Peter Boehringer, March 21, 2019, Bank Regulation

Peter Boehringer

Bank Regulation

German Bundestag, March 21, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/89, pp. 10642-10643

[Peter Boehringer is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the southern German state of Bavaria. He is a businessman, investor and author and is currently chairman of the Bundestag budget committee. He here presents an AfD motion calling for an expanded right of inquiry by the Bundestag into the doings of the European Central Bank (EZB). The Target-2 program is part of the euro rescue regime designed to narrow the spread between German bond yields and those of other members of the euro zone and whereby the Germans are in effect required to pay for some of their own exports.]

Herr President. Worthy colleagues.

The motion today presented for an increased right of inquiry in the Bundestag should properly be a self-starter. Since the EU institutions exercise ever more power, they must be subject to more appropriate control. Especially the EZB exercises enormous power. It creates and moves about gigantic sums, far greater than the German state budget, and thereby in fact conducts an economic policy even though this is still characterized as monetary policy. Only a few examples to verify the enormous influence of the EZB and which quite clearly yield a need for control by us as the parliament of the largest EU nation of liability:

The EU’s purchase since only 2015 of over 2.5 trillion euros of government bonds, which is in fact an enormous public financing beyond the official public budget.

Soon, yet more hidden bank and public financing in the form of long-term credit for the TLTRO-III program announced for this year of over 1 trillion euros.

The 1.3 trillion default-endangered euros of the EZB’s Target requirements pertaining to the southern European nations. A default would be hundreds of billions for Germany.

The planned collectivization of our bank and savings investment in the sum of over 3 trillion euros.

And naturally the unnatural zero or indeed negative interest rate policy of the EZB which leads to immense damage for the savers and the banks. Not coincidentally, we must yesterday hold here an hour of debate on the emergency merger of the Deutsche Bank and Commerzbank.

Etc., etc.

It is gigantic sums which the EZB has as its disposal. The German federal budget presented yesterday has on the other hand only 360 billion euros. And, yes, there is already since 2014 an EZB inquiry instrument, the so-called bank union inquiry right. It is simply dumb that that was so weakly drawn up that it as yet could almost never be successfully used.

            Patrick Schneider (CDU/CSU): Rubbish!

In 2018, it was for the first time tried. The result was the EZB’s most impudent platitudes. The concerned colleagues at that time openly characterized the answer as farce.

Yet nothing could be done about it. The legal basis was simply no longer granted. It is as before super difficult to approach the EZB. Besides, central banks are customarily not independent. Governments guarantee their existence and, in turn, the central banks purchase the governments’ paper. Thus is managed in fact a state financing. Thus the EZB from 2016 to 2018 purchased almost 100 percent of the Italian new net indebtedness. In many countries the EZB holds over 30 percent of all bonds. That cries out for parliamentary control since the German citizen is liable for these amounts, out of which credit based on nothing will be created.

The governments will never exercise a restrictive control over their central banks. The parliament must have thereon a right of inquiry, since the EZB policy substantially shrinks the management scope of future German Bundestags. The presented motion will transfer our right of inquiry, as yet insufficiently laid down in decrees and [European] Union law, to the Bundestag’s orders of business. This house can thereby provide itself with the possibility of publicly debating the mega-decisions of the EZB which far transcend national budgetary issues.

Today’s motion, on the other hand, does not deal with the Bundesbank. Why? The Bundesbank since 1999 is only a sub-branch of the EZB. The risks will be imposed on the taxpayer by the EZB. Besides, the Bundesbank management frequently and voluntarily comes to this house. An example: Last week in the audit committee we had a quite good and quite thorough hearing on Target 2 with the responsible economist and the responsible manager. It is funny that it was only the AfD delegation that made use of it. All the other parties and delegations were absent – all. That is so. It was an official hearing of our committee. There are now three possibilities: First, the colleagues already know everything about Target 2. Based on the substance, I hold that to be improbable. Second, they do not understand the importance of Target 2.

            Jürgen Braun (AfD): Or have no interest!

            Patrick Schneider (CDU/CSU): Are you still speaking on today’s theme?

That would be improbable or flippant. Third, they accept the Target 2 risks as an Act of God. We of the AfD do not and deem one who ignores to be irresponsible.

As always, the Bundesbank is present at these debates. The EZB does not do that. Therefore, vote for the change of the orders of business. A codification of the right of inquiry pertaining to the EZB is necessary and in our German interest.

Many thanks.

[Translated by Todd Martin]

Alexander Gauland, March 21,2019, Brexit

Alexander Gauland

Brexit

German Bundestag, March 21,  2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/89, pp. 10484-10485

[Alexander Gauland is a national chairman of the Alternative für Deutschland as well as a chairman of the AfD delegation in the German Bundestag. He here responds to the German government’s latest statement concerning Brexit.]

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Each change in the Brexit drama need not be taken as a demonstration of London’s centuries-old statecraft to feel, for all that, high respect for a nation wrestling with a fundamental issue. England was always equally in and out, half European, half Indian, equally European power and world power. Face to face with de Gaulle, what was Churchill’s inimitably literary expression? When I must decide between you and America, between you and the high seas, I decide always for the high seas. And it would truly be an ironic twist should a rule of Parliament going back to 1604 hinder a third and perhaps this time successful vote on the deal.

May I remind this house thereof that the Brexit decision was the result of a democratic process? The majority of the British had concluded to leave the EU. Yes, that was a bare majority; yet this arrangement is today normal and historically significant decisions are often brought about by bare majorities. It was a democratic decision and thus something which until now seldom occurred in the EU. What we are presently experiencing is the attempt to perhaps yet render the undesired results of a democratic decision null and void.

Ladies and gentlemen, mockery is hardly fitting when one of our oldest and worthiest allies is writhing in political fits. It is plainly not the faulty information of the Brexit advocates which has led to this situation; it is the two souls in the breast of every Englishman which has brought about this dilemma. It would therefore be the duty of the federal government not to stand by and let the Shakespearean drama run its course, but bravely engage, Frau Chancellor –

            Carsten Schneider (SPD-Erfurt): In England?

- to again untie the package or at least provide additional clarification. It cannot be difficult to enable the British to unilaterally get out of the backstop and it is, by God, no lèse majesté for the 27 to suspend freedom of settlement during a brief transition period.

“Cherry-picking” is therefore the wrong word in regards a drama that determines the future of our continent and besides will decide whether Great Britain, which for years defended us in Berlin, will remain united in friendship with us in the future. Since the wounds on the souls of a people are as difficult to heal as material damage. We Germans can certainly sing a song of that.

Rule-based multilateralism, again put forward by you, Frau Chancellor, is a fine-sounding abstraction –

            Annalena Baerbock (Bündnis90/Grünen): That is the lesson of our history!

- which induces spiritual effort from no one and, as represented by Herr Barnier, frightens and divides rather that brings together. An appeal by the Chancellor to the negotiators to take a small step toward one another could perhaps work wonders.

Certainly one must therefore abstain from the thought which in Brussels is always borne in mind: The British are to be punished for wanting to go a way which in many capitals of the continent is held to be politically incorrect –

            Barbara Hendricks (SPD): That corresponds with nothing!

            Christian Petry (SPD): Dumb stuff!

            Franziska Brantner (Bündnis90/Grünen): That was never at all the case!

            Annalena Baerbock (Bündnis90/Grünen): Such baloney!

- and never be allowed to manage in a free way which could provoke imitation.

Yet the strength of the European Union must be herein proven: That no one is held against his will. It is un-sovereign and a sign of lack of confidence of one’s own appeal to conduct oneself during a separation as the EU presently does in regards the British. According to its ardent supporters, the European Union is no compulsory union but a voluntary pact which each people, each state at any time can dissolve when they hold it to be necessary.

            Martin Schulz (SPD): Yes, then they should do it!

It is time that the European governments prove that and give Great Britain a fair and intelligent chance, Frau Merkel. I appeal to you, make a start of it!

The impression is not to be given that the EU, other than for the sake of peace in Ireland, will hinder Great Britain from becoming a de-regulated, low wage, low tax competitor of the EU. Their quid pro quo: Should Great Britain want continued full access to the EU market, then must it continue to adhere to EU standards of taxation, employment, competition and environment -  thus, practically a membership without speaking rights. Dainty souls would call that extortion.

            (Laughter from member Martin Schulz (SPD)).

When we open up the newspapers, we always read of the economic damage that will arise for the British as a result of Brexit. We however read nothing of the damage to the EU. Since we also lose, ladies and gentlemen: Germany foremost.

Let us give the British some more time but not the feeling that they must break out of prison. For that, there must be a return to reason, free from the emotional anxieties which lead to a dirty divorce. I can only once more reiterate, Frau Merkel: Make a start of it! Since that is policy in the German interest.

I am grateful.

[Translated by Todd Martin]

Alice Weidel, March 21, 2019, Brexit

Alice Weidel

Brexit

German Bundestag, March 21, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/89, pp. 10495-10496

[Alice Weidel is a chairman of the Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag delegation. She here responds to the German government’s latest statement concerning Brexit.]

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Worthy colleagues.

Frau Chancellor, you have spoken of the insecurity which Brexit will bring. We have thereby learned nothing new. It was your tested brew of boilerplate and sedatives. One thing is clear: This Brexit will be expensive – expensive for the EU and thus by definition expensive for the German taxpayer: Expensive like the banks bail-out, the Greek rescue, the energy change, the border opening, the destruction of the German automobile industry and key industries and the gigantic inflation of our common currency. Future-oriented policy appears otherwise, right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

Thus now the part you had in Brexit, which, in the best case, was one of negligence, though it was a rather intermittent assistance. In this way are the historically good relations with the United Kingdom endangered. Since what frightfulness had David Cameron demanded? No social assistance instantly for all, stronger national parliaments, less EU bureaucracy. Yet for that he bit granite in Brussels. It would have been a great opportunity to make and maintain a trimmer community, recollecting the core proposition of a common market. But no, no way. You prefer to put in play the cohesion of the EU member states.

Now we struggle with the reckoning: In the future, the 15 billion euro British contribution will be missing from the budget. Every family indeed knows when the income shrinks to more tightly fasten the belt, but not the EU. It does not have to, not when the German taxpayer is the paymaster. Greater than the hole in the EU balance sheet are the costs to the German economy. The United Kingdom is the second largest economy in the EU, as great as the 19 smallest combined. From the economic viewpoint, the EU thus shrinks not to 27 but to a total of 9. The unconcern and indifference of Brussels and Berlin regarding this matter, manifestly of the greatest magnitude, borders on a pathological denial of reality, right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

The United Kingdom is Germany’s largest trading partner in the EU. With no other country are the economic interweavings so close. Unhindered conduct of trade and investment clearly lies in the German interest. German prosperity, German jobs are here in play. You however place yourselves with unquestioning loyalty [Nibelungentreue] behind France which wishes even to deny to the British access to the common internal market. You are even weighing the possibility of not conceding British access to the European economic area because Paris rejects it. That would also be much too much: Much too much free trade, too much fresh air in the market, too much competition and contention over the best economic site. Of self-sufficiency is there nothing in your ratified Aachen Treaty which is extolled as the crowning of the Élysée Treaty. What a conceit! The Aachen Treaty from front to back bears a French handwriting. This “Europa”, for which centrally organized France with its failed industry and economic policy serves as a blueprint, is coming sooner than one thinks.

At the latest then, when the European Council next votes, will we see it quite precisely: The costliest consequence of Brexit is that Germany can no longer muster a blocking minority in the Council. In the present EU of 28, Germany represents 16 percent of the population, Great Britain 13 percent, making a total of 30 percent. With some of the smaller countries – Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria – was a blocking minority always secure. Thereby one could defend against a grab at the common till by the crisis-shaken “Club Med” states as well as by France. With Great Britain’s exit, that will now soon be history. And it is becoming clear: Without reform, the European Union cannot go on. Where is your strategy? You generally have none at all.

We begin with Article 50, which regulates exit. It is as bloated as a sponge. The only concrete instructions therein are how desertions and betrayals are to be dealt with: According to Article 218, thus as with any Choice-X third party. For a partner with whom one has lived together, in good times and bad, for 40 years can one not really find a modus other than that for Paraguay and Papua New Guinea, right honorable ladies and gentlemen?

That is just bare-faced scorn. Is it to be wondered that the British suspect ill will behind any maneuver out of Brussels? Brexit negotiator Barnier should have trusted his erstwhile friends. I cite:

            My mission will be a success when…the conditions…

            for the British are so brutal that they prefer…to remain in the European 

            Union.          

            Alexander Lambsdorff (FDP): Nonsense!

Who has such friends, needs no enemies, right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

           

            Alexander Lambsdorff (FDP): Unproven nonsense!

There is not a word of self-criticism on the continent, none in Brussels, none in Berlin, certainly none in Paris. The contrasts of those in Brussels are made distinct by Brexit. It also shows where Europe’s true enemies sit: among others, here on the government bench, right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Europe is too important to abandon it to them. Looking away is not worthy, nor is running away. The EU must be reformed from within. To that belongs the national states’ right of veto against the proposals of Brussels, as exactly so does a reform of exit Article 50 to maintain the internal market, even for the exiting country, and the securing of the EU external borders, which we for years have required. And to Europe belong our British friends, right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

Many thanks.

            Martin Schulz (SDP): European party spending regulation! Including 

            Switzerland!

[Translated by Todd Martin]