Siegbert Frank Droese, May 21, 2026, EU Capital Market Securitization Reports

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)05-21(4-0257-0000).

Herr President. Honored colleagues.

We deliberate today on two reports on securitization - on one side, for equity 
requirements, on the other, on a so-called securitization framework. For the ESN
delegation is clear: De-bureaucratization is right. Exactly so clear is however for 
us also: We are allowed to issue no blank checks for new financial instruments. 
The citizens have not forgotten the financial crisis. Securitization is not allowed to 
mean privatizing profits, disguising risks and in the end leaving the taxpayer liable.

We support simplification there where it increases transparency and strengthens the 
economy. We nevertheless decisively reject regulations which blur liabilities, 
centralize supervision and place Brussels capital market policy over the stability of 
national banking systems. Our standard is thereby quite simple - solid financing for 
business firms, security for the European saver and no rescue packages at the cost of 
the citizens. Thus formulated, it is impossible for us to vote for these reports. 

[trans: tem]

Alice Weidel, June 11, 2026, Merz Government

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/83, pp. 9927-9929.

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

This government declaration was the recessional of one who has failed. Herr Merz, your own people already discuss your discharge, yet they sing songs of praise to themselves.

For the facts: The labor market topples. The German economy has lost a half million jobs in the first quarter vis-à-vis the previous year. Every 20 minutes a business falls victim to the insolvency tsunami. The number of industrial orders collapses twice as much as expected. The industrial core is melting. High taxes and energy costs, bureaucracy and a planned economy strangle the basis of our business while the state apparat ever further grows. Industry’s exodus to foreign countries borders on mass flight.

With the businesses and the jobs go the people. In your first year in office, so many Germans citizens have emigrated as never before. 

Mirze Edis (Linke): On account of the AfD!

It is the young, it is the well educated who go because in their own country they no longer see a future.

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): You were first to go! To Switzerland!

The mass immigration into our sozial system from the third world, on the other hand, continues unabated. A six-figure number of illegals immigrates under the pretense of asylum, and with that an additional large city through the backdoor of family reunification. In regards deportations, your balance is still more catastrophic than that of the Ampel.

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Such nonsense!

Does thus appear a migration change?  Quite the contrary. You still manifest the failed mass immigration in which you discard the German citizenship to these illegal migrants. The trashing of the German passport in your first year in government has reached a new record. Who does not live in a sealed-off bubble, for her the increase of violent, sexual, brutal crime is no cold statistic, but a daily accompaniment in the form of one’s own fear and the concern for our children. At the train station in Nürnberg, hometown of CSU chairman Marcus Söder, migrant gangs plied a German female minor with drugs so to abuse her as a sex slave. I ask you: How many Nürnbergs are there in Germany? And what have you all – yes, all here – by mass immigration, brutality and moral decline made of our country?

Do not take the Germans for naïve. 

Harald Ebner (Greens); Eijeijei!

They very well register how you treat them. They hear exactly when the Sozial Minister and SPD chairman Bärbel Bas makes us contemptible as a “brown unit” [Einheitsbraun]. Who thus speaks, hates her own and herself and has no business in government. 

Your contempt for the Germans is also found in the Sozialpolitik’s expression. The German tax- and contribution payers shall pay higher pension contributions and work longer. They shall accept higher rising sozial contributions and massive benefits cuts and, in a case of maintained care, commit their entire wealth and their own homes for which they long saved. But they shall come up with the life-long, full provision for millions of third world boarders.

Dagmar Schmidt (SPD-Wetzler): That is a lie!

Siemtje Möller (SPD): That is simply fake news!

One need not know more of this Federal government!

For migration costs, 

Jürgen Cosse SPD): Have you another theme?

development aid, energy transition, climate protection madness, you yearly squander three-figure billion sums. There is no talk of savings and cuts. The failed energy transition has already squandered 500 billion euros and will still cost ten times that, thus over 5 trillion euros. You have wantonly and intentionally destroyed the energy infrastructure of the Federal Republic of Germany. 

Billions upon billions of euros you send to the Ukraine and thereby finance the prolongation of a war which long since ought to have been ended.

Florian Müller (CDU/CSU): Ask Putin!

Tilman Kuban (CDU/CSU): You get along with Putin!

To this day, you demand no accounting from Kiev over the explosion of the Nordstream pipeline. Vital infrastructure for our economy was thereby destroyed, and a massive harm was inflicted. Instead, you wantonly seek the confrontation with Russia, an atomic power, so as to distract from your own failures. You speak of war, you always only speak of war and want to support this war and draw Germany into this war. In that regard, peace is exactly what this continent needs – and the Ukraine also. Let us finally speak of peace instead of war!

And to the truth also belongs: No, the Ukraine may never become a member of the European Union and of NATO. Period, stop, basta!

Wilfried Oellers (CDU/CSU): You read what Putin wrote for you!

Record debts, higher taxes and duties, de-industrialization, danger of war, migrant violence, hate crimes against Germans: The citizens have no more to expect from this Federal government and from you.

– Hit hounds howl. –

That is not only your failure, Herr Merz, but that of your entire government. For that, you bear the responsibility, you have submitted yourself, for better or for worse, to the leftist SPD, hostile to Germany and to performance. With such personnel, a political change is not done.

Wilfried Oellers (CDU/CSU): With your kind, also not!

Therefore, urgent reforms now need be initiated.

We need to immediately declare the so-called climate crisis and the energy transition to be at an end. Even the world climate council has meanwhile cashed in its horror scenarios. Thus why wait? We need to set aside the CO2 duty, lower the energy taxes, re-enter the nuclear power, completely abolish the combustion engine verbot and the heating diktat. What we need is market economy and favorable energy, not a Verbotspolitik. 

Ralf Stegner (SPD): Your understanding, you’ve completely abolished!

The state citizenship law needs be reformed and the naturalization hurdles need to be drastically raised. The sozial state migration magnets need to be shut off. Illegals migrants need to be rejected without exception at our borders. Criminals and illegals need to be turned back.

– You should for once make Politik for our country, dear SPD. You are already at 11 or 12 percent. Or where are you now? –

If one has actually only been with the Antifa, then you can also make no reasonable Politik. This we of course see in the Vice-chancellor and Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil: Learned nothing, never worked, only been with the Antifa, cannot deal with numbers. And thus our country is precisely there where it certainly is.

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Oh Mann, Mann, Mann!

Dirk Weise (SPD): Here comes the elite movement, here forward!

You thus have two options, Herr Merz. You can loosen the blockade by which you end the leftist coalition with the SPD and seek new, constructive majorities, 

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): Here, I laugh myself kaputt!

or you can continue to wait and do nothing – which is to be expected – until the citizens compel new elections for an AfD reform government. First in the States, then in the Bund.

We are ready to overtake responsibility, because Germany has deserved, 

Ralf Stegner (SPD): Germany has deserved democracy!

because we Germans have deserved to be well governed.

I am grateful.

Ralf Stegner (SPD): Such a farce!

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Big propaganda show! That, you likely learned in Moscow!

Ja, schmerzlich, nicht wahr? Das tut weh!

[trans: tem]

Leif-Erik Holm, May 22, 2026, Nordstream Power Plant

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/81, pp. 9779-9780.

Dear Citizens. Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Germany speaks of exploding energy prices, of a lack of supply security, of new gas power plants which shall be built. Meanwhile, the Federal government wants to give away a fully functional gas power plant in Lubmin.

It is a question of an important power heating coupling system which pre-warmed the gas arriving there from the Nordstream pipelines. Since the destruction of our critical infrastructure, this power plant can no longer do its service. We say: That need not remain so. The AfD positions itself strictly opposed to giving away our infrastructure. We want that this power plant remain in the Lubmin location in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, and I demand of you to include yourselves in that.

All Germany shakes its head that we, in times of tight accounts, give away our functioning facilities to foreign countries, 

Michael Kellner (Greens): Out of solidarity!

And then even to the state which with high likelihood had the Nordstream pipelines blown up, on account of which this power plant was idled in a moment. That is really just grotesque.

Michael Kellner (Greens): Yet no one needs that power plant!

Claudia Müller (Greens): Grotesque is your speech!

How much corn need one have drunk to make such a policy? The presumed perpetrator receives a gift wrapped in ribbons. Out of self-respect, that cannot be in our own national interest. 

Many citizens also see it so. I experience it directly on my tour through Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. At a stand in Greifswald-Wieck, practically right opposite from Lubmin, a man came to me and said: He previously had actually been a non-voter, but since he heard the story of the power plant,

Michael Kellner (Greens): Jaja!

he had now decided: It’s enough: He now votes AfD. That is actually a good decision. Who wants a far-sighted Politik, he votes AfD. 

What is it then if the Ukraine war – hopefully soon – goes to an end and relations with Russia are again normalized? The power plant would then be ready to again prepare unrivaled favorable gas. Precisely this gas we need for an affordable energy supply.

Michael Kellner (Greens): You want to again make us dependent! Na super! Hearty thanks!

Beatrix von Storch (AfD): We become independent by power plant giveaways, ja? There, we become independent?

I do the math for you, Herr Kellner: We still have an operable strand from Nordstream. Which could deliver some 27 billion cubic meters of gas per year. That would be a quarter of our requirement, in the future even still less. There would thus not at all be any dependence. That, you cannot here assert. That is rubbish!

We await a responsible Politik that takes in view such opportunities. No one today can seriously forecast how the geo-political situation will appear in five or ten years. Perhaps the new cold war quickly goes to an end, what we all of us would ultimately wish. And then? Who this power plant gives away with a swipe of the pen, he thereby knowingly destroys an important strategic option of Germany and thereby inflicts a serious harm on our country.

Alice Weidel (AfD): An additional serious harm!

Let us look at a new construction. The new construction of such a system would last three to five years – plus planning time, likely eight years – and the taxpayer would need again grasp deep in the pocket. Around 100 million euros would again be gone. That makes clear: Here, we should be making SEFE [Securing Energy for Europe, GmbH] facts which are then scarcely to revise. A responsible government, which thinks further than twelve to noon, would keep this system on board in the country.  

Michael Kellner (Greens): Clear! It thus stands around and gathers dust!

And in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern the opinion is clear on that. Thus a majority of the local government in Vorpommern-Rügen also demanded examining domestic options. In Mukran, a power heating coupling system is sought for the LNG terminal.

Claudia Müller (Greens): Yet you demanded the opposite! What now?

The motion besides came from the AfD and was also supported by the CDU. And CDU State Chairman Peters said: Critical infrastructure should initially be used here in the country, and in doubt preferably not leave the country. – Aha! And so you also should also keep it here, dear colleagues of the Union. Herr Amthor, you can for once respond the same.

Ladies and gentlemen, the giving away of the system would from every viewpoint be a serious failure at the cost of our citizens and businesses. Who wants good, forward-looking Politik for Germany, he would leave the Lubmin gas power plant in the country, and indeed ideally there where it is now, where it in the future can offer new opportunities.

Many thanks.

[trans: tem]

Hans Neuhoff, May 19, 2026, EU Defense and the U.S.A.

EU Parliament, Strasbourg,  P10 CRE-REV(2026)05-19(2-0383-0000).

Frau President.

The United States is withdrawing troops which in the course of the Ukraine crisis it had moved to Europe. That was politically announced and thus foreseeable.

Who is now concerned the U.S.A. would quite suddenly leave Europe in the lurch, can calm down, turning to the other page: Great powers tend to have their vassals tremble occasionally. Yet the U.S.A. will not choose to to give up its bridgehead to Eurasia. The true enemy of Europe is not the Russian Federation but the Islamic totalitarianism. It threatens the open societies not only from without but also from within – supported by the leftist-green zealots of this parliament. 

Thus the actual question is not whether America remains. The question is whether Europe will awake. Who preaches strategic autonomy may not at the same time order his security policy maturity in Washington [darf nicht zugleich seine sicherheitspolitische Mündigkeit in Washington bestellen]. It does not go well together to emancipate oneself rhetorically from the U.S.A., yet to practically always purchase new weapons from it. 

[trans: tem]

Marc Bernhard, May 21, 2026, Heating Law and CDU

German Bundestag, May 21, 2026, Plenarprotokoll 2/80, pp. 9558-9560. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Hurrah, the heating law will be abolished, and everyone can again install what he wants – that is the fairy tale which you of the Federal government want to tell us. Your proposal of a so-called modernization law [Gebäudemodernisierungsgesetzes] is nothing other than Habeck’s heating hammer through the backdoor. 

With your Biotreppe [Bio-stair] you obligate the people to operate new construction oil and gas heating with initially 10 percent, later 60 percent bio-gas or bio-oil. Ja, where then shall all the bio-gas and bio-oil at all come from? According to your own statements, you yourselves do not know. The green energy minister from Baden-Württemberg confirms that initially there is not enough of this bio-manure. 

You also do not know what this madness will cost, yet proceed on, according to your own testimony, it will be so expensive that, practically, the people will simply no longer be able to afford operating an oil or gas heating. The people thereby remain – 

     Vice-president Andrea Lindholz: Herr colleague, there is a wish for an interim                         question from the Union delegation. Do you want to permit it? 

Gladly. 

     Vice-president Andrea Lindholz: Herr colleague Koller, please.

    Hans Koller (CDU/CSU): Many thanks, Herr colleague, that you have permitted the interim question.     You indeed have said we ourselves did not know where all the bio-manure shall come from. Have you     actually, really spoken with the branch? In this week, the bio-gas council came together, the bio-gas         technical associations met and on all sides is clearly confirmed: We have this potential. We have here     structures, and we can also service this. Do you not want to know, or does this not suit your ideology? 

You should perhaps preferably know your government better. I have put precisely this question to State Secretary Bartel yesterday in the Building Committee. I put to him the question: Where will all of this bio-manure come from? And he then correspondingly said to me: That, we do not know. 

    Klaus Wiener (CDU/CSU): The branch! Perhaps not him, but the branch! 

In the summer there will be a commission which will be occupied with this theme. This is completely irresponsible, what you are doing here. You introduce a bio-stair, and do not know where all the fuel shall come from. That is the reality.

And the green Energy Minister in Baden-Württemberg has exactly confirmed it: This bio-manure is not on the market. You coax the people and introduce some kind of stairway into nothing. You will not thereby come to grips. Stop lying to the people! 

         Hans Koller (CDU/CSU): I’ld recommend that to you!

Finally make reasonable Politik for the people out there, that they then can again pay their heating costs! 

There is besides: You do not know what this madness will cost, yet thence end in the people will no longer have sufficient money to operate this heating. Thereby remains for the people only the warm pump or distance heating, exactly so as with Habeck. 

Not only Habeck’s heating hammer remains practically in force, you worsen the situation for not already today installed oil and gas heating to the point of inability to pay; namely, through the certificate trade in 2028, decided in common by you, CDU/CSU, SPD and Greens, already in the German Bundestag. That is in fact in one and a half years. All experts thence proceed on that the CO₂ tax will thus at least be quadrupled to quintupled. 

            Andreas Lenz (CDU/CSU): Rubbish! AfD experts council, apparently! 

            Lisa Badum (Greens): You have the source of the numbers? Nonsense!

In regards gas heating, that leads to a price increase of around 60 percent – just by the CO₂ tax. And in regards heating oil, we are speaking of a costs explosion of around 100 percent. Here, the CO₂ tax portion will climb from the present 21 cents to then almost 1 euro per litre of heating oil. 

            Andreas Lenz (CDU/CSU): That’s just not right!

That means added yearly costs of around 1,200 euros for gas and 1,800 euros for oil. 

That is to say: You are worse than Habeck, who simply verboten the people from newly installing oil and gas heating, while you act as if you would leave to the people themselves the free choice to decide which heating they install. At the same time you, however, make oil and gas so expensive that no one can afford it as well, thereby drive the people in fact to the warm pump and thereby force them to expend 100,000 to 150,000 euros for the installation and the necessary reconstruction and insulation measures. Most of all owners and landlords will simply not be able to pay that, and thereby they will have no other choice than either to need to sell their dwelling at far under value, or again install a gas or oil heating. 

Because you quite precisely know that many renters can no longer pay the heating costs on account of your CO₂ cascade of increases, you now want to defend the renters from your own Politik in which you leave it to the landlord to pay. The landlord in the future shall pay 50 percent of the CO₂ tax of their renters, even though they have no influence on the heating consumption. This is nothing other than a bad, immoral contract at the cost of a third  party. 

And is thereby long since fully clear that the heating hammer is fully ineffective, absolutely ineffective. Since the optimistic accounting of the former Habeck ministry itself proceeds on a yearly savings of just one, single percent of the entire German CO₂ emissions, thus the CO₂ quantity which China blasts into the air in just five hours. And, for that, you destroy the savings,  the old age provision and the prosperity of the people in our country. How insane are you, actually? Had you simply let just the last three nuclear power plants continue to run, we would each year save double as much CO₂ as through your entire heating hammer. 

Heating law becomes modernization law. Raider is now called Twix, but changes nix! 

            Lisa Badum (Greens): Children’s talk by the AfD!

  

[trans: tem]

 

Christine Anderson, May 19, 2026, EU Veto Right

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)05-19(2-0150-0000).

Mr. President, history teaches us something important: political systems tend to become more bureaucratic when confidence in their political leadership dwindles. Once democratic trust declines, institutions attempt to compensate through procedures, frameworks and mechanisms. Bureaucracy, however, must not ever replace legitimacy. As Hannah Arendt warned, bureaucracy easily becomes the rule of nobody, a system in which decisions are made everywhere, while responsibility is nowhere to be found.

An EU without the veto right of Member States would slide down a very dangerous slippery slope, which we are actually seeing already. A Union that struggles to build democratic consent falls back on permanent crisis, government governance and an ever-increasing institutional expansion, while gradually hacking away at the very roots on which it rests – the sovereignty of its Member States.

But Europe does not need a permanent machinery of governance, nor does it need a foreign policy detached from its nations and peoples. It needs democratic legitimacy, and it needs accountability, and it needs leaders capable of building consensus between sovereign nations. Because once unanimity disappears, the EU ceases to be a union of equal nations, cooperating freely. It becomes something fundamentally different, a union subjecting sovereign nations to its rule – a foreign rule. History has seen such systems before – Rome, the Soviet Union. Hit the books, read up on it and draw the lessons.

Christian Wirth, May 6, 2026, Immigration Law

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/76, pp. 9113-9114. 

Frau President. Valued colleagues. 

A nation consists of a citizenry [Staatsvolk], state borders [Staatsgrenzen] and state power [Staatsgewalt]. This has bestowed on us for decades security, prosperity and a solid sozial system and with which we improvise [damit wir die Notdürftigen auffangen]. This system since 2015 crumbles. It is characteristic that today two delegations, which are rather socialist oriented, put forward respective motions as if to say: All may enter, none need go. 

You have at least acknowledged that, according to German asylum law, anyone can be turned back at the border who comes from a secure third state or an EU state. Yet let us consider the Dublin decree. What is in the Dublin decree? In article 1 of the Dublin decree is that a state is responsible for the examination of the asylum application. That makes sense. 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): The rest of the article you have not read?

Since the 1990s, since the first Dublin treaty, two things were important: For one, asylum shopping shall be abolished, thus no refugees in orbit: Which is to say: No asylum applicant shall be able to seek out a system, a country, in which he receives the highest sozial payments. For another, no situation shall be created where no state considers itself responsible. That is the expression of article 3, paragraph 1, of the Dublin III decree whereby only one state is responsible for the examination and the execution of the asylum application. 

Who is responsible? That is in article 13 of the Dublin III decree. Responsible primarily is the state in which the member of the third state for the first time enters the EU. There are exceptions which are to be examined; for example, in regards family members in another state. 

How do we examine this? In article 20, paragraph 4, of the Dublin III decree is expressly provided that, for this, there can be at most two states: The state into which the third state member enters the EU, and, when he arrives in a further state, the state which then has to examine which state is responsible. That is in the rule of the first state, i.e., for Germany, when family members are there. 

Now comes the decisive sentence. In article 3, paragraph 2, is provided that every EU state is justified to then turn back at the border when it is clear that the processing of a member of a third state, of a migrant, is to be carried out by another state. That is nothing other than what is provided for in article 18, paragraph 2, of the Dublin III decree. And there provides: When another state is responsible for the execution of the asylum procedure, every EU state can turn back the refugee. That is precisely what German asylum law also says. 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): A proceeding is required! 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): We need do that once!

You demand the observance of EU law. I think, we are agreed: EU law is contract law. We have a contract between EU states and the EU. Everyone needs adhere to contracts – pacta sunt servanda – regulated in the Vienna convention on the law of international contracts. 

Now there is article 3, paragraph 2, of the EU Treaty which also applies to Schengen and to  asylum: There is provided: 

           "The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum and immigration and the prevention and combating of crime."

What did the EU do? It fulfilled none of these treaty requirements. We indeed have, in article 23 of the Basic Law, given over in part our sovereign rights to the EU. Nevertheless, the EU has obligations, and when it cannot fulfill these obligations there is, according to article 23, paragraph 1, of the Basic Law a regualtion – a subsidiarity principle – which says: We need to concern ourselves with our own affairs. That is to say: If we want to have security, order and an asylum system which function, then we ourselves need to regulate that, because, for that, the EU is not in position. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alexander Sell, May 19, 2026, Germany and the U.S. Military

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)05-19(2-0375-0000). 

Frau President. 

Angela Merkel has today here received a service order. She did almost everything wrong, yet in one matter she was right: Friedrich Merz can’t do it. 

Germany does not come out of the crisis: Industry emigrates, unemployment rises, the infrastructure crumbles, the sickness accounts are bankrupt, domestic security is lost and the special funds for the German Bundeswehr have fizzled out without effect. Yet instead of concerning himself with these problems, the Chancellor preferably plays the world politician: In front of schoolchildren in Sauerland, he declared that the U.S.A. had been humiliated in Iran. Trump consequently was so sour that he announced the withdrawal of 5,000 American soldiers from the Oberpfalz.   

German is not capable of defense – we want to change that! Yet we do not achieve that while we ignore our own problems and instead explain the world to the Americans. We first need to mind our own business. We need to deport illegal migrants so as to save our sozial system. We need to reactivate our nuclear power plants so that we do not lose our industry. And we need to better equip the Bundeswehr so that we are able, without American help, to defend ourselves. That would be the duties for Friedrich Merz. He wants that, yet we see: He can’t do it. 

 

[trans: tem]

Martin Sichert, May 7, 2026, Healthcare and the German Left

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/77, pp. 9168-9171. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

It is madness that, for the CDU, SPD and Greens, the migration lobby, the trans NGOs and the foreign family members are more important than their own fellow citizens. It is madness that doctors and care-givers are knowingly driven out by CDU, SPD and Greens so people may be persuaded that additional immigration is required. It is madness that cancer care, dental restoration and orthodontics will no longer be paid for, yet for sickening hormone therapies for children and youths. It is madness that German married couples shall pay thousands of euros more while parents and wives in Turkey will continue to be insured without cost. An end to this madness! 

The SPD’s and CDU’s clear-cutting in healthcare is catastrophic and is here outdone by the Greens. You want to implement all sixty-six proposals of the lobbyists commission. The Greens want an absolute clear-cutting in the health sector and present themselves as the grave-diggers of healthcare. 

On the theme of hospitals, for example, the Greens move – cite: “By the consistent deconstruction of occasional care […] to push back […] uneconomic parallel structures”. “Deconstruction of occasional care” is a harmless sounding euphemism for the death of hospitals in the country. 

Clinics which make no profit, according to the will of the Greens, shall be flattened. If it is up to them, three of four clinics in my constituency need to close. An absolute catastrophe for the healthcare of people which in my constituency alone each year could cost hundreds of human lives.

            Christos Pantazis (SPD): Wicked insinuation!

Besides the clinics, CDU, SPD and Greens also want to save on the remuneration of doctors. As a result, still more highly qualified medical and care forces will leave the profession or indeed the country. Thereby still further increases the burden for those who remain, and as a result of the increasing stress still more people go abroad. As a consequence, the care becomes ever worse, and the waiting times become ever longer. 

The citizens suffer ever more because their sicknesses are no longer dealt with promptly. And then come CDU, SPD and Greens and propagandize that we need additional immigration because we have too little skilled labor in the country. In truth, it is the policy of CDU, SPD and Greens which drives skilled labor abroad. 

You knowingly manage the exodus of capable Germans so that you and your NGOs can call for the next migration wave into the country. CDU, SPD and Greens are quite knowingly destroying the German health sector so as to carry out their mass migration agenda. You leave the sick to suffer and force the last cent from the citizens only to thereby be able to further manage your propaganda of how urgently we need to bring more foreigners into the country. 

If these parties are allowed, the waiting time for a doctor’s appointment may on average no longer be 42 days but 42 weeks. CDU, SPD and Greens trample on the employees in the health sector. There needs finally be an end to that. It is highest time for a policy which values the work of this important occupational group. 

It is a lie that we need immigration into the labor market. As in the 60s guest workers were taken in, we had full employment. Meanwhile, we have over 5 million people in Bügergeld, and we have millions of unemployed. Before we take foreigners into the country and educate them here  in this country, we first need to bring into work our own unemployed. We need to retain in the country the good skilled labor in the health sector. And for that, create the correct parameters. 

Yet the Greens want to implement all imputations which have occurred to the CDU and SPD lobbyist commission. Care examinations like skin cancer screenings shall be completely eliminated. The co-payments for medicines, for dental restoration and in hospices shall rise massively. Orthodontics for children shall be paid for only on a limited basis. Health becomes a luxury good which only a few can still afford. Yet the life-long debilitating hormone treatments for children and youth who have been persuaded that it is “in” to be trans, these will be further paid for, exactly so as wigs for trans-sexuals. 

The people can no longer afford necessary dental treatments. Yet the accounts continue to pay for trans wigs? Life-saving cancer care is eliminated. Yet the accounts pay for life-long, psychological and physical debilitating hormone treatments for children? 

            Janosch Dahmen (Greens): My goodness!

Kids from poor families shall in the future run around with bad jawbones? Yet you destroy the innocent souls of children with massive hormone doses? That, the account shall continue to pay. For every halfway normal thinking person, that is completely wrong. Yet Greens, CDU and SPD  want this so as to further feed their trans NGOs. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Fake news, and contempt for people! That is what                               you bring here!

It really is madness where you set your priorities and what you line up for Germany. It is highest time for an alternative to this madness. 

            Luigi Pantisano (Linke): That is nauseating!

– Yes, I find your Politik nauseating. 

            Luigi Pantisano (Linke): Nauseating!

The Greens want to end the contribution-free co-insurance of married couples in Germany. Exactly so, according to the wishes of the coalition, shall wives and parents in Turkey remain co-insured at no cost. Yet, German married couples shall pay almost 3,000 euros more. 

Quite especially important in the Greens’ motion is introducing new taxes or increasing existing taxes. You write, cite: 

            “[...] heavier taxation of high percentage alcohol, a manufacturing duty for                               strong sugar content drinks, as well as an increase [..] in the taxes on                                      tobacco and nicotine products [...]”

I seldom experience in my speeches applause from the Greens; yet that is no wonder. You certainly cannot clap; since you always have both hands deep in the pockets of the taxpayers. It really appears schizophrenic that the Greens want to introduce more taxes and in the same breath write – cite: “Not […] the citizens are the problem – but the costs in the system.” Ja, if you recognize this, then stop ever further burdening the citizens. Yet reforms were never your thing. For you, it’s ever only about having the citizens bled with taxes and duties, and spoiling for them the pleasure in life. 

            Christos Pantazis (SPD): That, the righteous says!

You destroy the health of an entire people, you intentionally destroy our sozial system; yet there, we do not cooperate! 

We of the AfD with our motion have shown how in the short-term 17 billion euros, and 40 billion euros in the mid-term, can be saved. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): You’ve shown nothing at all!

We do this alone through increase of efficiency in the system and through the removal of benefits foreign to insurance. We of the AfD stand on the side of the citizens, the patients and the employees in the health sector.

             Janosch Dahmen (Greens): You make things more expensive than they were!

You, on the contrary, want to load the contribution payer with parts of immense contribution increases. You want to destroy families, want to have the health sector bled. We do not cooperate. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): If it’s up to you, we here would have                                            no more doctors!

I can only call upon every citizen to defy this madness. 

Dear fellow citizens, help us to maintain our sozial state. Become a member of the AfD! Fight with us for a good healthcare system! For 10 euros per month, you can become a freedom fighter for Germany. Join us! 

            Steffen Bilger (CDU/CSU): Ach, what for a level in the Bundestag!

– And your outcry shows how very right we are. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Arno Bausemer, April 30, 2026, Local Livestock Industry

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)04-30(4-0026-0000). 

Herr President. Herr Commissioner. Esteemed ladies and gentlemen. 

Over almost all of Europe, the temperatures in these days climb to over 20 degrees. And here many Europeans use the opportunity to begin grill season. The grill is hauled out of the garage, the charcoal is hauled out, packed into the grill, on the grate steak, bratwurst – and it gets going. This is for many years a good tradition and this should remain so. 

The green climate hysterics and chive proponents thereby of course break out into selective panic, tears or gasping. Coal, a dangerous climate killer! Happily gaseous stockyards also drive the CO₂ figure to the heights. And meat? Meat, unhealthy, dangerous. The Apocalypse is at hand. Nein, it is not so. On the contrary: Meat is healthy. To Europeans, meat is tasty. In Germany alone, the citizen last year consumed 55 kilograms of meat, tendency rising. And a guaranty for that are the functioning structures in our agriculture. 

I am very happy – out of personal experience – to read in the report of colleague Carlo Fidanza that the role of regional, local slaughterhouses was emphasized. This is of course important, and exactly such matters are produced to prevent animal transport and animal suffering when animals are kept and slaughtered locally. That is the future for Europe. And, if I may say a bit loosely, the only good wurst is a grilled wurst. 

 

[trans: tem]

Gerold Otten, April 17, 2026, Lebanon’s Sovereignty

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/72, pp. 8698-8699. 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

With deep concern we look these days at the present developments in the Near East. While the reporting and the diplomatic attention is concentrated primarily on the situation in the Persian Gulf, the tragedy in Lebanon fades more and more from the field of vision. Yet a few days ago my last year’s IPS [International Parliamentary Scholarship] stipendiary wrote to me from the Lebanon – I cite:

"The last weeks in Beirut were simply a daily struggle for survival in war, especially after the 160 simultaneous attacks on the Lebanon last Wednesday. I was today at work, and the atmosphere was apocalyptic - the roar of the onslaught, the ambulances' sirens, the chaos in the streets. It felt as if one were in a very gloomy movie from which there is no escape, since the attacks hit so many of Beirut's civilian areas. This day alone claimed 375 dead and 1,223 wounded!"

Ladies and gentlemen, at this current affairs hour today, it is thus important to again focus on the situation in Lebanon, and certainly when a ten-day ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel was announced. Since the military operations of the U.S.A. and Israel against Iran and its leading persons at the end of February, and the massive escalation by the Hezbollah at the beginning of March, Lebanon is again in flames. The Israeli operation Eternal Darkness has the declared aim of destroying Hezbollah’s military infrastructure and leadership infrastructure in all Lebanon, and to so lastingly weaken this terror organization that it in the long view no longer presents a threat to Israel. 

It is clearly the legitimate obligation and international legal preserve of a sovereign state to protect the physical integrity of its citizens against a permanent terrorist threat. Israel however also reaps hefty criticism for its attacks in the Lebanon. According to international law, indeed as per the fundamental of military necessity in an armed conflict, all military measures are allowed and legitimate for the militarily necessary fight against opposing parties in a conflict, and are not forbidden by humanitarian international law. Yet UN Secretary-general Guterres, among others, is evidently most deeply alarmed over the rising number of civilian victims. We thus demand of all parties to the conflict to observe the precept in humanitarian international law of the minimization of violence and protection of the civilian populace. 

Nevertheless, so as to attain a strategic solution by intervention in the crisis, we need to analyze beyond simple narrative Lebanon’s complex interior structures. In the European debate is often underestimated that the Hezbollah acts as a classic hybrid agent, since it is more than just a terror militia. By means of the construction of para-state structures in education, healthcare and in the economy and finance sector, it has established a power monopoly in Lebanon. It has thereby filled every vacuum which has arisen through decades-long war and the chronic failure of state institutions. There is thus for the Lebanese government a strategic dilemma of existential degree. 

The repeated international demand for a disarmament of Hezbollah – here today again brought forward – impacts a state the regular armed forces of which are far inferior to the highly armed Iranian militia in terms of material, operations and logistics. A forced crackdown in Beirut, as a result of external pressure – often demanded – would nevertheless not lead to the disarmament of Hezbollah. It would on the contrary ultimately destroy the country’s already fragile stability, and massively increase the risk of a new civil war. Ladies and gentlemen, hereby the Lebanese dilemma becomes a geo-political problem; for a permanent regional peace is not imaginable without the complete disarmament of Hezbollah. 

The previous attempts of the United Nations as observer and counselor have nevertheless failed completely. The balance of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, UNIFIL for short, which will end this year after two decades more or less without result, is thus especially disillusioning. The United Nations presence on the scene could neither prevent the massive armament of Hezbollah, certainly not guarantee the control of ocean transport in the Lebanon, nor strengthen the state sovereignty in southern Lebanon. 

Thus, for the future, forceful consequences need be drawn. A new UN mission, currently in talks, needs to pursue a clear goal to actively strengthen the power structures of the legitimate Lebanese government, and to purposely diminish Hezbollah’s ability to act. These military and security components need be accompanied by compulsory policy. In the current negotiations in Washington, there needs be at the center the linkage of security guarantees for the Lebanon and a robust build-up of the state. 

Security for Israel and the reconstruction of the Lebanese sovereignty are not competing goals. They are two sides of the same coin. Only a sovereign Lebanon, which is in position to exercise the monopoly of force in its entire state territory, can be a reliable guarantor for a stable peace in the region and so also increase Israel’s security. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Tomasz Froehlich, April 29, 2026, Russian Athletes Ban

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)04-29(3-0414-0000). 

Frau President. 

You want to exclude Russian citizens from large sporting events. That disgusts me. That disgusts me because it is small-minded, dishonest and, at its core, totalitarian. Yes, Russia has attacked the Ukraine and, yes, we condemn that most sharply. Yet what can the Russian athletes do? You ascribe to the innocent a collective guilt, you take the innocent into a guilt by association. And it is pure civilizational regression. For, was the exclusion of the American athletes demanded as the U.S.A. marched into Vietnam? Or into Guatemala? Or into Cambodia? Or into Nicaragua? Or into Panama? Or into Somalia? Or into Yugoslavia? Or into Afghanistan? Or into Iraq? Or into  Libya? Or into Iran? Where was your guilt by association there? Where was your collective guilt thesis there? Where was the outrage? Nothing, null, nada! According to your logic, the U.S.A. would have been allowed to take part not a single time in the Olympic Games in regards all the wars which it has conducted. And no, please do not mis-understand, that would be wrong. Since American athletes can do exactly as little for the Politik of their government as do the Russians. 

Sport should unify peoples, yet you abuse sport for dividing. Your entire indignation is pure hypocrisy. It is a sign of weakness. In the Ukraine, you have achieved nothing. You pump billions into a corrupt leadership in Kiev, while our people are ever more impoverished. You torpedo peace efforts of others, yet yourselves renounce peace diplomacy, Frau Strack-Zimmermann. You impose sanctions which harm us more than Russia. You prolong by all that only the war. Internationally, no one takes you seriously. Generally, Brussels is left out. This, what you are here managing, is a hateful symbol Politik at the cost of the innocent.  More, you cannot do. Diplomatic failure paired with geo-political meaninglessness. A pity that Europe has sunk so low. 

 

[trans: tem]

Marc Bernhard, April 23, 2026, Local Veto of Asylum Housing

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/74, p. 8825. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The situation in the cities and communities in Germany is catastrophic: Ever more budget freezes, ever less money for the the most necessary obligatory duties. Swimming pools, gymnasiums, day-cares and entire school buildings cannot be renovated. Streets, walkways, landscaping, the entire public space and infrastructure increasingly decays. 

The present deficit of the local governments amounts to 60 billion euros and will climb by 2028 to over 100 billion euros. The principal origin of this disaster is, according to the central association of the local governments, the explosion of the sozial costs. 

In this dramatic situation, the housing emergency ever further intensifies. Many people no longer find affordable housing. Young people cannot start new families; young families need to remain in their much too small dwellings. In big cities, often hundreds of those seeking housing stand in waiting lines. Despite this, you ever further intensify the housing crisis. 

For normal people, there is no more housing, certainly not for the low-income whom you ostensibly have at heart. You prolong the rent price brake, and empower your colleagues in the States to designate vast areas with strained housing markets. You thereby confirm that in Germany a vast housing emergency prevails. 

And even though you quite precisely know this, you nevertheless continue to carry out large, forced allocations of refugees in areas with a housing emergency and thereby quite knowingly intensify the domestic population’s housing emergency ever further. What you are doing, namely  playing off the domestic population against the refugees, 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): That, you do! 

            Caren Lay (Linke): That, you do!

is nothing other than asozial. Before I let anyone in, I need to first examine whether I have room enough, 

            Ina Latendorf (Linke): You’ve never had a relation to the constitution!

and whether in fact sufficient room is at hand, the local people know best of all. There thus needs be in the future a veto right of the communities against such forced allocations when already there prevails a housing emergency, dear friends. 

            Ina Latendorf (Linke): You well know that the numbers have receded, ne?

Since it makes no sense to let in ever more people somewhere where thousands of families no more find housing. That is asozial. 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): There are local governments which voluntarily accept!

Your forced allocations of refugees throw communities, already on the brink of bankruptcy, completely into financial ruin, and thereby into inability to act. Two-thirds, in many Federal States even three-quarters, of Bürgergeld recipients have a migration background. 

Housing for the Bürgergeld recipients alone costs the communities every year 11 billion euros out of their own pocket. In Berlin, just the sheltering of refugees costs 1 billion euros – money which is lacking for the most important problems: Renovation of schools and day-care, repair of streets, bridges and city clinics. 

The social costs of the local governments since 2015 have climbed from 54 billion euros to over 85 billion euros. The exploding social costs in the cities and communities becomes clear to everyone: One can have a sozial state. One can also have open borders. But both together leads unavoidably to the collapse of the sozial system. 

We experience precisely that directly in Germany. Who overburdens the local governments, endangers the social peace. Recover consciousness, and finally pull the emergency brake [Drucksache 21/5476]! 

 

[trans: tem]

Mary Khan, April 27, 2026, Correctiv Indemnification

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)04-27(1-0246-0000). 

Frau President. 

Correctiv has received from the EU at least 400,000 euros – ostensibly for combatting disinformation. And what did Correctiv do? It used this money to itself spread disinformation. Since the so-called Potsdam affair, that alleged secret meeting, was a political campaign. The central assertion, the AfD wants to deport Germans with a migration background, was simply false. And this lie has harmed livelihoods. People were professionally, financially and socially affected. We therefore demand an immediate stop of support for Correctiv, the complete restitution of all received monies, and an indemnification of victims of this campaign. 

And I promise you: Sooner or later there will be an investigating committee. We will then speak on every, single cent which this lying rag, under the cover of ostensible fact checks, has inserted into leftist activism. 

 

[trans: tem]

Kay Gottschalk, April 16, 2026, Commuter Allowance

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/71, pp. 8519-8520. 

Thank you, Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. Dear taxpayers, before all things. 

It unfortunately has first required the blockade of a sea strait so that movement comes in the discussion on the financial relief of our occupational commuters. 

For long my delegation demands that we correspondingly relieve the employees – those are, as a reminder, the people who feed us members and the entire ministerial bureaucracy – in regards the costs of the practice of their occupational activity. Many times, ladies and gentlemen, have you rejected in the last couple of years our corresponding motion [Drucksache 21/2363] here in the sovereign house. With the increase of the commuter allowance, we are still by far not there where we should be. 

I want to make clear as an example a classic “corner commuter”. The commuter allowance has namely just as little to do with the tax reality and the inflation in Germany as do the income tax and other tax-relevant rates. 

The commuter allowance which you in 2025 increased to 38 cents, regardless of the situation in 2021, you since 2001 have de facto reduced by 18 percent. Again for you there in the galleries: The commuter allowance since 2001 has been reduced about 18 percent. The official rise in the inflation since 2001 – hear and marvel! – is at 59 percent. That is a cold expropriation of the diligent people in this country, ladies and gentlemen. Shame on you for that. 

            Michael Thews (SPD): Herr Gottschalk, figuring is not your strength!                                    That needs be said.

It thus can be stated: The increase of the commuter allowance is by far under half the rise in the inflation rate. 

Frau Esdar, it is a mockery when you say: It finally becomes time to again relieve the hard-working employees. That is the factual example of why in Germany Bürgergeld pays more than honest work, ladies and gentlemen. And of that, you are all guilty! 

I want to make it clear with an example. A man who commutes 25 kilometers and rather lives in the country will only be correspondingly compensated for the simple distance, thus as he arrives at work. How he comes home, or perhaps as per the coalition’s dictation spends the night there, is all the same to you. For such a man, at the present prices, costs per workday come to 9.50 euros. There presently incur fuel costs of 8.80 euros. According to an AfA Standard, with purchase costs of 36,000 euros for an automobile which he uses 225 workdays, insurance on top of that, and with half private use, he thus has additional expenses of 22 euros per workday. 

A self-employed man can always compensate this at full cost and, if he keeps a driving book, make applicable these corresponding costs. That, the employee cannot do, ladies and gentlemen. The employee remains sitting, according to your figuring, at 12.50 euros per workday. And, on account of that, you should actually be in sackcloth and ashes, ladies and gentlemen.   

Renowned institutes, and the ADAC, two years ago prepared a study and have recommended raising the commuter allowance at a minimum to 50 cents per driven kilometer. For two years we demanded that, and you rejected it. That belongs to the truth. 

Yet it goes still further. Let us look for once at the composition of the benzine price: 49 percent of the price are procurement costs, the portion of the 19 percent sales tax comes to 16 percent, a 6 percent portion for your CO₂ tax, 29 percent for the energy tax. The result is: You collect more than half at the tank, ladies and gentlemen. No product in Germany is taxed higher. 

On that account, fully right, my delegation demands: Now finally lower the energy tax to the European minimum. Please stop the erroneous business concept of wanting to tax the air. Abolish the CO₂ tax, ladies and gentlemen. Lower the sales tax for mineral oil to 7 percent! Then, you really relieve the people! 

            Katharina Beck (Greens): Putin will rejoice!

And you protect, before all things, the logistics and the people from inflation. We now again have an inflation of 2.7 percent. Who shall still be able to actually benefit from living in Germany with your Politik? 

To again reduce the speed is then a Green proposal. Frau Beck, I see again you are running warm. It is nevertheless grotesque, your Politik drives the country to attrition. Ultimately, our desolate infrastructure is the greatest hindrance. One is happy if one can drive on the autobahn at 90 km/hr [55 mph]. Thus freely according to Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law: It is the normative power of the factual. 

Your 12 hour regulation contributes to a price explosion. And in addition comes the leftist-socialist idea of skimming off excess profits – analogous to 2022. Herr Merz, I see that you now with Frau Reiche again want to defend yourself, yet so far you’ve shown yourself in the last year and a half as the Chancellor who here really lets himself be led through the arena by the nose-ring of the socialists. You are no longer a representative of the market economy. You are a representative of power because you cling to that seat. And Herr Klingbeil – he is not there, Herr Schrodi performed competently yesterday – how would it then be if you skim off the excess profit which you aim at by means of the value-added tax on mineral oil products, and give it back to the poor automobile drivers? Ladies and gentlemen, the truth is: The greatest profiteer of this price crisis sits there on the government bench! The sole glue of this coalition is really just the pure maintenance of power. 

Ladies and gentlemen in the galleries, you truly no longer play a role in this Politik of the SPD and CDU/CSU. The Finance Minister schert sich doch einen Dreck um das, what you say. With the Austrians, the Portuguese and the Italians, Herr Merz already tinkers at an excess profits tax. 

            President Julia Klöckner: Your speaking time is over.

In the end, you will again knuckle under as always, ladies and gentlemen. 

            President Julia Klöckner: Your speaking time is over.

If you want a change, 

            President Julia Klöckner: Nein, your time is over!

vote for the AfD! Join in our motion [Drucksache 21/2363].           

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Götz Frömming, March 20, 2026, Bookstores and Susanne Dagen

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/66, pp. 8013-8014. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Herr State Minister, one accusation can thus not be made against you: With you, it is not boring. Already in the second current hour within the briefest time. Yet I do not know whether that speaks unconditionally for your conduct of office. 

            Johannes Volkmann (CDU/CSU): Rather for the horseshoe theory! 

            Ottilie Klein (CSU/CSU): Yes, exactly!

Ladies and gentlemen, the protest of the exclusion of three leftist radical bookstores from the German publishing prize 

            Sören Pellmann (Linke): The book trade is leftist radical! Meine Fresse!

–  we plainly heard it – is a festival of double morality. After the Commissioner for Culture and Media made known his decision, politicians and cultural functionaries warned of a “climate of pre-censorship”. During the Leipzig Book Fair’s opening ceremony, demonstrators stood in front of the Gewandhaus with banners with inscriptions like “Protect Culture – Let Weimer Go!”, and “Red Card for Opinion Snooping!”. The head of the association exchange of the German book trade – which, besides, is that association which took a leading part in the expulsion of the rightist publishers from the two great book fairs – declared, cite: “We will not accept without complaint your autocratic gesture.” End citation. 

            Ronald Gläser (AfD): Inconceivable!

Ladies and gentlemen, here, a political milieu ostensibly fights for the freedom of the printed word. 

            Holger Mann (SPD): Owner-operated bookstores!

It is that same milieu which literally rolls over with demands for censorship and Verbot when it is against the right. And one is, ja, right when one simply contradicts this milieu. 

So as to comprehend this double morality, one needs just once imagine what would have happened 

            Jürgen Coße (SPD: Herr Frömming speaks of morality!

if the Dresden bookseller Susanne Dagen had been nominated for the prize. Ladies and gentlemen, she alone has called into being an entire book fair, and besides without tax money. She would truly have deserved this prize. 

Yet, what would likely have happened? There would have been calls for a boycott from your side, protest and tumult. The Antifa would have marched, etc. etc. Frau Dagen will likely never receive a state prize. Yet I suspect, ladies and gentlemen, she places no special value on that. 

The good of this debate is that it reveals the principal problem of the German cultural scene, and that is the leftist burden, and the hunger for subventions proceeding therefrom. From that then arises so grotesque an accusation as this: Herr Weimer undertakes a state intervention in the promotion of culture. – A State Minister for Culture intervenes in the state promotion of culture: Just imagine! 

            Jörg König (AfD): That is, ja, horrifying!

I ask myself, why at all should book selling be promoted with tax means? 

            David Schliesing (Linke): It will be distinguished!

Does then the grocer who sells wurst, the vehicle mechanic or the hairdresser receive help? Ladies and gentlemen, would it not be better we leave that completely? Why should the Commissioner for Culture and Media with tax money reward bookstores on the facades of which are written the words “Deutschland die, please”, or “Heimat is a call to murder.”? 

Ladies and gentlemen, I have put a minor inquiry; we’ve asked about four additional bookstores. The Interior Ministry’s information is now put forward; it arrived yesterday. It is therein said – I cite with your permission, Frau President: “An additional information on the booksellers named in the inquiry ‘BiBaBuZe […], Karl-Marx-Bookseller’ […] can, for reasons of the good of the state, not follow…Through a public information on the present degree of knowledge, the affected actors could develop defense strategies…”. 

Ladies and gentlemen, from this answer becomes clear that still more booksellers are apparently a case for the Constitution Protection. Herr Weimer, please proceed! 

As the alternative book fair Change Pages [Seiten Wechsel] in Halle took place, the cry of the culture scene called for a boycott and to put pressure on the fair operator to cancel the contract. As Berlin-Treptow was called upon to drive the rightist-conservative on-line portal “Apollo News” out of the district and pound away at it [Tasten zu hauen]. And now you behave as if someone trod on your corns [Hühneraugen getreten]. 

            Holger Mann (SPD): Is that a state institution?

Ladies and gentlemen, this double morality is hypocritical and mendacious. 

The freedom of art is inseparable. Either you make no distinction between left and right, or you refrain from your hypocritical outrage if the left, by way of exception for once, were treated like the right. Without exception! 

            David Schliesing (Linke): Oha!

Or, ladies and gentlemen, perhaps better still: We renounce entirely these prizes and subventions. The bookseller Susanne Dagen has shown: It goes, even without. 

I thank you. 

 

[trans: tem]

Markus Bucheit, April 8, 2026, EU Speech Codes

EU Parliament, Brussels, Question for written answer  E-001432/2026. 

Internal company emails released to the US House Judiciary Committee reveal that major platforms perceived participation in the Code of Practice on Disinformation and the Code of Conduct on Hate Speech as ‘effectively mandatory’, with agendas ‘set under strong impetus from the EU Commission’ and ‘consensus’ achieved under heavy regulatory pressure, especially once the Digital Services Act (DSA) was in sight. 

1.         How does the Commission reconcile its public claim that these codes are purely voluntary self-regulatory instruments with the reality that companies understood non-participation as exposing them to heightened enforcement risks and future DSA sanctions of up to 6 % of their global turnover? 

2.         Does the Commission acknowledge that using the threat of future binding legislation and severe fines to steer ‘voluntary’ commitments can create a chilling effect on lawful political speech and incentivize platforms to over remove controversial but legal content, particularly on migration, COVID-19 and gender ideology? 

3.         Will the Commission publish all its guidance, instructions and meeting readouts related to these codes, so that citizens and Parliament can assess whether its conduct remained within the limits of content neutral regulation, or whether it effectively dictated substantive editorial lines for private platforms?

Rainer Kraft, March 18, 2026, Nuclear Power

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/65, pp. 7836-7837. 

Right honorable President. Valued colleagues. 

When I draw the comparison between the panic which presently prevails in that part of the room, and the utterly complacent arrogance in the 19^th and 20^th legislative periods, I need say: Yes, we of the AfD, we are on the right way; in this question, we do everything right. We take on this difficult task [Wir bohren diese dicken Bretter]. 

Let us start with an experiment. We ask an AI. Question to the AI: What happens when one does not correct a serious strategic mistake? Answer: A serious strategic mistake not corrected leads, as a rule, to wide-ranging, negative consequences which can extend from financial losses up to long-term failures of an organization or of a project. 

            Nina Scheer (SPD): That should give thought to you!

The most important consequences are destruction of resources, disadvantage of competitiveness, loss of reputation, and irreversibility in regards too late action. 

Let us leave the AI. Let us put another thought experiment. What if in 2002, instead of the atomic withdrawal, we had reached a decision which was no serious strategic mistake but a genial investment in the future, namely the massive entry into nuclear power. What would we have? 

First. The 2026 Federal budget need not designate 30 billion euros so as to subsidize inefficient electricity producers and compensate for their high electricity prices. 

Second. The question of Economy ministers Altmaier, Habeck and Reiche, “How many gas power plants and where?” will not be presented because we do not require these power plants. 

Third. 60 billion euros for a hydrogen network in Germany we can do without; it will not be needed. 

Fourth. 250 billion euros for the massive network construction parallel to wind and solar installations will not be needed. The money can be spent otherwise, or will be remitted to the taxpayers. 

Fifth. Around 180 billion euros for large storage batteries will not be required, since there are no more generation fluctuations which need be compensated. 

Sixth. Since the electricity costs just about half, a family of four saves around 750 euros per year in electricity costs. 

Seventh. The previous costs of around 600 billion euros for the energy transition remain with the electricity consumers and taxpayers. The asozial redistribution from below to above does not occur. 

Eighth. A subsidized industrial electricity price is not needed. The electricity is already well priced. Energy-intensive business does not abolish positions and does not emigrate to foreign lands. A recession does not occur. 

Ninth. The brown coal mining is ended. A structural change nevertheless does not occur; the workers switch to the nuclear power sector. 

Tenth. German nature parks on land and on water are not industrialized. Environmental protection in forests and tidelands continues.                                                                                                                         

Eleventh. Since electricity is available at a good price and in large quantities, electric autos and heat pumps enjoy a broad social acceptance. Subventions and laws to force these on the market are not necessary. 

Twelfth. The great availability of inexpensive electricity in Germany leads to a settlement of AI and tech concerns. Germany would in fact have one of the top ten global tech concerns. 

Thirteenth. An EU money penalty for non-fulfillment of climate goals of up to 34 billion euros need not be paid; the proceedings will simply not take place.

Fourteenth. Sweden with its withdrawal will not threaten the European electricity market, since Germany’s solid electricity network does not destabilize the electricity price in southern Sweden, as is presently the case. 

Fifteenth. Large gas pipelines and LNG terminals will not be needed because the gas requirement is much less. 

Sixteenth. Autocratic countries earn less with the sales of gas. War chests for support of terror and invasion remain empty and the world is a more peaceful place. 

I could name still additional reasons; but my time runs out. On that account, ladies and gentlemen: That the Chancellor can use majorities in this house, if he wants, was made evident last year regarding the intensification of the migration question. You thus do not have an excuse, all the same how very much you need it. 

As a result: The re-entry into nuclear power is for Germany’s future more important and more significant than the continued existence of this governing coalition. 

 

[trans: tem]