Tobias
Peterka
EU
State Prosecutor’s Office
German
Bundestag, May 28, 2020, Plenarprotokoll 19/163, p. 20323
[Tobias Peterka is an Alternative für Deutschland
Bundestag member from Bavaria. He is a lawyer and here responds to various
proposals concerning the establishment of a European Union State Prosecutor’s
Office.]
Frau
President. Right honorable colleagues.
The
European Union confirmed that it has a corruption problem – look just now at
the present hour. The money which it self-evidently gathers in from its capable
members is quite plainly, Herr Fechner, diverted into dark channels and indeed
often into projects of little good to the countries. Bike paths in Italy were simply built three
times on paper. Orders for bridge construction in Spain were simply placed with
known relations. With late Roman decadence, the EU is being drained, and
thereby naturally to its heart’s last, beating chamber: Germany.
Patrick Sensburg (CDU/CSU): The AfD
is still blathering!
Thus,
what is to be done? At the summit level, nothing was done. There certainly was
conversation, yet the majorities lie with the “Club Med”. Loosening the
standards of the bureaucratic apparatus simply expands the arrangements of the
permanent bureaucratic structures, one of which, independent of the national
states, is the EUStA [European State Prosecutor’s Office]. This then also just
as wonderfully fits into the union’s narrative of statehood – that, politically,
no more cabbage is to be grown. Fine. The Romanians then still sought to
somehow to prevent someone, who is understood to be particularly well
acquainted with Romanian carpet, from becoming chief of the governing
authority. Well, fine; those are Brussels details.
We
thus now have it, the EU State Prosecutor. Competence: To proceed against
European law to the financial detriment of the Union. Foundation of inquiry
organization: None, since the self-abnegation of the individual states
fortunately does not yet go that far. For actual, on-site measures, it will be necessary
to continue to refer to the national authorities. Whether that may generally
work – for example, in Romania – could already be an afterthought.
Yet
here again primarily appears the exemplary hubris of the EU. It even could
again be plainly said: It is desired to behave, across the board and piece by
piece, like a state; just minimal and inconspicuous; growing, yet daring and
completely open. And thus plainly not just concerning the revenge fantasies about
the insubordinate German decision in regards the ECB [European Central Bank],
but also in regards the EUStA. The highest-paid, de facto directed completely
from Brussels, State Prosecutor – an attack upon the primacy of the member
states which alone are democratic. It is good that here a portion will hold out;
among others, Poland and Sweden will not take part.
Yet,
each knows quite precisely who actually sets the pace at this EUStA. A political
coup [Durchgriff], in fact not
publicly formal, as unfortunately in Germany, but by a covert oligarchy, as
previously – everyone knows it – at the EUGH [European Court of Justice]. Frau
Kövesi wants to quite well acquaint herself with the Romanian social swamp [Sozisumpf] – for that, bravo! – yet she
is equally quite well acquainted with how the EU bureaucratic structure
operates: First, demand more money at once. Second, more competence!
In
many of the member states, it is also openly fantasized – we have heard it here
– of the fight against terror as a new competence field or equally as a
complete competence in criminal law. The Bund
Deutscher Kriminal Beamte [Union of German Criminal Officials] quite openly
desires an EU criminal law with EU rules of procedure and even an EU-FBI –
which already in name carries the coerced degradation of the member states into
mere states of the Union.
The
existing EU Agency for Voluntary Criminal Justice Cooperation will thereby be
definitely undermined. That was something which once halfway functioned,
together with the EJN [European Judicial Network] and the OLAF [European
Anti-fraud Office]. But no, centralism is the means of choice; we have seen it
here. Germany will willingly open itself, while other countries will allow the
EUStA to run idle. Once again, in neo-German, a lose-lose for Goody Two-shoes.
From us, a clear and decisive Nein to
this proceeding.
Many
thanks.
[Translated by Todd Martin]
