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]

René Aust, March 25, 2026, Fuel Prices

EU Parliament, Brussels, P10 CRE-REV(2026)03-25(1-0141-0000). 

Frau President. 

Benzine and diesel over 2 euros, here and today. All say: On account of the Iran war. That’s partially right. Yet it is only half the truth. What no one says to them: Brussels has already concluded – in black on white – that the CO₂ price from 2028 will further rise. Citizens and business will need to grasp still deeper in the pocket for energy. Experts then figure 40 cents on top per liter – in addition. 3 euros per liter for fuel is then soon in range – 3 euros per liter for diesel and benzine [$13.29 per gallon, approx.]! 

And which does not fall from heaven! That is politically made and desired by the mainstream parties. All speak of Iran, while von der Leyen, the Greens, the SPD, the CDU, quiet and gentle, prepare the next price explosion. We say: Nein, the citizens have paid enough. Any CO₂ pricing needs to be abolished, and indeed now. That needed to be a theme at the European Council. Not the flight into world Politik, but the citizens’ everyday concerns need finally to be at the center. 

 

[trans: tem]

Paul Schmidt, March 19, 2026, New Nuclear Power Plants

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/65, pp. 7820-7821. 

Right honorable Herr President. Dear colleagues. 

The withdrawal from nuclear power was “a strategic mistake”, said Ursula von der Leyen as President of the European Commission. And Chancellor Friedrich Merz had previously on January 14 designated the withdrawal from nuclear power a great mistake.  Now he says, the withdrawal is irreversible. Yet that in fact is false, and we demonstrate that with our motion [Drucksache 21/4749]. 

We want that our nuclear power stations be examined, just as the CDU/CSU demanded in the Bundestag election campaign and in the coalition negotiations. The last three nuclear power plants disconnected in April 2023, Emsland, Isar 2 and Neckarwestheim II, we want in any case to again be put into operation, and also Brokdorf because there the dismantling has scarcely ensued. Measured by the branch association KernD, that is possible anytime within three years for one to three billion euros. 

In regards other stations, there are for us two different categories: For one, those which in view of their restart of operation need to be examined, and for the others, those where the construction of a new nuclear power plant is sensible. Of the latter, in our view, are two nuclear power stations in the east, namely Greifswald/Lumin and Stendal/Arneburg, and in the west, Obrigheim, Philippsburg 1, Neckarwestheim I, Isar 1, Stade, Würgassen, Unterweser and Gundremmingen B and Mülheim-Kärlich. 

Nuclear power plants which we want to newly build would be, for example, the European Evolutionary Pressurized-water Reactor EPR, 

            Harald Ebner (Greens): Yes, exactly.

a German-French development which has already been built in many countries, as in Great Britain, France, Finland and also China, or the American reactor AP 1000, which will be built in Poland directly on the German border in three blocks and permitted according to German safety guidelines. Both of these types are of relatively simple availability. There are however additional which may come into question. 

We need nuclear energy not 

            Harald Ebner (Greens): “We need nuclear energy not”, that’s right!

only because it is advantageous, robust and reliable, and makes unnecessary the further completion of the energy transition, for which we are certainly not paid, but also because it makes us independent of foreign countries. 

            Alaa Alhamwi (Greens): From Russia, yes!

 – Now listen! – Uranium we receive from Canada, Africa, Australia and Kazachstan. Yet in case of emergency, we still have it available in our own country as raw material, for example, in the Erzgebirge or in Schwarzwald. 

Following the oil crisis of 1973-1974, it was the government of Helmut Schmidt which quite decisively drove forward the build up of nuclear power in Germany: Nuclear power as freedom’s energy! 

            Harald Ebner (Greens): The renewables are the energies of freedom!

You should reflect on that, on Helmut Schmidt and his political reason. 

And please, Frau Scheer, do not come to me again with your “alternative facts”. You are the SPD’s energy policy spokesman, and with your “alternative facts” you have already two weeks ago in the debate in the professional world made a furor; that, I can say to you.   

In fact, our nuclear power plants can be daily reduced in performance by a third, and again ramped up, and that for months. Worldwide, in fact 66 nuclear power works plants will be built. We have produced the electricity in our blocks for 2.5 to 3 cents per kilowatt-hour. 

            Harald Ebner (Greens): 80 to 40 cents per kilowatt-hour!

And a basic load from nuclear power which is always available cannot be compared with photo-voltaic, which is available only 2,000 to 3,000 hours per year, and in autumn and winter as good as not. You can believe me. I myself have worked as plant physicist in steam reactors and pressurized-water reactors.  

Dear SPD, finally give up your blockade stance, since it is you who are permanently blocking the re-entry into the nuclear power. Vote for our motion! 

 

[trans: tem]

Marc Jongen, March 26, 2026, Global Gateway

EU Parliament, Brussels, P10 CRE-REV(2026)03-26(2-0059-0000). 

Frau President. 

In the multi-polar world order, influence, raw material and energy will be fought over in the Ukraine, in the Near East, or in competition with China in the developing countries – precisely for this, the Global Gateway program was created: As a European answer to China’s New Silk Road, as a geo-strategic instrument of the EU in global competition. 

Yet instead of a pragmatic interests Politik, the Commission continues the worldwide enforcement of climate goals, Herr Sikela, the export of woke values and the exclusive cooperation with like-minded partners. Energy and raw material projects are set in motion in the narrow framework of the Green Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals. Over 300 billion was so far expended for that. Frau Bentele of the CDU, you have rightly criticized that, yet some good critical approaches are unfortunately ruined in that you also want to export into the world the climate ideology which evidently furthers the downfall of Europe. No geo-political influence can thus be gained! 

Listen, if not to me, then to the German Industry and Commerce Chamber which just last year said to you that the Global Gateway does not work for German business. That, we can no longer afford. 

[trans: tem]

 

Peter Boehringer, March 18, 2026, German Gold Reserves

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/64, pp. 7742-7743. 

Frau President. 

The German gold reserves [Staatsgold] originate from the foreign trade surpluses of the early Federal Republic. The Bundesbank as trustee administered these gold assets for their producer, the German citizens. The book value of our 3,350 tons increases for decades, and has since 2024 alone doubled to 450 billion euros. 

Gold is an important psychological and material guaranty of stability for our currency. Its revaluation gain [Aufwertungsgewinn] alone amounts to more than 150 times the capital equity of the German Bundesbank. Gold is the sole substantial position in the balance. Without it, the Bundesbank would be over-indebted by ten times its capital equity. 

Following a successful citizens initiative and repatriation of a large part of our foreign gold, today 51 percent is stored in the Frankfurt area. Nevertheless, a stock worth over 220 billion euros is ever still found in foreign countries. For 60 years already, we have borne this risk of foreign location. Since the end of the Cold War at the latest, there is no more reason for this, and none military. 

            Frauke Heiligenstadt (CDU/CSU): Listen to the Bundesbank president!

In these 60 years, the price has risen around 15,000 percent. 

We nevertheless bring in our motion [Drucksache 21/4739] not because gold is the class of investment with the best return, and we also do not advise the motion because Donald Trump in matters of fidelity to contract and the honoring of property and international law in fact exhibits no good balance. In part, that is right throughout. 

This, colleagues of the other delegations have acknowledged: By chance, Stephan Mayer of the CSU: “The finance minister needs to answer the question of Germans whether our gold in the USA is…still…secure.” Yes, Herr Mayer, this question is justified and has been presented for 15 years, yet from the Union’s view, by the wrong ones. 

Even the Greens’ finance policy spokesman meanwhile demands a gold standard currency in Germany. Please show that you seriously mean that, colleague Beck! 

Trump is thus indeed not the primary problem – that exists independent of him – yet we rejoice in every case when the colleagues now finally come to the right conclusion. 

For centuries, gold establishes sovereignty. It is free from the risk of a debts default, and cannot be politically devalued. It is an instrument of strategic security [Absicherung] to protect oneself against debt, inflation and systemic risk, which are often, as presently, still united with geopolitical crises. 

Almost every second state presently increases its gold reserves. Ever more central banks fear that they may not recover their foreign deposits of precious metal. The location of gold currency reserves in foreign countries is not to be justified. 

The Bundesbank’s long-term counter-argument, whereby in a crisis situation the metal, as it happens in New York or London, needs be converted into foreign exchange, is for years absurd. Certainly in case of a global currency crisis, no one wants to have paper money. Certainly then market participants strive for what is physically tangible, as is seen presently almost daily in the gold and silver market. 

And the Bundesbank? It, as it happens, wants in a serious case to exchange the only asset position without third-party risk for demand paper, thus precisely into such paper which in regard world currency turbulences every other party wants to get rid of. No one understands that. It is ahistorical and irrational. 

In addition, gold would also besides be tradable in Frankfurt if in a crisis it really were seriously desired to sell the state gold, which of course no one should seriously want. 

And the Bundesbank’s concerns about a – cite – “Psychological harm for the German-American relationship” in case of a repatriation are absurd! We speak of German property over which we need to have complete power of disposal. 

Unfortunately, the Bundesbank thereby stands in a bad tradition. In 1928, Reichsbank president Schacht, in regards a futile attempt to find the Weimar gold in the treasury of the US Fed, suddenly no longer wanted to see this, and freed Fed chief Strong of proof of this gold, without any emergency. 100 years later, we are not one millimeter further. 

And the actually thorough estimate of the Federal Audit Authority needs in one place to be criticized when it suggested to the Bild newspaper an examination of the gold in 2025 has not ensued. Nein, a complete examination of the German gold in foreign countries has never occurred since 1951! 

            Frauke Heiligenstadt (CDU/CSU): That’s just not right! Is completely wrong!

Gladly put an interim question, Frau colleague! Then can I expressly answer it! 

            Mechthilde Wittmann (CDU/CSU): Ja, so far as it comes!

The Bundesbank loses itself in inventory data from foreign countries, in minimal spot checks. Smelting charges and inventory numbers replace no bar numbers. Abbreviated numbers contradict orderly bookkeeping. Double counting of bar numbers cannot be excluded, complete examinations were never carried out. In short, there are no clean bar lists. 

The Bundesbank continually emphasizes they have complete trust in the foreign banks. Blind trust is however no examination strategy. In crises of an instance of tension, the right of ownership without simultaneous possession is not guaranteed. 

Trust also replaces no sovereignty. Gold is a strategic anchor of value. Its availability at home is a prerequisite for our country remaining, in regards international instability of a systemic crisis, able to act in matters of currency. 

All of this is an awareness of responsibility. It is no fear-mongering, as in recent days was dictated by you in the press. 

Many states since 2013 want to repatriate their gold holdings from New York and London. Blind trust, in times of dwindling certainty in international and financial law, is today no longer appropriate. The AfD therefore welcomes that this ancient debate on the overdue repatriation of the gold is now resurrected, even if in part for a false reason. 

No fear-mongering – awareness of responsibility! Thus strike the same out of your script where you probably again have the word “fear-mongering”. 

            Frauke Heiligenstadt (CDU/CSU): Exactly!

Strike it out! Dear viewers, it’s not true. Only that which we are doing is responsible.

Show today that your concern about gold, which you in recent months in the bloc have dictated,  is authentic, and was no crocodile tears. Vote for our motion! And in case your firewall fetish forbids that, then simply bring in one of your own! 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Christine Anderson, March 9, 2026, Political Speech Regulation

EU Parliament, March 9, 2026 

Written questions to EU Commission E-001160/2026 

Documents disclosed in a report from the US House Judiciary Committee show that, as part of the EU Internet Forum, the Commission promoted a handbook of borderline content in relation to violent extremism that explicitly classifies ‘populist rhetoric’, ‘anti-EU content’, ‘anti-elite content’, ‘political satire’, ‘meme subculture’ and ‘anti-LGBTIQ content’ as problematic categories to be monitored or limited by platforms, even though these are in themselves lawful forms of political or social expression. 

1. How does the Commission justify equating lawful Eurosceptic or anti-establishment speech and political satire with ‘violent extremism’ in an official handbook, and on what precise legal basis did it urge platforms to use these categories for content moderation beyond what is strictly illegal under EU or national law? 

2. What safeguards did the Commission put in place to ensure that such guidance would not result in systematic discrimination against peaceful opposition movements, conservative viewpoints on migration and gender, or satirical criticism of EU institutions and policies?

Tino Chrupalla, March 18, 2026, War, Migration, Budget

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/64, pp. 7667-7668. 

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

Our position on the new war in the Near East has proved to be right. Ever more politicians at home and abroad share our concern, among others the Chancellor. The aim is to protect the population and civil institutions, as well as to end the war as quickly as possible. 

Herr Merz, from this place I have thanked your predecessor in office, Herr Scholz, for that he delivered no Taurus cruise missiles to the Ukraine. I see hope in that you follow him in this regard and avert harm from the German people. Since on one thing all here in the German Bundestag need to unconditionally agree: Only one commitment [Bekenntnis] is required which we as parliamentarians and politicians give to everyone: That is the commitment to our country and to our citizens. 

            Till Steffen (SPD): For you, that turns out to be, ja, difficult!

By these were we elected, and in the interest of these we need to make Politik. Germany was not defended in the Hindukush, nor is it defended in the Strait of Hormuz. 

            Helge Limburg (Green): And should not be governed from Russia!

Those who begin wars need to submit themselves to questions as to their goals and exit strategies. Just so should those who begin continuing wars be able to put forward evidence even for these. The same standards and rules apply for all. Herr Merz, you have said it: Only so can the trust of the world’s people be maintained. These, to a large extent, in this case have been shocked. 

Ladies and gentlemen, for us it must now first of all be about guaranteeing the security within the German borders. To that belongs consistently meeting the Islamism ever again flaming up here in Germany. 

            Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Yet that is a contradiction which you’ve noted,                                nicht wahr?

The demands of my party in that regard are to apply the pertinent law to full extent and, before all, to implement it. Stop the proactive migration of potential criminals, and finally deport the foreign citizens become criminals to their own countries! Asylum is residency for a time, and needs to be thus managed. These measures do not contradict human dignity, and do not condemn wholesale one or another of the groups. They are much more covered by applicable law in Germany. 

You see that the discussion at the European level has long since proceeded. The demand for asylum centers outside the European borders is meanwhile one common to the Union and to the Alternative für Deutschland. And, Herr Merz, who is needed – and at the European level – that, you do not decide. That, the people decide. 

Herr Chancellor, in this regard, exert pressure on our neighbors, particularly in eastern Europe. The Dublin agreement is not just understandings, but finally needs to be followed. We require reliable partners in all questions, and in the migration debate. 

Ladies and gentlemen, if we as Germans have learned something, then it is that for no war in the world should we let ourselves be yoked to the cart of others, by no one and for no interests which are not ours. We know better how a country destroyed by war is to be reconstructed. It was our forefathers and we ourselves who will forever bear that scar. That, we will and cannot expect of no other country. For that, German Politik in the year 2026 should stand. To that, quite clearly does not belong prolonging conflicts and wars by money and material benefits at the cost of the German taxpayers. 

            Metin Hakverdi (SPD): „Deutsche“! „National“!

The Ukraine war is just so little our war as the one in the Near East. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): You need a couple of history courses!

Therefore needs finally be an end to financial packages and military support! For certainly in this new, dangerous world situation, we need the well-being and the problems here in Germany to be back at the center of our Politik. 

            Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): Yes, then you do that on a lonely island!

I have enlarged on domestic security. Certainly in regards this and all proposals which are in Germany’s interest, you can count on the support of the Alternative für Deutschland. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): Which we can well do without!

Where you need to figure with opposition is in regards your special debts or, as you call them, special funds. Not only do these massively burden the future of our children and grandchildren, no, it has happened exactly as what we here in many debates for a year have prophesied: This Federal government flogs ever more special funds through the German Bundestag because the basic expenditures need to be secured. You, Herr Merz, and your social democratic Finance Minister Klingbeil, have not managed to keep house with billions in tax intake. On that account, you need the expensive special debts so as to secure the core budget. That is neither sozial nor just. Not a cent can thereby flow into the decaying infrastructure of streets, railways, education or health. Not one euro do you invest long-term in the well-being of the German citizens. 

For you, time is running out. Instead of constantly building walls and losing yourself in partisan politics, you need now to finally be ready to make an audit, to prioritize your expenditures, and so far relieve the German economy, the Mittelstand, and the local trades that these do not run away from us, as we are seeing every day. Finally apply the red pencil and strike out superfluous taxes and guidelines which burden everything! I demand of you no world miracle, but a speedy action in regards the high energy and fuel prices. 

And, yes, we need to make it a theme, since these more strongly increase in Germany than in neighboring foreign countries. Yet the citizens and business now require, here and today, a relief. Therefore, away with the CO₂ duty! This decision can be implemented relatively quickly. 

Thus, Herr Chancellor, show that you are open to proposals. You have already in your position on the Near East drawn near to us. Now take care for peace in Europe and go to Russia. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): Those are delusions!

In the purchase of Russian oil and gas can also again lie our competitive advantage. 

I thank you for the attention. 

 

[trans: tem]

Mary Khan, March 11, 2026, Leftist Violence

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)03-11(3-0425-0000). 

Herr President. 

Leftist extremism today belongs to the greatest dangers for our democracy, and we have to do with structures which organize and act militantly. Here your friend Ilaria Solis may certainly sing a song – with hammers and so forth. In Lyon, 23-years old Quentin died after a brutal attack. In Berlin, an electrical power line was attacked – affected were working people, pensioners, families. 

As my colleague Froelich said: 70 percent of violent acts against politicians in Germany are alone directed against the AfD. A shame that Frau Geese lately could take no position against that. Extreme leftist violence is long since no more directed only against the right, but against any who do not pass its ideological muster. Even an Alice Schwarzer, an icon of feminism, is no  longer spared from leftist violence. Her book presentation was stormed. That shows how intolerant and radical this milieu has become. At the same time, millions flow further into leftist NGO structures – and from EU programs – in a so-called fight against the right. There will be no such thing with the AFD in the future. There is ultimately not a cent… 

 

[trans: tem]