Alice
Weidel
European
Union, Brexit
German
Bundestag, October 17, 2018, Plenarprotokoll 19/57, pp. 6248-6249
[Alice Weidel is a delegation chairman of the
Alternative für Deutschland in the German Bundestag. Chancellor Angela Merkel
had previously made statements indirectly accusing the AfD of spreading
disinformation concerning a recent alleged murder of a German citizen by a
Syrian immigrant in the eastern German city of Chemnitz. Street protests
immediately following the killing were characterized by Merkel as a “Hetzjagd”,
a term akin to purge or pogrom. Hans-Georg Maassen, president of the
constitution defense office, was dismissed after criticizing that
characterization. Christian Lindner is the chairman of the FDP.]
Right
honorable Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Dear
colleagues.
Concerning
disinformation, dear Chancellor, a word: when the president of the constitution
defense office is expelled because he has contradicted your disinformation,
then what is thereby indicated of your understanding of democracy?
Concerning
Brexit, I wish to cite:
I cannot exclude that the British exit would excite a desire for more
in
other countries.
Thus
EU Commission president Juncker in May 2016, a few weeks before the Brexit
vote. By such statements was made evident how the line of march of the
commission and of the Chancellor would appear. Instead of acknowledging with humility
the results of a democratic election in a partner country and practicing
self-criticism, it is immediately agreed in Brussels that an example must be
made: Great Britain must be punished. That is your policy.
The
now concluded, half-hearted extension of the transition period thereby also
changes nothing, since access to the internal market for the British is already
reduced. The European Union’s conduct of negotiations with the second strongest
European economy is unfair, indeed, it is irresponsible.
The
EU bureaucrats are worried. Without a threatening demeanor, the Union itself by
all appearances might no longer hold together. And that, Frau Chancellor, have
you indeed in your speech quite clearly expressed: Parties which dare to
contradict will be sanctioned. Reason seemingly no longer plays a fundamental
roll. An ethic of opinion rather than of responsibility, that is your guiding
maxim of management.
While
the history-nourished economic relations between Great Britain and the
remaining continent are fecklessly destabilized, as you are doing, while a
collective self-destruction is managed, Europe is left to whistle after the
global economy. That affects before all Germany, since Great Britain is one of
our most important trading partners. For these challenges, we require answers,
answers which, up to today and in your speech, have not been delivered. Very
well, we proceed.
It
is in the interest of our country that a free exchange of goods with the United
Kingdom be securely and equitably regulated. Also, the European Treaty’s exit
article 50 must be reformed for future exit candidates. That I required already
before Brexit.
The
question of what comes after the exit door must still be clearly defined. The
suitable treaty format is already at hand – the agreement on the European
economic area…of 1992. Here is guaranteed the four freedoms, the movement of
goods, capital, services and persons. We must in this regard refashion the
movement of persons. We need a free movement of employees and self-employed,
not free access to the social system.
In
a community of common liability in which, after Brexit, there is no veto
minority, in the end it is Germany that pays, and no competition, no successful
economy, is any longer possible. The ordnungspolitische principle of the unity
of management and liability is violated and leads to the mis-allocation of
capital, as we see today. And therefore we require a new conception of Europe,
a reconsideration of individual strengths. A federation of states, instead of a
federated state, is here the solution.
In
a successful community, the possibility of rejection and withdrawal must always
apply; in brief, red card or exit door. That is to say, the member states by
means of the veto power can make alterations and exceptions or, due to the
inalterability of the rules, membership can be renounced. That makes for
competition, a site competition, a competition of the best system, which we so
urgently require.
Europe
must again consider the founding principles of subsidiarity and the rights of
national parliaments. Therefore, as a first step, the legislative authority
must be withdrawn from the EU Commission.
Roman
Herzog, already in 2014, had turned to you, Frau Chancellor, and clearly
demanded:
We require a
right of self-defense for the national parliaments against an
over-stepping of
authority in Brussels.
Unfortunately,
the words of the former president of the federal republic and constitution
justice,
for you, have fallen on deaf ears. An opportunity for Europe would yet –
Christian Lindner (FDP):
Subsidiarity reprimand.
“Subsidiarity reprimand”, I hear here, united with a
distinct reconstruction of the EU, of the institutions that indeed hinder just
that site competition. What might this reform look like? A union of states,
with members with equal rights, which organize a free commerce among
themselves, without assumption of liability and without bureaucratic threats.
Yet we do the exact opposite: A fiscal union by means of
tax harmonization, a social union by means of migration into the social system,
a collectivization by means of ECB financing of governments, are not the
answers to the future of Europe, esteemed ladies and gentlemen.
The elected national parliaments require a clear veto power
against the handicapping of Brussels. Member states, when in doubt about the
odds-making in Brussels, must be allowed to decline, and let it be completely
clear: Authority over the EU institutions belongs to the elected national
parliaments and not the other way round.
Only thus will Europe again have a future, and so preserve
what has always been agreed Europe is to be: A unity in variety. Many hearty
thanks.
