German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/209,
pp. 26335-26336.
Herr President. Honored colleagues.
A legal error is not healed so that it is again to be
committed a few months later. Now, in the third budget for 2021, the coalition
tears up the debt brake [Schuldenbremse]
conforming to Article 115 of the Basic Law and justifies this with an emergency
situation. Yet the Covid-19 problem by definition cannot continue for years. We
thus must today again bring in a motion [Drucksache
19/26549] on the control of legal norms. The questions raised in our motion
cry out for legal clarification. Courts incidentally must also examine a
parliament’s majority votes when these misuse its authority, which we amply set
forth in the complaint.
So as to forestall the reply of foreseeable yet false
accusations of succeeding speakers: The demand for a clarification of
constitutional conformity is a fully legal procedure and a democratic right of
minorities. We nevertheless heard in regards to comparable AfD motions for control
of norms – as two weeks ago and also in the year 2020 – sentences like: You
nevertheless obtain no majority. – That came from SPD colleague Franke. Now,
that is the arrogance of power. With this attitude, the opposition is denied
any recruitment of a majority or even a 25 percent quorum conforming to Article
93 of the Basic Law. In parliamentary terms, this is very dubious and I fear we
hear the same again. If it thereupon proceeds on how great the chances of a majority
are, then evidently the opposition, in the view of the coalition, may no more
place any motions.
And the motion’s formulation which we have chosen – “The
German Bundestag welcomes…” – , is completely normal and was already many times
confirmed by the current parliament’s advisers. To ever again ridicule this is
merely evidence of the old parties’ lack of willingness to substantively
discuss the arguments of our complaint.
First. The government wants to take up 180 billion euros of
new debt; the permitted borrowing in conformity with the Schuldenbremse will thus be exceeded by 164 billion euros. At this
sum alone is the excess not justified, since the government also in 2021 does
not use the asylum reserve. One cannot at the same time have reserves and
borrow emergency credits. It is so required by the economic precept in
conformity with Article 114 of the Basic Law and §7 of the BHO [federal budget
order].
Second. I already said here in September 2020: “Herr Scholz
will certainly not be able to issue means of debt in 2020…It was also certainly
not planned because one wants to hold the money for the 2021 election year.” So
far my citation. And then it occurred exactly so. That however was abusive of
the law. The formation of reserves financed by credit is forbidden. Something
similar now occurs in the 2021 budget in which the reserves will once more be strengthened. That is a violation of the
per annum precept in conformity with Article 110 of the Basic Law and §4 of the
BHO.
Third. No place in the budget will be economized, and many
of the programs are certainly not in causal relation with Corona. That would
naturally be a prerequisite for laying a claim under the borrowed indebtedness
rule of the Basic Law. The borrowing based on an emergency situation may not be
used to implement a policy which should moreover be pursued independently of
the emergency situation.
Fourth. A health emergency has not been continually present;
at no point was there an overburdening of the healthcare system. The mortality
rate in Germany in the year 2020, contrary to the adverse propaganda, was not
above the expected value. The narrative expounded for months by the coalition whereby
only decisive state action had led to a limiting of cases of illness is furthermore
completely unsupported, even if it is here ever again repeated. Quite on the
contrary, the persistent over-reaction of the state just since April of last
year has brought about the greatest economic crisis of the postwar era. With
the onset of economic emergency in the government’s third Corona budget, the
control of the state was quite surely not be withdrawn. And this Basic Law
prerequisite for laying a claim under the borrowed indebtedness rule is thence
in 2021 no more present.
The true reason for the debt orgy is this: Only so can
Minister Scholz cushion the lockdown effects until the Bundestag election. The
Basic Law will here be mis-used for boundless debt-making. It is now even to be
feared that you may make permanent the emergency situation – until 2022 and
presumably even beyond. The Chancellor’s Office has demanded precisely this,
even if it was immediately denied. That’s right. Yet in the end, Chancellery Minister
Braun was simply being honest. “The Schuldenbremse
is not to be observed in coming years.” And he is thereby unfortunately right if
then nothing is saved. Only with savings would the Schuldenbremse be observable, and that primarily only with an
immediate end of the lockdown. That is the conditio sine qua non.
Stephan
Brandner (AfD): Or yellow!
Na, ja, perhaps
also yellow. We still see it.
It will be tense prior to the cornerstone draft for the 2022
budget. Officially, the government wants to return to the Schuldenbremse for the year 2022. Yet now already at the Finance
Ministry, it sounds different. With Braun’s views opposed to the Schuldenbremse, the Union may – cite – “finally
arrive at reality.” The test balloon indeed has initially burst. In the
meantime, Herr Braun said, in a spectacular about-face: “Ich liebe die Schuldenbremse.” That is approximately as believable
as Erich Mielke in 1989.
Beyond all the state theatricals with stability hypocrisies,
the united block parties are quite agreed: It is much better to govern at the
pump. – Nevertheless, debts unfortunately are tomorrow’s taxes.
Presumably all of this state theatre will also suffice to
the Bundestag election. After that, unfortunately, insolvencies and mass
unemployment will take the upper hand. It will then be no more possible to
prevent debt-financed, long-term subventions. Therefore, we must now draw a
line: This is constitutionally and economically imperative.
In case, dear colleagues, you see it otherwise, then I despite
that and more than ever demand of you as good state-of-law men: Bring the cause
for clarification to Karlsruhe. This is not contradictory. Complete the 25
percent quorum today. Our motion’s basis is already almost identical with the
complaint. It is thus entirely prepared. If you are so secure in your case,
then you have, ja, nothing to lose in
Karlsruhe.
Hearty thanks.
[trans: tem]
