Tino Chrupalla, December 17, 2025, German Security and the U.S.A.

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/49, pp. 5757-5759. 

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Dear countrymen. 

Initially I want to remember the dead and wounded of the terror attack in Australia. We stand against this brutalization of and the growing violence against the vulnerable. It makes me speechless with which means throughout the world the struggle of the religions is ever still on the daily order, be it in the Near East, at attacks on German Christmas markets, or now in Sydney where a Jewish community wanted to celebrate the festival of lights. All of these incidents are to be condemned and political consequences need to be drawn, and precisely for that reason we as parliament need decide to speak out against religious fanaticism, extremism and terrorism. It is therefore only fitting when we as the Alternative für Deustschland demand consistently deporting perpetrators without German citizenship to their home countries, since these present a danger for all Germans, with or without a migration background. In that regard, in the various religions there should certainly exist a consensus, and which should enjoin peace. 

It is precisely these negotiations for peace which we since 2022 ever again demand for the Ukraine and Russia. The German governments under Olaf Scholz and Friedrich Merz have allowed themselves a long time for this. In the meantime, the re-elected President of the United States, Donald Trump, seizes the initiative and mediates between the parties to the conflict. The goal needs be ending the senseless death on both sides. I for years have said: The Ukraine will not be able to win this war. 

And what were the political consequences? Herr Merz burdens the German taxpayers with 70 billion euros of debt for weapons deliveries and military assistance to the Ukraine – and here we do not know to this day into which channels it in part trickles away – and with an additional 11.5 billion euros in the next budget. In addition comes the Bürgergeld payments in a sum of 6 billion euros per year to Ukrainians. 

Before which challenges do we now stand? After almost four years of war, hundreds of thousands of soldiers have fallen or been wounded; in addition, comes the civilian victims and a destroyed land. The United States for months have clearly signaled it will withdraw from the circle of supporters of the war. Yet that also means that the billions required for additional weapons purchases, for example in the U.S.A., now need to be paid for by Europe alone – thus, new debts for Germany and precisely that is completely unacceptable. 

I thus insist: It was and is not our war. At the beginning of the destruction was clear that here much money will be required for the reconstruction, that however also much more can be earned. Precisely there has Friedrich Merz been able to gather his best experiences in his mother house, BlackRock. Quite according to the motto: “Good business with other people’s money” [Mit fremdem Geld lässt sich gut wirtschaften], the Chancellor proceeds with his over-reaching plan to illegally expropriate Russian state assets and to give it to the Ukraine. This announcement alone pours additional oil on the fire of this war. Beyond that, the Chancellor promises that Germany self-evidently is readily available for an eventual default of payments. As has been said, Herr Merz: Other people’s money – the money of the Germans – is plainly easier given than one’s own. 

In common with your Union comrades in Brussels, you impose one sanction after another which should be directed against Russia, yet which primarily harm Germany. The energy prices burden the private budgets even so heavily as those of business. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Do you make a memorial of Putin, who has bombed                                       every week, every day? 

You are responsible for the death of the German economy, and there, Frau Haßelmann, the tears come to me. We in Germany in the year 2025 have lost almost 1,000 industrial workplaces per day; 60 bankruptcies per day. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Are you already through with the Ukraine?

It affects the automobile industry, its suppliers and thereby the skilled trades and the Mittelstand.  And “gone” means gone. You need be politically responsible for that, yet our children and grandchildren need to solve this dilemma. 

            Vice-president Omid Nouripour: Herr Chrupalla, do you allow an                                             interim question from member Hoffmann? 

No, later please. 

            Vice-president Omid Nouripour: Then continue readily.

And these need already today shoulder the financing of your credits. You make debts so as to be able to cope with the basic expenditures of the social system. The pensioners you fob off in the future with 48 percent of the last years of service. You drive those who create value, after at least 45 years of work, into old age poverty. Yet you want, ja, to bring precisely the pensioners again into an occupation and then call that an active pension [Aktivrente]. Know, Herr Merz, one as Chancellor can scarcely more dismissively deal with these who keep the social state running with their work. 

At the same time you drive forward the de-industrialization, willfully bring us into conflict with Russia and support a corrupt system around the still president Zelenskyi. Your colleagues of the Union delegation emphasize to the press the German Bundestag should be tied up in the use of the frozen Russian assets, and that shows us two things: First, you want to have your perfidious plan provided with a parliamentary majority. And second, we as members should agree to the almost certainly arising contributions of billions to the further support of the Ukraine. That is a deceit scarcely to be surpassed! 

            Steffen Bilger (CDU/CSU): Hä? Why then should the Bundestag occupy itself                                           with it?

You travel today and tomorrow for the EU summit. Should you there make good on precisely these commitments, with your solo you act completely against the interests of the German citizens. And I may therein remind you: In Germany are lacking investment means for the vital infrastrucure, for streets, bridges, railways, schools, hospitals and kindergartens. 

We are all elected by the German people so as to bring forward our country, Germany. Besides, with Victor Orbàn, Andrej Babis and Robert Fico, three EU countries have already indicated the rejection of using the Russian assets, or giving financial guaranties for the Ukraine. So much for your European unity. And those in the Union who still some weeks ago made themselves advocates of the transatlantic relations, now slowly note that there are no more guaranties and no hegemon. The United States’ new security strategy shows us quite clearly: In the center stands the U.S.A. – and only the U.S.A. – and which already has written off the partnership with the old Europe. 

            Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): And therefore your young people make a pilgrimage                                           to America!

Simply nothing is understood of how one can bring balance to the continent and Europe’s interior security with a failed migration policy and lacking a relationship to Russia. 

And once again our Chancellor appears to falsely analyze this announcement. Driven by his old Federal Republic antipathy against the east, he drives forward strategies which let the graves become ever deeper, in foreign lands even so at home. At the CDU party day in Magdeburg, Herr Merz once again showed his quite charming side as he said he had the good fortune to have grown up in the west. And here you once again have misunderstood something: It is we eastern Germans who have given ourselves to the long way of integration in a unified Germany. We do not want to return to the old Federal Republic. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): You’ve still not arrived!

In that you give citizens in the east the feeling that, for you, they are of less value, you again prove your incapacity for dealing with people. 

            Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): That is simply just nonsense, what you are telling here!

And therefore, Herr Chancellor, I am happy that you grew up in the west. You would have failed us in the east! 

            Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Oje, deeper is does not get!

Allow me in conclusion just briefly go into the Chancellor’s announcement to set up a multinational troop for the Ukraine. You thereby show not only that you continue to want to spin the escalation spiral in Europe. You speak of securities for the Ukraine, but mean armament and the construction of new scenarios of intimidation in Europe. 

            Steffen Bilger (CDU/CSU): That is bad for your Russian friends!

For me and us, you however also show that we, with our positioning for peace and against the reinstatement of conscription at the present point in time, stand exactly on the right side. Since this reinstatement indeed later becomes what you here today and also what you yesterday announced, and is in a later future only to be rejected. You said yesterday we would need to respond to a Russian attack. Meanwhile now, not unjustly, the German press also asks: Do you know what you actually said there? Do you actually know what that means, Herr Merz? – We cannot trust you. For you, it is not about the defense of the country. It is to be feared that you with your policy, in view of a loss of tension, initiate or want to initiate deploying conscripts in the Ukraine. 

            Lisa Badum (Greens): You are a problem for the defense of the country!

We do not trust you with our children! 

And in regards the present negotiations with the Ukraine has become very clear that it will be no part of NATO and thereby is excluded a possible alliance. You however attempt with all means to create options for yourself and the Ukraine to prolong the war. To that are we quite clearly opposed. 

The President of the United States had begun the negotiations with Russia as equals [auf Augenhöhe]. Your attempt, Herr Merz, to make clientele policy for Herr Zelenskyi will not be crowned with success. With your kind of policy-making, you were and remain at the children’s table. Herr Chancellor, a state is no international finance concern. Leave therefore the foreign policy to the foreign policy makers, and finally concern yourself over how you may relieve the German economy, the Mittelstand and the skilled trades, in west as in east. For that, you wanted to become Chancellor. Finally trouble yourself for Germany! 

Ladies and gentlemen, I am happy to have left the east-west conflict behind us. With an international troop, you again conjure this up, Herr Merz. You, on that account, are and remain a diehard of the old FRG. You do not consider the future of our country or our children; you as Chancellor are already history. 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): Who actually wrote that for you?

I wish you and your families a peaceful Christmas and hope for a peaceful year in 2026. 

            Steffen Bilger (CDU/CSU): For the Ukraine, too!

Many hearty thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

René Aust, December 17, 2025, European Security and the U.S.A.

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)12-17(3-0098-0000). 

Herr President. 

For ten years were we of the AfD denigrated by you as militarists and as anti-Americans because we demanded investing in strategic autonomy, because we wanted that we invest in our capability and readiness in security policy. You have instead denied the reality. Barack Obama said already in the year 2011 that the U.S.A. would develop itself into a pacific country and that it is no longer desired to tie up additional forces in Europe. 

You have for 15 years squandered security policy on this continent. You have brought us to the dependency and to the dead end. On that account, you are also the wrong ones to bring us out again, since you now fall into the other extreme. From years-long, with the CDU even decades-long, submission vis-à-vis the U.S.A., you now fall into the extreme of insulting an entire government, even though there continues to be a large security policy dependency on the U.S.A. Numerous terror attacks, just lately in lower Bavaria, could nevertheless only be prevented because we have the U.S. American secret services information placed at our disposal. You risk with your anti-American course the security of Germans. We want authentic cooperation without submission and without pandering. We want an authentic partnership without anyone prescribing to us into which countries we have to send our soldiers, yet plainly also without instructions and affronts to other parts of the world. 

 

[trans: tem]

Jochen Haug, November 27, 2025, The Arbitrator of Democracy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/44, pp. 5087-5088. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

When we today speak on the Interior Ministry’s budget, then we should take a step back and ask ourselves a fundamental question: What is the duty of this Ministry? What is the duty of the Federal Interior Ministry in a free society? 

            Sebastian Fiedler (SPD): Yes, when you don’t know that!

Preservation of security, freedom and order, that is the core duty. For that, the Ministry is responsible. 

Yet today the Ministry presents us with figures which show: This state ever more loses itself in ideological side shows. Millions flow into projects for social cohesion, to the financing of church conferences, to political foundations, to migration counseling and expensive integration programs. All of this has one thing in common: It does not belong to the core duties of an  Interior Ministry. 

An example: Over one billion euros for integration courses. My colleague Marcus Bühl has just addressed it. While the Federal Interior Ministry in regards protection of the borders, its original responsibility, fails completely, the consequences of these failures shall be overcome with integration courses. That integration courses prevent parallel societies, the overloading of the sozial state and the escalation of violence is of course an illusion. The entire approach is false. Who comes into the country illegally does not need to be integrated, but returned back. And who legally comes into the country permanently and may remain, he himself primarily needs to take care for his integration. In classic immigration countries like the U.S.A. and Canada, that was always self-evident.   

We as the AfD delegation want to save one billion euros in the Interior Ministry estimate. And despite that, we strengthen police, border protection and catastrophe protection. We simply go through the whole: We eliminate ideological expenditures which no one needs. We end the false incentives of the immigration and integration policy. We place the security of our citizens above the socio-political experiments. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Bravo!

Ladies and gentlemen, this budget is also a mirror image of the situation in our country. There meanwhile prevails in the States an understanding that this is made an ideologized full-service provider. This has nothing in common with a free polity [Staatswesen]. The principle of the people’s sovereignty guarantees the decision making [Willensbildung] from below to above. The state has to preserve strict neutrality and is not to interfere in the democratic discourse. Today, the opposite is practiced. We have to deal with an opinion-forming and an opinion-suppressing state. 

            Leon Eckert (Green): Your colleague wanted to storm the Bundestag!

Thus for years the Constitution Defense [Verfassungsschutz] sees as its principal duty a fight against the opposition and citizens critical of the government 

            Sonja Eichwede (SPD): Nein, against extremism!

and here even invents a power of observation category of its own: Delegitimization of the state. Here obviously prevails a gross misunderstanding. Therefore, be it again expressly explained: The Constitution Defense is not the arbitrator of democracy. 

            Sebastian Fiedler (SPD): Its protector!

That is the people. 

And still one thing be said: It is intolerable in a democracy when critical comments lead to house searches. Lately in October it affected the famous media expert Professor Norbert Bolz because he had ironically replied to a tweet in the taz – a renewed attack against freedom of opinion, in the middle of Germany. For democracy, that is fatal. It requires critical citizens with civil courage, not intimidated vassals. 

Ladies and gentlemen, over 200 hundred years ago Theodor Körner demanded: “For freedom, a way!” [Der Freiheit eine Gasse!]. That is also today again necessary. We need a state which protects its citizens, yet does not patronize. For that, the AfD stands. 

Thank you. 

 

[trans: tem]

Anja Arndt, December 16, 2025, Automobile CO2 Limits

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)12-16(2-0472-0000). 

Frau President. 

Our automobile branch finds itself, due to technically unfulfillable CO₂ limit values which were decided here in parliament, in this dramatic situation. For this year were around 15 billion in penalties imposed. How absurd and cynical is all of that actually? The EU decrees are the origin and ought to be immediately lifted. They are politically negligent incompetence [Pfusch]. And now we see the consequences. 

I now want today for once to turn the tables. You as Commission, due to the EU Decree 2023/851, are obligated to put forward by December 31, 2025, the long overdue method for measuring the CO₂ emissions over the entire life-cycle of e-autos and combustion engines. Why do you withhold this report? I can well imagine and hereby propose that against the Commission a penalty be imposed if this report by December 31… 

(The President withdraws the word from the speaker.) 

 

[trans: tem]

Malte Kaufmann, November 13, 2025, China Commission

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/40, pp. 4617-4618. 

Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Dear citizens. 

China has long since become an enormously important trade partner of Germany, and – interestingly! – according to the present numbers from October, the trade volumes have even overtaken those of the U.S.A. It thus could be said: The most important trade partner as per volume. Therefore: A withdrawal from the China market would in every consideration be disastrous. We require durable and friendly relations with China. 

On the other side, we are not allowed as a sovereign trading nation to give ourselves over to dependencies on any country in the world. Key technologies, critical raw materials and strategically important production sites are not allowed to fall into the hand of foreign and plainly also Chinese firms which in turn pursue their national interests, and not unconditionally ours. 

Beyond that, we need to clearly demand in regards the relations with China a principle – and which is also named in our motion – : The principle of reciprocity, thus the Wechselseitigkeit. Treaties, cooperation and investments may only ensue when Germany in equal measure receives access to markets, technologies and investment opportunities. Without this consonance arises the real danger that German businesses will be disadvantaged while Chinese investors in turn act with privilege in domestic markets. 

Especially critical is the protection of our industry and our key technologies. We consider just high-tech areas like robotics, semi-conductors or machinery manufacturing facilities. The sale of such businesses, or even also the uncontrolled participation in these sectors, involves risks which in fact need to be thoroughly illuminated. 

And, Herr Lenz, you are right. Some of what we have demanded in the AfD motion is now translated by the setting up of this commission which shall work in precisely this area and make proposals to us. We require clear instruments so as to protect the German economy from the acquisition of businesses of especial significance when these acquisitions are not in the national  interest. It is therefore exceptionally important to identify existing dependencies and examine specific measures before serious and irreparable harm ensues. 

What shall the commission do? The central duties of the commission consist in that for once the value-creation chains will be analyzed, especially in regards security-relevant technologies and critical raw materials. Weak points shall be recognized. In addition, investments of Chinese businesses in Germany shall be examined, especially in critical infrastructure, and there shall follow a reconciliation [Abgleich] with the reciprocity principle. There then shall also be a reappraisal of trade opportunities. 

We thereby need to orient ourselves to successful strategies of other industrial nations – that, we plainly had in the last debates; Frau Detzer, it was interesting, what you reported from Japan; that was also unknown to me; there, one can, I think, acquire some things – all of which, without blocking a further successful cooperation with China. Since that country is an important trading partner. 

We are missing – this is the single critical point which I today want to address – a bit of connection to parliament. We would have found it good if a representative of the delegations was on the commission, who can cooperate there. 

Be that as it may: We of the AfD want that it goes well for our businesses and their workers. We therefore require durable, long-term relations with our trade partners, and with China. We vote in favor of setting-up the commission. 

Many hearty thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alexander Jungbluth, November 26, 2025, Digital Euro and Cash

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)11-26(3-0547/49-0000). 

Herr President. 

Thousands of citizens have in the last weeks turned to the peoples’ representatives of the European Parliament. Their demand: No digital euro. 

They are right – a digital currency is not progress, it is an instrument of control. The Commission wants to convince us that the digital euro offers security and independence vis-à-vis the U.S.A. and China. In truth, every purchase, every beer with a friend will be tracked. They want the transparent citizen. 

We want cash [Bargeld], we want freedom: Anonymous, direct and independent of electricity outages. Cash defends against debanking. He who pays cash, retains the command over his own wallet. It would be democratic if the citizens were allowed to decide by means of a referendum on the introduction of the digital euro. We thus demand anchoring the right to cash in the national constitutions. 

…Herr  colleague, I believe the decree is only one of many which this house here undertakes so  as to in the mid-term abolish cash. That is one of the quite large problems which we have, and precisely against that are we defending ourselves. 

 

[trans: tem]

Leif-Erik Holm, November 13, 2025, De-industrialization and Energy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/40, pp. 4554-4555. 

Frau President. Right honorable citizens. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Yesterday, the new economic opinion of the experts council came out. The council expects a growth of 0.9 percent in the coming year; once again a shrunken prognosis; initially, it was 1.3 percent. If we then adjust the whole for the holidays – in the next year, many holidays unfortunately fall on the weekends – then we are at only 0.6 percent. Thus sick man Germany slogs further on. Yet you here now want with this present hour to celebrate yourselves for your economic success. This success simply does not exist. 

I was this morning with the expert, Frau Professor Grimm. She put the naked numbers on the wall: The industrial production breaks down, and indeed on a broad front. In all sectors, it recedes. There is no reason to celebrate anything. Germany unfortunately is abolishing itself as an industrial country if it so continues. And you present no solutions. You only daub a bit of plaster, and administer the downfall – nothing more. 

            Nicklas Kappe (CDU/CSU): Which solutions do you have?

You want to speak in this present hour on your reliefs: On the lowering of the grid fees and the introduction of an industrial electricity price. Yes, in the near term we need to do something to get away from the dramatically high electricity prices. Only, why then don’t you do what benefits all businesses and budgets? Where remains the reduction of the electricity tax for all? That would be a correct step. 

This, what you are doing – I already said it last week – is “left pocket, right pocket”. I want to tell it again: The surcharge for the grid fees, 6.5 million euros, the taxpayer now pays; the costs of the industrial electricity prices, 1.5 billion euros, the taxpayer now pays; the costs for the EEG assessment, 16 billion euros, the taxpayer already pays; the electricity price compensation, 3 billion euros, will be paid by the taxpayer; and the gas storage assessment, 3 billion euros, the taxpayer pays. That is 30 billion euros. You hide the costs of the dead energy transition in the budget. It’s simply not noted that the entire climate racket doesn’t work. 

Without these billions in subventions, nothing more would be left of this seemingly pretty fairy tale castle. The budget meanwhile also correspondingly appears. Only by your special indebtedness can you still camouflage something. The problem remains: Energy is scarce and is much too expensive. Only an expansion of the supply and a reduction of the state impact on the energy costs – for all, note well – can change something therein. We require secure power plant performance. We allow no demolition of cooling towers. Much more, we need to re-activate nuclear power plants and build anew.   

            Tarek Al-Wazir (Greens): And which cost nothing, or what?

As long as you don’t pick up and as long as you don’t prepare a lower energy price in the market, and in fact without subventions, so is there here, God knows, nothing to celebrate. 

Frau Minister – she is unfortunately gone –

            Catharina dos Santos-Wintz (CDU/CSU): She is at the Budget Committee.                                               You know that!

it is nice that the bust of Ludwig Erhard is again in the Ministry. That is good. Yet I also want to say, Frau Reiche: If you really want to be the government’s ordnungspolitische wise man, then more than an overcoming of symptoms, more than short-term plaster, is required. Your draft budget laws, which now come in series to the plenary session, are basically, as before, Habeck laws. Here and there, a bit was slimmed down, yet where are the promised changes in policy? They occur only after the comma. Your subventions orgy which now continues through the budget will soon no longer function. The cost of debts rises dramatically, and of that also the economic wise man Veronika Grimm has written to you in a register – cite: 

            “From 2029, we expend the entire intake of the state for Soziales, defense and                                           interest payments.”

End citation. And – another cite: 

            “This finance planning is a declaration of bankruptcy.”

Frau Grimm is right. Herr Finance Minister, since you speak similarly – he is now here – say readily something on that. This finance planning is a declaration of bankruptcy. Truly! 

2029 is for us also as the AfD an important year’s number. Then we will here in this sovereign house be the governing delegation. 

            Sandra Stein (Green): Do we perhaps still have elections, or what?

We will form the government. We will then need to regulate that. That will become a show of strength. Yet I promise: We will take care that this expensive wrong way ends. It does not work. 

One thing still to promise: First we start in the States. It begins in 2026 in Sachsen-Anhalt and in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. I therein rejoice. 

Thank you. 

 

[trans: tem]

Hans Neuhoff, November 25, 2025, European Armament of the Ukraine

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)11-25(2-0031/34/36-0000). 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

It is completely right that the European states want to themselves command the technological and industrial bases of their defense capability. It is however completely wrong to include in these the Ukraine as an equal and even privileged partner. Since the country finds itself in a war which it threatens to lose, and is crippled by notorious corruption. Promotion of the Ukrainian arms industry? In no case! 

Secondly, it is right that the strategic autonomy can only be developed by a small group of leading states. It is however wrong to give large strategy programs into the hand alone of the Council of the European Union without participation of the affected national parliaments. 

With the EDIP [European Defense Industry Program] decree, the bases for a supra-national defense union will be created. The ESN delegation will thus not vote for this decree. 

…Herr Sieper, many thanks for the question. As a result of its time frame, the Ukraine will in no way be able to use the EDIP. What it will effect, however, is that a strong incentive is presented for Russia to move the western border in the Ukraine, the contact line, as far as possible to the west. And that is not in the interest of the Ukraine. 

…Herr Sieper, your assumption is wrong, that it would be in the Russian interest to rule over, to control the Ukraine in its entirety. Since the invasion would not have been entered into with such a small army. Russia’s goal is: No NATO membership for the Ukraine and the Ukraine’s return to a status of neutrality, as was the case prior to 2014. That was and would be the best for this country and therefore we should support that. 

 

[trans: tem]

René Aust, November 26, 2025, Peace in the Ukraine

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)11-26(3-0029-0000). 

Herr President. 

Finally, a glimmer of hope; U.S. foreign minister Rubio speaks of considerable progress in the Geneva peace talks, and hopes for a rapid agreement. Now, in this historic hour, required are politicians who are supporting every credible peace initiative, instead of slowing them down. 

Peace treaties are no request program. They arise by means of – oftentimes, very painful – compromise. Yet they are the first step to a long-term order of peace. They are thus not at the end of a peace process, but are frequently at the beginning of a reconciliation.

 Peace ends suffering. Yet peace also ends costly spirals of military armament. Then we can make investments where they are really needed: In future technologies, modern infrastructure, education, healthcare, families and in affordable housing. On that account, we now need to grasp every chance for peace.

  

[trans: tem]

Alice Weidel, November 26, 2025, Deutschland Plan

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/43, pp. 4947-4951. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable Herr Chancellor. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

This end-stage coalition ever more recalls the bridge of the Titanic: Germany lists, the bulkheads break open. Yet you have the ship’s band play on with the same soothing melodies. 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): The country is thus bad-mouthed!

The Captain has nothing more to say and simply looks on because the First Mate has snatched from him the Captain’s cap. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): And the ordinary seaman stands at the speaker’s podium.

Germany can no longer continue to afford this clowns theater which you here allow for half a year. The crisis is here and it is not only one iceberg, it is at least five which rip open the hull of our ship of state. 

Crisis site number one: The social state. The social security system is out of control and becomes unaffordable. A third of the Bund’s total tax income in the coming year alone will need to be expended for stabilizing the pension account. In that regard, the demographic costs resulting from the retirement of the high birthrate cohorts have been acknowledged for decades. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Explain for once to the citizens how you want to                                          finance your pensions package! 70 percent!

42.3 percent of non-wage costs. That is a record and warning sign. Instead, when it is much too late to reform the system and form reserves for the future, you still pulverize the at hand financial scope of action so as to gain time. 

The social state crisis is inseparable from the migration crisis. Millions of people have in the last ten years streamed uncontrolled into the country. They have in large part immigrated directly into the social system. The consequent costs one-sidedly burden the working population – the tax-payers and those who pay contributions. They shall stabilize, with renunciation of benefits and higher contributions, the unaffordable healthcare system and they need bear the costs of the Bürgergeld, long since become migrant money which continues out of control. Every second recipient is a foreign citizen and is provided for without cost and contribution. What of that is sozial justice? 

Your SPD coalition partner braces itself against even symbolic policy corrections. To merely remove the Ukrainians sustained by the benefits terms in the last half-year is not even a drop on the hot stone. In Germany, there are one million rejected asylum applicants; yet of your grandiosely announced deportation offensive nothing continues to be seen. Despite receding asylum numbers, each year a large city immigrates by abuse of the asylum law, and an additional large city comes after by way of the family reunification. 

The citizens who need pay for this moreover lose their Heimat. In 275 Bavarian school classes sits not a single native German-speaking child. That is a declaration of bankruptcy. 

The migration crisis kills the right of entire generations to an orderly education. And while the borders remain open, our Christmas markets are transformed into fortresses or will even be entirely cancelled. 

Needing to bear these burdens is a country which for over three years is stuck deep in a recession. The industrial core erodes at a breath-taking speed. The German automobile industry has lost 50,000 jobs within one year. Down-sizing and exodus take hold of the entire production industry. 41 percent of the operations plan in 2026 a further down-sizing. A never before seen wave of bankruptcy sweeps across the country and decimates the Mittelstand. Credit insurers fear the number of insolvencies could climb in the coming year to 30,000. 

What drives the businesses and workplaces out of the country is primarily the homemade energy crisis; the industrial chiefs, who unfortunately were silent for much too long, now say this to you.

The artificially increased expense of energy by means of the so-called CO₂ pricing will still further accelerate the de-industrialization. You raise an arbitrarily imposed tax on the air, artificially drive it further to the heights, and still call that a market economy instrument, Herr Merz. The green nonsense can scarcely be further driven to the extreme. 

The dogmas of open borders and climate protection drive our country, our beloved Germany, to ruin. Instead of coming about, your coalition steps on the gas along this wrong way, and wants with a “new boost” for the international climate protection bless the entire world with the downfall. 

And because you do not want to acknowledge all of that, but toss around money which does not belong to you as if there was no tomorrow, Germany is also stuck in a binding finance and state indebtedness crisis. 

With the financial coup d’état, euphemistically called “special funds” [Sondervermögen], you have burdened Germany with the largest mountain of debt in post-war history. Of that will remain only the interest and tax costs for the tax and contribution payers. Every second euro of the special funds supposedly foreseen for investment will, according to your planning, be mis-appropriated for consumption expenditures. That quite clearly does not conform to the constitution. Your budget does not conform to the constitution. 

            Sven Lehmann (Green): Your party does not conform to the constitution!

Instead of, as promised, eliminating superfluous spending and consolidating the budget, you toss the money by the handful out the window. A billion for a dubious tropical forest, six billion  moreover for an international climate protection, 11.5 billion for the Ukraine without knowing whether or not the money yet again lands at corrupt war profiteers. Gott sei Dank – Gott sei Dank! – we have with Donald Trump a real chance of peace, to which you have contributed no part. Quite the contrary. 

The fivefold crisis is not a fatal destiny but a direct consequence of false political decisions. It cannot so continue; you also quite precisely know that, and I do not want to again do the math for you, for you of the SPD just so not. 

            Jürgen Cosse (SPD): You do the math!

You are stuck so deep in the morass of the socialist superstition of redistribution that you cannot grasp what you, with your ideological wrong way, have generally done to our country. 

            Dirk Wiese (SPD): What do you say of your members’ Russia travel?

Primitive Antifa screaming 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Which was good! 

            Alexander Hoffmann (CSU/CSU): Why? The Antifa is pleased to be in Russia!

and mindless, anti-democratic Verbot fantasies for you replace the competition of political ideas. The stereotypical cry for more and still higher taxes and for more and higher debt for you take the place of economic expertise. 

            President Julia Klöckner: Frau member, do you permit an interim question from                                        member Wiese of the SPD delegation?

No, that is unusual in the budget debate; you know that. 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): That is not at all unusual. You simply do not dare! 

            Alexander Hoffmann (CSU/CSU): You are scared, Frau Weidel! You are scared!                                         Nothing other! You are scared of the interim question!

No, I am not scared, anyway of you. You are scared. Might I please continue? 

            Alexander Hoffmann (CSU/CSU): The answer is not in the speaking                                                         notes, ne?

             President Julia Klöckner: Excuse me. She or the member herself decides                                                whether he or she permits an interim question. 

            Sven Lehmann (Green): Yes, but not with the reasoning. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): It is nevertheless possible for all to speak. What is this?

            President Julia Klöckner: We need not now comment on that here.                                        Please continue.

How you here smirk! That, the voters will exactly note before all things at the impending State legislative elections! 

            Frauke Heiligenstadt (SPD): You don’t smirk, ne? 

            Sören Pellmann (Green): That’s certainly a level in the early morning!

You, dear colleagues of the Union, know quite precisely what you do. Some of you even speak ever again of what actually needs to be done. Yet you do exactly the opposite. 

And you, Herr Merz, have in the election campaign announced and promised all possible things, what is of bitter necessity and needs be urgently done. You thereby grandiosely helped yourself to our election program. 

            Jens Spahn (CDU/CS): Oh mann, oh mann, oh mann!

Yet then – since otherwise Herr Merz would not be Herr Merz – you broke every single one of your election promises. You left the citizens in the lurch and wore yourself out with slander and insult of the opposition, instead of addressing the problems in our country. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): Get a handkerchief!

You have thereby wasted valuable time and intensified the crisis, and all of that because you make yourself a prisoner of the leftist unity front as a result of your firewall. 

            Günter Krings (CDU/CSU): Do you come to the content?

 You let yourself be led about one time after another by the SPD. The SPD’s favor, upon which your chancellorship depends, is more important to you than the good of our country and of your own party. 

This tactic has failed. Germany requires an immediate program for reform of the state, economy and society. It is time for the Deutschland Plan of the Alternative für Deutschland. 

It is a twelve point plan to again get Germany on its feet. 

First, we require advantageous and secure energy. That is the basis for economic impetus and prosperity. We therefore need to immediately end the failed experiment of the energy transformation. We need to immediately end the destruction of nuclear power, the demolition of nuclear power plants, and push the re-entry into nuclear power and we need to buy natural gas and oil where it is most advantageous, and that is in Russia. 

            Reinhard Brandl (CDU/CSU): Now it comes out! 

            Alexander Hoffmann (CSU/CSU): Ah!

And that is in our national interest, and the Americans want that, too. And that is why there are these peace negotiations: Because the Americans represent their national interests, which you for Germany have forgotten, dear CDU. 

            Steffen Bilger (CDU/CSU): Here, it’s about Russian interests! 

            Reinhard Brandl (CDU/CSU): Which interests do you represent?                                            The mask has fallen!

Second. We need to end the wind and solar electricity subventions and, without replacement, eliminate the ruinous CO₂ pricing and the emissions trade. And we need to immediately abolish  the unhappy heating law which cold expropriates countless owners of real property. 

Third. In economic policy, the fundamentals need again apply: Market economy Ordnungspolitik instead of eco-socialist planned economy. 

            Claudia Roth (Greens): Oah!

That means the abolition of the combustion engine Verbot and all supply chain laws at the national as well as the EU level. We will end the Politik of Verbot and manipulation. 

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): Because human rights for you simply play not role at all!

Fourth. Our economy requires an unleashing program for setting free market economic powers which liberate them from bureaucratic regulations and drastically lowers the cost of taxes and duties. 

Fifth. In Sozialpolitik, we need to return consistently to the solidarity principle. Full social benefits only for members of the solidarity community who also make their contributions to the social security systems. I certainly do not know what you have against the solidarity principle. That, I find interesting. 

            Jürgen Cosse (SPD): Do you actually pay taxes in Germany? 

            Sven Lehmann (Greens): Against you we have something.

In place of the unfortunately baptised by you Bürgergeld, an activating basic security needs to enter which in fact drastically sinks the costs. 

Sixth. So that the statutory Pension Insurance remains affordable, it needs to be completely relieved of all non-insurance benefits and be supported by means of additional funded pillars. 

            Ines Schwerdtner (Linke): Neo-liberal!

To that also belongs a pension state fund, a so-called equalization [Ausgleich] fund for a stabilization of the statutory pension of the first pillar. The officials pension needs to be reformed, the civil service status strictly limited to a few sovereign areas of responsibility. Politicians, officials and holders of mandates need to be included in the statutory Pensions Insurance. 

Seventh. The absent migration change needs to be introduced by a Politik of the closed door. That means in clear text: Seamless border controls, turning back all illegals without exception, finally a rigorous deportation which the law besides prescribes, and an end to the multi-million violations of the law. 

Eighth. The migration magnets will be turned off. For asylum applicants, there is only benefits in kind instead of cash. Naturalized will be only those who, according to strong criteria and at earliest after ten years, are standing on their feet and fully at work. Naturalization by claim will be abolished. 

Ninth. State spending needs to be decisively slashed. Instead of unlimited new indebtedness, the public hand needs to get by with the tax intake. The state needs to keep itself out of the economy and out of the private life of the citizens, and confine itself to its core duties: Domestic and external security, maintenance of the state of law and public order. 

Tenth. Clientele policy subventions will be eliminated. The public financing of pseudo non-political organizations will be forbidden. The Antifa as a terrorist organization will be forbidden. The public broadcasting fees will be abolished. The squandering of tax money in all the world  ends. We require our remaining resources for our own country, for our own citizens. 

Eleventh. Urgently necessary is a structural reform which deconstructs the bureaucracy, clears away the funding jungle and leaves tax money in economic circulation with the citizens and business. 

Twelfth and last. A Tax Reform 25 with uniformly lowered tax rates, family splitting and a high allowance relieves the large majority of citizens, families, and before all the middle class. The solidarity surcharge will finally be completely abolished. 

That is our Deutschland Plan, that is our immediate program for Germany. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Bravo!

The most important and urgent measures to correct the damages we could in common immediately decide. Immediately! The majorities for that would be at hand in this house if the bürgerlichen powers of reason come together 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): You are not bürgerliche! 

            Derya Turk-Nachbaur (SPD): Extreme right is other than bürgerliche!

and finally fulfill the will of the voters, the majority of whom voted for a bürgerliche center-right Politik. 

            Michael Schrodi (SPD): Extreme right! 

            Claudia Roth (Greens): You are not bürgerliche!

It is thus about namely a center-right Politik, 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): Extreme right!

a bürgerliche Politik and no progressive leftist-green Politik. You here have walled yourselves in. Make reasonable Politik for the citizens and business. 

It thus lies with you, right honorable colleagues of the Union, whether you want to continue to allow yourselves to be led by leftist apron strings and green losers, or 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): …whether you continue to surround yourself                                                 with right-wing extremists!

whether you are ready to place the good of the country above personal vanities and ideological prejudices. We are ready for that, out of love and responsibility for Germany. 

I am grateful. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): So simple-minded!

  

[trans: tem]

Ulrike Schielke-Ziesing, November 14, 2025, Pensions

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/41, pp. 4777-4780. 

Right honorable Frau President. Dear colleagues. Esteemed citizens. 

This motion here was already twice on the daily order; you have twice set it aside, the last time four weeks ago. That’s not so bad; since there is already another motion: “Reform of the Politicians’ Pensions – Admit Bundestag Members into the Statutory Pension Insurance”. Exactly which is from us and which we have also debated. I need say: I have seldom experienced such a dishonest debate, full of false assertions – an unbelievable lack of respect for the voters. 

“Nothing in the world is so powerful as an idea whose time has come”, it is said. Yet here the Herr Hugo did not know the German old parties. One of these ideas is the reform of the politicians’ pension, as it was prepared already in 2013 by the independent commission on questions of members’ rights. Which was set up in 2011 by the elders council, and then indeed due to the sustained criticism of the existing system. Norbert Lammert was then Bundestag President and he said the principal problem is – cite – simply not avoiding, by means of the statutory construction, the suspicion of self-serving. For all that, he spoke only of a suspicion. 

The results of the commission we all since 2013 have passed on like a hot potato from government to government, and I say: Many of today’s colleagues apparently wanted that all of this remains so, as it is, otherwise you would not have so done down our motion. In that regard, the inclusion of the Bundestag members in the statutory Pension Insurance is nevertheless something you all supposedly want – as far as Herr Heveling. For colleague Grau, that was even a question of rectitude. Colleague Dieren was also quite firm, as besides his entire delegation. Only: Why did he then for an entire six minutes talk past the theme of statutory Pension Insurance? What should that be? And in the Union too is the thought, ja, not entirely unknown. 

Yet, as we of the AfD reminded you of that with our motion, it was again set aside because we supposedly were in the wrong, as Herr Grau meant. Note: When we as AfD want the members to pay into the statutory account, then naturally it’s not out of fine motives like your party, but so to divide or make the parliament ridiculous, to sow mistrust, or – fully besides the point – to keep people in a psychological dependency. To such a need it again comes! That came from Herr Nacke who for half his speaking time insulted us with citations from a book from 1978. I call that conspiracy blather [Verschwörungsgeschwurbel]! 

Dear colleagues, it can be done so; I understand that. But I betray to you a secret: It’s all the same to the citizens out there. The citizens out there have a nose full of your partisan purity  orders [parteitaktischen Reinheitsgeboten], they also no longer want to hear of all that does not go. The citizens want you to get on the ball and show that you don’t take yourself as more important than the interests of the citizens. 

It is thus quite simple: Either you are for the inclusion of the Bundestag members, thus with us, in the statutory Pension Insurance – then go and work up a concept with your government majority; nothing other do we require with our motion – or else you do not want it; then leave it and let the voters decide what they think of it – nothing more and nothing less. But please stop further cackling [weiter zu verkackeiern] at the citizens. 

I thereby come again to the motion which is presented here today to us and which unfortunately – and I say this with real regret – once again turns out to be the usual socialist cheese. Here is found for example the demand for doubling the income threshold, and indeed for all. That would presently be around 17,000 euros. 

            Sören Pellmann (Linke): It would be a first step!

And as always, higher pensions would be cut. With other words: When all alike are poor, you are happy. In the end is the single pension. 

            Sören Pellmann (Linke): Read and understand such a matter!

To that extent, it is insolent of the Linke colleagues to accuse us, as it happens, of wanting to enrich ourselves because we – note well, only for members – want to moderately raise the income threshold, and rather tall talk from this kind of a party of the greedy for which it’s basically always about the money, namely other people’s money.   

Dear colleagues, a pension system is not reconstructed with redistribution. Where that leads, we also presently see in the pension package. Only here the money comes not from the rich, but from the young who at sometime need to pay for the entirety, and indeed without any guaranty that, from that, something remains for them. It cannot so continue. 

Dear colleagues, it is five before twelve. The business associations, the employees, the experts council, and not last the young, at least those of the CDU, know this. And the citizens know it, too; they no longer believe a word from you. 

What use is it then to write into the law horrendous sums of tax subsidies beginning in 2029 for   the pension when these billions are not there? And I say: They are not needed, since the solution lies at hand; it’s called pension reform. This however would mean not to again shove off the responsibility to a commission and until the cows come home, as you now for decades have practiced, but finally to begin with the measures which are needed. Then you could renounce namely dubious tricks like the setting aside of the catch-up factor. 

There are so many possibilities: A more rapid increase in the capital-covered expansion – for that, we have already put forward in the last legislative period a substantially better alternative for an early start pension with our motion for a Junior Savings Deposit – , the relief of the Pension Insurance from the ballast of non-insurance benefits, the inclusion of additional groups in the statutory Pension Insurance. And we require measures to prevent old age poverty. It is nonsense that, for example, the new mothers pension should be counted in the basic security. As the AfD, we for years demand a 25 percent allowance for the elderly in the basic security. 

And I thereby come to an additional false assertion which is here gladly called in against us, that namely the AfD had no proposals of its own, as it better goes. And that’s not right. We even have a better alternative to the so-called active pension, a motion in which the self-employed plainly do not again remain outside, and in which employees are plainly not as ever disadvantaged. This motion is also put forward. Additional motions for private and occupational [betrieblichen] provision will follow. 

Dear colleagues, you see there are many opportunities in the pension area, only – and thus the circle closes – the motion put forward does not belong to that. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Christine Anderson, November 17, 2025, Digital Omnibus

EU Parliament, Brussels, November 17, 2025, P-004565/2025 Commission. 

Written Question. 

The Commission has signaled that the forthcoming Digital Omnibus may introduce changes to concepts of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) such as compatible use, purpose limitation and secondary processing. Since the GDPR forms the legal foundation for the European digital identity wallet, digital travel credentials (DTCs) and other identity and biometric systems, any modification of these concepts could materially affect the guarantees on which these systems were legislated. 

1. Will the Commission explicitly confirm that any expansion of ‘compatible use’ under the omnibus will not enable personal, identity-linked or biometric data collected under the revised Electronic Identification and Trust Services Regulation (eIDAS 2.0) or for DTCs to be repurposed for analytics, AI training, or security or intelligence objectives? 

2. How will the Commission ensure that identity or travel-related data cannot be further processed beyond the purposes that were originally authorised by sectoral legislation, even if the horizontal GDPR framework becomes more permissive? 

3. Does the Commission commit to maintaining strict purpose limitation for all identity and authentication systems irrespective of any omnibus-related GDPR adjustments?

Bernd Schattner, October 16, 2025, Neff, Bosch, Lufthansa

German Bundestag, October 16, 2025, Plenarprotokoll 21/34, pp. 708-709. 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

What is happening here in Germany is no structural transition, it is an economic mass death, unleashed by this government and its ideological nonsense. Germany, once a nation of industry, export world champion, technology leader, degenerates under your leadership into Europe’s industrial graveyard. 

A current example: Neff in Bretten, since 1877 a lighthouse of the German engineer’s art. Here, for decades were produced ovens and exhaust hoods “made in Germany”. And now, in the spring of 2028 is an end. Around 1,000 employees and their families lose their livelihood, their future, their home. The CDU Oberbürgermeister names that a slap in the face of the region. I say: That is a slap in the face of every German worker. Yet exactly these local politicians do not have the courage to finally say to their party superiors that only with the AfD can there be an authentic turn to a Politik for more workplaces in Germany. 

For long is the SPD no more a partner for a conservative economic policy. This SPD is no more the party of Helmut Schmidt, but of gender ga-ga, masquerade and climate craziness. Finance Minister Klingbeil professes himself preferably for an Antifa terrorist organization instead of for a free economy. That however does not surprise me personally: Of economy and finance, he has  not a clue. 

Meanwhile, you can daily read reports of insolvencies, factory closings, and work site re-locations. And the worst of it is: To the press, most of that is no longer news; since these reports meanwhile come daily over the wire. 

In 2024, the number of bankrupt firms was as high as it had not been in ten years, and in 2025 is expected a further increase. And what does the Union do? This eternal fellow-traveler party? 

            Hendrik Hoppenstedt (CSU/CSU): Na, na, na, na, na! Watch out!

Just nothing: No resistance, no backbone, no plan! Only the usual recipes: More debt, more bureaucracy, more unemployment, more bankruptcy! And that is no single instance! 

Bosch, the name once stood for German quality and technological excellence. 

            Andreas Lenz (CDU/CSU): Ever still!

Meanwhile, Bosch pulls the plug because your energy policy destroys everything, what here still  breathes. Over 20,000 workplaces in the next years to 2030 will be axed – our Economy Minister is not interested, she is today again not present – and thereby an entire stretch of land in Baden-Württemberg and Rheinland-Pfalz is de-industrialized. That is no longer an adaptation to the market, that is the result of your Politik hostile to economy. That is a clearing away in labor market policy. 

Next example: The Lufthansa, once pride of the nation, symbol of German reliability, today a business forced to its knees by you. You’ve plainly not rescued the Lufthansa in crisis, 

            Andreas Lenz (CSU/CSU): Oh, yes!

you’ve ruined it. And the consequence: Lay-offs, a strike, chaos – a symbol for all that goes awry  in this country, for what you get your hands on. You have, thanks to your Politik, achieved that we again have over 3 million unemployed in Germany. What a performance of your time in office so far! 

And do you know what the worst of it is? This catastrophe is no accident, it is intended. You sacrifice our industry, our workplaces on the the altar of your climate religion. While China builds factories, you here destroy entire branches of industry; while America promotes, here reigns a standstill; and while other countries invest, you force German business into insolvency. 

You speak of transformation, but what you really manage is destruction. You speak of sustainability, but the only things you sustainably create are unemployment and impoverishment. And while you in Berlin debate over gender questions, quotas and war rhetoric, millions of people out there need to witness their life’s work falls apart. The tradesman, the Mittelstandler, the worker who each day pay the price for your arrogance and your incompetence. 

Germany is losing its economic soul, ladies and gentlemen. And if we permit that, then we lose all that generations before us have built. Bosch, Neff, Lufthansa: Those are a warning signal, and if we continue to ignore it, then that is no longer a political failure, that is then the betrayal of the German people. Finally required is a 180 degree turnaround: Away from tutelage and the assistance swamp, towards performance, freedom and an authentic industrial policy – and that will only be with the AfD. We are the party of the Mittelstand, the worker, the German economy. We don’t invest in Brussels, not in Kiev, but here with us, in Germany. We do not distribute the taxpayers’ money in foreign lands, but to those who earned it, here with us in this country.  

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Arno Bausemer, October 22, 2025, Russian Energy Imports

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2025)10-22(3-0498-0000). 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

At a late hour I say welcome to you in the multi-colored, energy policy fantasy world of the green world-improvers. There one rejoices over the the sun which shines, the wind which blows and over the electricity from the socket which costs so little since the sun and wind, ja, present no bill. And so as to make the world still a little better, there the gas valve is turned off and one thereby takes care that Russia goes down before the European Union. 

Who follows our debate here, he needs think, in this parliament, the madness has broken out. Have you not understood, even after three years, that ever new sanctions packages harm our own national economies, and presently in Germany alone 10,000 industrial workplaces disappear every month? They are gone. Have you not understood that Russia simply seeks new customers? Through the new pipeline Siberia 2, 50 billion cubic meters of natural gas will yearly flow to China. 

Putin party, Russia friend, Moscow’s fifth column, you only ever continue to insult the critics of your failed policy. The new, old Europe of fatherlands again makes sense, and acts to the advantage of these fatherlands and their citizens, and to that then also again belongs economic relations with Russia. 

 

[trans: tem]

Ruben Rupp, October 9, 2025, Chat Control and Child Abuse

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/31, pp. 3285-3286. 

Right honorable Frau President. Honorable members. 

I am proud of what we have done this week. 

            Konrad Körner (CSU/CSU): You have done nothing! 

For in common with the critics of the planned EU chat control, we have so built up a massive pressure that the Federal government has given way. They now want to vote no in Council at the vote for a possible baseless mass surveillance. I say one thing quite clearly: Yesterday was a great victory for the citizens, a great victory for the AfD, and a great victory for the freedom – You there laugh, I know. 

            Siegfried Walch (CDU/CSU): That is a joke!

The theater – and now listen closely, colleagues of the Union – up to this week on the theme of EU chat control is a disaster for the Federal government. It shows how disunited you are, as before, on the question of baseless mass surveillance. For long, the Federal government held itself to be covered on the theme of chat control so as to be able, in an expected clandestine ballot in the EU Council, to vote for chat control. 

            Siegfried Walch (CDU/CSU): What rubbish!

Otherwise, why for weeks have you not been concerned for clarification? You would have been able to do that. How so just now, shortly before the vote, a no of the Justice Minister? Where is the Chancellor’s no? That, I miss in place. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): He’s not at all here!

No, you let it run, managed it up to the close in secrecy. And even in the Digital Committee yesterday, you refused to discuss this point publicly. We know quite precisely why: Because all the world would have seen how divided this Federal government is on this question. 

            Konrad Körner (CSU/CSU): That is just not right! 

            Armand Zorn (SPD): That is not at all right!

Since while the Justice Minister in council openly expressed herself for a no, Chancellor Merz clarified yesterday on X – I cite: 

            “The police protect us all. For that, they require the use of drones and a                              preventive telecommunications surveillance.” 

Quite obviously Chancellor Merz himself wants this mass surveillance of citizens, just so as the Interior Ministry. 

I say one thing to you: If it is not so as I here say, then position yourself here as Federal government – the Chancellor and his Vice-chancellor – and clearly declare that in the entire legislative period it will never come to a vote of this government on chat control!

If you want to do it honestly, do it now and here! We will therein measure you. And of course Chancellor Merz and the Vice-chancellor are again not in the hall. 

I say to you: It scares the citizens – me too – to know that the Chancellor personally and the Interior Ministry continue to want this chat control. 

            Konrad Körner (CSU/CSU): That’s not right!

And it is foreseeable that you will again start such an attempt when the time is ripe. Should you again take a run at this initiative – this I say to you – and dare the first great step for an authoritarian state which, utterly without basis, surveilles the citizens, then you will encounter bitter resistance from the side of the AfD delegation. We will exhaust to the maximum all political and judicial means so as to prevent the surveillance state. You can be sure of that. 

            Günter Kirings (CSU/CSU): Does Putin see it so? 

            Peter Boehringer (AfD): That is so embarrassing! Violations of basic rights!          

            Siegfried Walch (CDU/CSU, indicating speaker): He is embarrassing!

And no, the baseless mass surveillance does not effectively protect our children from disgusting pedophile perpetrators, from child pornography and child abuse. Since even the German child protection union rejects this EU madness as disproportionate and ineffective. And you quite precisely know: The AfD is sometimes the toughest when it is about the fight against child abuse. 

While the leftist bloc up to parts of the Union preferably wants to re-socialize the perpetrators, we want deterrence. 

            Siegfried Walch (CDU/CSU): Yes, madness!

We declare war on cuddling with the perpetrators, for our motto is “protection of victims, instead of protection of perpetrators.” 

Yet for you here in any case it is not about that. Since in regards the EU chat control, it is as with the Digital Services Act: As a reason advanced for a show window. You’ve even said: “We want to block illegal digital content” – okay – and: “The digital area is not allowed to be lawless” – okay. Yet then it was again expanded to disinformation, hate and agitation, and now the EU censors the free opinion. No, we want no state censorship apparat and no baseless surveillance. Exactly therefore needs be again abolished even so the Digital Services Act. The citizens’ freedom is not negotiable. 

 

[trans: tem]