colleagues of the old parties, wanted to hit the big game: you aimed at Facebook, at Google, at big business, without being always exactly concerned with data defense. Data defense in this regard is important and we agree with you. But, unfortunately, it is not left there. The DSGVO impacts also, and before all, the little guy, the small, mid-level business, the private website operator, the blogger, the influencer, the You-Tuber, the independent street photographer and many others. 

            Manuel Höferlin (FDP): The poor, little AfD politician! 

Important questions of detail are not clarified by the regulation and, as before, the public’s legal insecurity is great. Yet nothing is undertaken in the German Abmahnin­dustrie [Abmahnung: literally, warning; procedure between private parties similar to cease-and-desist order] –  

Jens Zimmermann (SPD): Aha! That’s interesting. But you said something entirely different. 

- and the disagreements of the officials were hitherto incomprehensible. Stefan Brink, Baden-Württemberg’s data defense commissioner, lately declared to Spiegel that the supervisory officers had plainly required “ a bit of a head-start” and now announces to a great extent the penalties: five-figure fines will no longer be the exception. 

This also involves legal insecurity, because the German government has let it slip that it will make general use of Article 85, paragraph 1, of the DSGVO containing the adaptation instructions.  

            Tankred Schipanski (CDU/CSU): Rubbish! 

The EU has expressly maintained that the member states can and should, through use of legal prescription, reconcile data defense with the right to free expression of opinion and freedom of information. The federal government, on one hand, is of the opinion that such a general adaptation is unnecessary. It references the basic law [Grundgesetz] and copyright law. On the other hand, at the federal and state levels special decrees would be issued for the defense of freedom of opinion. These however are confined to the institutional press and professional journalists whose reporting will not be endangered.

            Tankred Schipanski (CDU/CSU): Right and good.

Excluded remain the groups that I previously mentioned who, however, likewise contribute decisively to the democratic discourse: - 

            Tankred Schipanski (CDU/CSU): On very good grounds. 

- the blogger who occupies himself with present-day political issues, the press spokesman of an organization, the socially active artist. 

            Manuel Höferlin (FDP): Or politicians! 

For all these is there no declared legal status; they must fear warnings and prosecution. Even today, the Bundestag itself does not know which regulations pertain to it; the research service has stated this in a letter to the delegations and members. 

            Tankred Schipanski (CDU/CSU): We know it.

It is incomprehensible when the Interior Ministry announces that specific legal adaptations for the defense of discourse participants may not be necessary and yet at the same time, in the second data defense adaptation and adjustment law, exactly such special defense terms are foreseen but only for Deutsche Welle and its journalists. A double standard is employed here, ladies and gentlemen, and it is precisely that which we of the AfD want stopped.

Such adaptation decrees must pertain to discourse participants as in professional journalism. Other countries have made use of this same latitude which the EU has given them. We require exactly that for Germany. The AfD is not alone as to this requirement. Since the passage of the DSGVO, the recognized data defense legal experts of the German lawyers union have criticized the federal government’s lack of willingness to form and convert in the sense of the openness clause. They have even spoken of considerable intimidation effects since the enactment of the DSGVO. 

            Manuel Höferlin (FDP): Hypocrisy! 

The Regulation, together with other constructs, acts like a dark alley upon persons without legal training. We recall the #blogsterben [#blogdeath]. Not a few websites and blogs have left the internet since May 2018 or are only operable in reduced form.           

            Manuel Höferlin (FDP): That is just hypocritical! You want something entirely
            different! 

Shame on him who thinks it evil,

A scoundrel who thinks perhaps

That even was the purpose. 

[Ein Schelm, wer Böses dabei denkt,

Ein Schelm, wer denkt, dass das vielleicht
Sogar Absicht war.]

No one here would in any way be opposed should the legal insecurities be removed and the intimidations were not deliberate. Instead of waiting five or six years for the courts in cases of precedent to clarify which interpretation of the DSGVO is now correct, the government should act. The AfD requires that media privileges be extended to bloggers, photographers and those active in the public sphere. This adaptation harms no one, yet helps quite a number of active and engaged citizens. 

Dear colleagues, show here and now that you stand for freedom of opinion and freedom of information and vote for our motion. And because we know that a vote for a motion from the oh-so-evil AfD is actually out of the question, we have this time made it especially simple for you. When you vote, then before all, you vote with the capable legal experts of the German lawyers union. That should make it practically possible for so important an issue. Let us together commit to a measured balance between data defense and the interest of openness!

[Translated by Todd Martin]

           

Götz Frömming, January 18, 2019, National Education Report

Götz Frömming

National Education Report

German Bundestag, January 18, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/75, pp. 8798-8799

[Götz Frömming is an Alternative für Deutschland member from Berlin. He is a teacher and has worked a number of years in secondary schools in Berlin and Baden-Württemberg, including the Schul Schloss Salem. The Abitur is a certificate granted by college-prep secondary schools.]

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

A few days ago a young teacher in Nordrhein-Westfalen made nation-wide headlines when she told the magazine Der Spiegel that she gave only good grades so as to help each of her students achieve an academic qualification; she no longer wanted to be responsible for harming the educational opportunities of students with bad grades. The left-wing opinion pages clearly applauded her. 

Ladies and gentlemen, what is being presented here as a particularly well-developed type of educational qualification is in truth just the opposite: when all have an Abitur, then none have an Abitur.  

The national education report with impressive numbers serves to describe the expansion of education in Germany. In the census year 2016, 17 million people are in some level of education in Germany, the education report number also lately including the kindergarten small children group. One is now supposed to accept that with this quantitative expansion, the quality of education and the actual level of education is increasing. The opposite however appears to be the case. In the last world-wide PISA ranking of 2016, Germany has declined, not improved. 

The educational researcher Rainer Bölling has correctly shown that increasing Abitur numbers are bought with a general decline in standards. Approximately 30 percent of students quit their studies without completing a certificate. The AfD delegation therefore again demands improved vocational orientation and entrance tests for the universities. 

Ladies and gentlemen, science and education are the most important fuels for keeping our economy running and securing our long-term welfare. Science and education do not however exist in a vacuum but are always associated with people. When we speak of the future prospects of our educational system, we must not exclude demographic and social problems. 

The demographic problem is intensified by immigration, be it organized or, more prevalently, unorganized. The country’s social problems increase and our additionally over-stressed education system is brought to the verge of collapse. 

            (Laughter from SPD members) 

Why is that so? Because obviously we have no immigration from PISA winner countries, thus not from Singapore or Japan or Finland, but instead in fact from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. 

For the immigration years of 2014 to 2016, the national education report contains terrifying numbers: 69 percent of the migrants 15 years or older from these countries have no vocational  certificate and naturally no higher education certificate. For the protection- and asylum-seeking group, it appears even worse. 11 percent of the them indeed have a college certificate but 76 percent of them have no education at all.  

            Kai Gehring (Bündnis90/Grünen): If that were so, what would you do about it? 

Ladies and gentlemen, in closing allow me to say something in regards the coalition’s initiative for the focus schools [Brennpunktschulen]. I have myself have long worked in these schools. That is a correct initiative. However, in these places you naturally treat the symptoms only. They do not get to the causes. We have not yet succeeded in regularly integrating the children of the guest workers of the 60s and 70s and the children of the civil war refugees who came to us from Lebanon in the 80s. To the present day, for all the practitioners in the trenches, they make the greatest problems. And with Frau Merkel’s 2015 immigration policy, these problems have now been massively intensified.  

            Margit Stumpp (Bündnis90/Grünen): Such nonsense!

Ladies and gentlemen, with this motion you do indeed take the duster in hand because you notice that your cellar is full of water, but perhaps you should consider the idea of going upstairs to turn off the faucet. Thank you for your attention.

[Translated by Todd Martin]

Armin-Paulus Hampel, January 31, 2019, New Russian Policy

Armin-Paulus Hampel

New Russian Policy

German Bundestag, January 31, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/77, pp. 8945-8946 

[Armin-Paulus Hampel is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the western German state of Lower Saxony and was a television journalist. Alexander Lambsdorff is Bundestag foreign policy spokesman for the Free Democrats Party (FDP). “Junge Freheit” is a German newspaper generally considered to be on the political right.]

Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Dear guests of the German Bundestag. 

One ought to look back to the 1930s when, for the first time, the League of Nations imposed sanctions against Italy so as to torpedo and condemn its Abyssinien policy. Even then the sanctions imposed against Italy failed completely. Till this day, nothing therein has changed.  

I well remember the successful slogan of the Social Democrats (there was then no AfD) which we in the 70s, thanks to Willi Brandt  and Egon Bahr, had so correctly formulated (none of you had called for change through sanctions, which is also correct): Change through conciliation – that can one only underline – is the correct political path. Sanctions are not only scarcely required, they hinder the conciliation. 

            Daniela de Ridder (SPD): Don’t you mis-use us! 

The Federal Republic of Germany alone has through the sanctions policy lost between 50 and 120 billion euros in turnover. That is not counting the collateral damage and side-effects. Businesses do not want to take on anymore risk and so forsake business with Russia. The lack of trust effects both sides. Business planning is put at risk and, due to the dual-use ambiguity, ever more business runs into risk or is not pursued. Once again: the German economy – and agriculture besides – has taken a 90 billion euro cut.

The USA, let it be said by the way, ladies and gentlemen, has gained. The trade with Russia is large. Washington has allowed so many exemptions that U.S. trade with Russia has increased. The business with Russia we do not, others do. So it is in normal life and in business life. That means that India, Israel, China, Switzerland and Turkey, they all are taking up the business which we no longer do with Russia. And it is then also completely normal that there is an accustomization effect: as soon as the first Chinese product has been purchased, will the subsequent business be re-directed again to the Chinese partner. And should there be no more sanctions, then one remains with the Chinese supplier and the German economy is left out. That is the effect on the German economy. The sanctions policy hinders our prosperity and it hinders our balance and our understanding with Russia. Let us end the sanctions policy immediately. That is best way to arrive again at talks, and before all business, with Russia. 

It is especially problematic that with the sanctions policy other important areas are concerned, since, when we are no longer communicating, when there is only superficial talks with Herr Lavrov and Herr Putin, then we have also in other important areas of politics no more understanding. Take the Near East, where we no longer play a role. Take Russia’s Africa policy, which we in no way can accompany nor can we be active as consultants. And take especially Venezuela, a theme of immediate moment, concerning which we of the AfD were reprimanded by Union circles yesterday. It is absurd, ladies and gentlemen. The players in Venezuela, besides the United States, are Russia and China. Thus plainly must one also so speak with these countries, whether one wants to or not. In this case, it would also be very important, for example, to speak to Russia and to develop a common line in the Venezuela policy; since, what perhaps some of you still do not know, a German journalist sits for ten weeks in secret confinement in Caracas and no German policy troubles itself about him and attempts to obtain his release. For that, Russian assistance would perhaps succeed. The man is called Billy Six, make a note of it. He writes for Junge Freiheit – I know, you’re shaking your heads. We must negotiate exactly as we had negotiated in connection with the journalist in Turkey. 

Ladies and gentlemen, we are agreed: Realpolitik in the German interest is the decisive credo of our time. We require of the federal government: let us immediately end the sanctions policy against Russia. It brings us only disadvantages, it splits Europe. Only in common with Russia can be constructed a peaceful Europe.

            Alexander Lambsdorff (FDP): The whole EU stands behind that! 

We stand for that and for that should this German Bundestag in common stand. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

 [Translated by Todd Martin]

Martin Hebner, January 17, 2019, Brexit

Martin Hebner

Brexit

German Bundestag, January 17, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/74, pp. 8600-8601

[Martin Hebner is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the southern German state of Bavaria and is an information technology consultant. Foreign Minister Heiko Maas was German Justice Minister in the summer of 2017 when the Bundestag passed the German internet enforcement law (NetzDG) which places substantial financial liability upon social media firms which fail to achieve a required degree of censorship on the internet. Edmund Stoiber is a former Bavarian Ministerpräsident and chairman of the Christian Social Union in Bavaria who subsequently served as an advisor to the EU Commission.] 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

All contracts must be announced, including those of marriage. For all are there rules, already made known before concluding the contract. Not so for EU membership! A separation for the EU was unthinkable, a sacrilege as formerly was divorce. And now we are experiencing a quite unpleasant, frankly dirty divorce. 

Herr Minister Maas, the British know what they want. They want not to be defined by foreigners [fremdbestimmt]! 

Over 60,000 bureaucrats work in Brussels, of whom 30,000 alone are engaged by the EU Commissioners. Naturally, they will at no price surrender their power and position. The Brussels bureaucrats will not allow their institutions and authorities to be questioned or be seen to be questioned. Yet the EU bureaucracy is not without alternative, exactly so, Frau Merkel, as the euro rescue policy. 

            Reinhard Houben (FDP): Like the European Parliament! 

We therefore want to help the British. The EU commissioners in Brussels direct us with their thousands of employees and lord over the citizens, who know not even one of the names of the EU Commissioners, with the possible exception of Herren Juncker and Oettinger.

Herr Minister Maas, you are responsible and known; one sees you at least occasionally. Here, when a minister, to put it crudely, makes a mess, then he is dismissed –  

Franziska Brantner (Bündnis90/Grünen): The Commissioners also, Herr Hebner, by the European Parliament. 

- insufficiently, I am sorry to say, in the case of the internet enforcement law [Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetzes, NetzDG]. The EU Commissioners however can do, or not do, whatever they want. They are infallible, like the Pope or the religion. 

Franziska Brantner (Bündnis90/Grünen): No, that’s not right. They can be voted out by the European Parliament, which you want to abolish! 

In this situation, the goal of many British is to “Take back control”. The British wish the return of the direction of their own country. 

The 28 EU Commissioners also have no interest in giving consideration to justifying their existence, either to themselves or to the citizens. In this house has there been much too little said in regards this matter. It would be immediately denounced as if it were a blasphemy. But with the Brexit, the Götterdämmerung has begun.  

And Brussels wants to delay this Götterdämmerung with the mud-fight over the separation, over Brexit. Prolongation is the means. That is definitive not only for the British, Herr Maas, but also for the EU negotiations management…And thus the two year duration of negotiations and the intractability now come to the present point, the only point to be properly arrived at, ladies and gentlemen: other nations are to be intimidated from such a step. 

All EU reform proposals put forward by Herr Cameron have run out in the sand. He was, sorry to say, not really supported by the federal government. Herr Stoiber had also once called for the dismantlement of the EU bureaucracy. 

            Florian Hahn (CDU/CSU): He had also done it, Herr Hebner. 

After he had entered the EU Commissariat, nothing more was seen of him. The EU was and is un-reformable. And that is something which disturbs many of the British: the EU Commissioners command with ever further expansion of their authority. 

“Take back control” is the motto of the British. What you have not understood – what we have in fact heard from Herr Brehm – and do not want to understand, is that many in our country, like us, are in no way enemies of Europe. 

Alexander Lambsdorff (FDP): Herr Gottschalk has in fact said that the EU belongs on the dung heap! 

We are against this EU bureaucracy and against this excessive centralization. We are convinced Europeans but not centralists. And the EU bureaucracy is in now way without alternative.

[Translated by Todd Martin]