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]

Anna Rathert, January 29, 2026, Strength – German and American

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/56, pp. 6715-6716. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The Greens lay before us today an interesting motion – not interesting because it offers solutions, but because it reveals their worldview. The text reads like a cry for help. You note that with President Trump, an administration has entered Washington which openly says: “America First”, and no longer manages an international Politik supposedly based on rules, but is again lead by interests. 

Behind that stands a democratic reality; the majority of the Americans have voted for this course. Who finds that unbearable, he needs to learn to deal with it, not to moralize. In your motion, you fear crises and conflicts are intensified when protection and support structures erode. The entire German Politik is fixated on an international protection and support system because it is not dared to stand up for our German fatherland which itself, from itself, can bring forth strength. It is still plainly here, and it is everywhere, even in this house: The old fear of a strong Germany. That is a fallacy [Denkfehler] in which Germany sickens. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): With you, there can be no talk of thought [Denken]!

Departure is taken from material substance in the form of nuclear power, strong industry and economic performance, and one is lost in a system of international organizations like, for example, the EU. Of course, one needs also to affirm protective, rules-based orders without which one fears not to be able to assert oneself against a stronger partner. These orders should guarantee against crises. Yet crises and conflicts do not escalate because somewhere an assistance fund is lacking, or one international resolution too few was issued. Crises escalate because strength is lacking, which is needed for a natural balance of power between states: Economic strength, technological and energy policy strength, a functioning infrastructure: Deutsche Bahn, electricity supply, deterrence and defense capability, and a resilient inner order which is supported socially and culturally. 

You say the Federal government may not continue to belittle itself and needs to self-consciously formulate and represent our interests and values. Ja, nothing would be better than that. We need finally to begin to formulate national German interests, and indeed such which makes us strong and independent; yet that does not go with the self-overestimate put forward here by you. You do not seriously want to explain to the Americans how democracy and economy work 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): It would be sufficient if you would grasp it!

when you here in this country observe the opposition, and are just about de-industrializing Germany. 

            Deborah Düring (Greens): We are, besides, no longer in the government!                                                 A little side note.

Your approach for negotiations as equals is completely wrong. For you are evident the motion’s achievements which, as it happens, are what just forced Germany to its knees: Verbote, de-industrialization by energy policy, supply chain law, over-regulation, the forest protection decree – all of which weaken performance and international commerce. 

Who wants to understand America needs to grasp a historic fact: The United States generally first originated and later became a world power because it has economically and militarily asserted itself. And precisely this ability to succeed [Durchsetzungsfähigkeit] they also expect from their counterparts. 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): That is just an intellectual solar eclipse!

There is respect in Washington not for appeals, but for strength and self-responsibility. 

Germany on the other hand acts like a late-stage teenager: Making claims and preaching morality, yet little readiness to take up the responsibility for its own sovereignty. As equals  plainly means first build up one’s own strength, and then talk. 

            Vincenz Glaser (Linke): What is your strength? Contact with Russia?

Who only makes demands, and at the same time makes prescriptions, will not be taken seriously. 

And still one thing: If you really find so unbearable a relationship as that of Trump, as you here argue, then you would especially need to make Germany strong and independent, as you were in government responsibility. Yet that you did not do. That, the present Federal government also  does not do – and now you live stuck with the consequences. 

We as the Alternative für Deutschland stand for the antithesis: To again make Germany capable by use of nuclear power, to be reliable, and then negotiate, sovereign, as equals – not to lecture, but to achieve. That goes only with us, and thus our time is just beginning. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Hans Neuhoff, March 10, 2026, EU Defense Policy

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)03-10(2-0350-0000). 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The European Union loves crises. For crises are a wonderful means of carrying through extraordinary political measures. The typical hallmarks of the crisis rhetoric are, first, the existential threat: Climate death, Corona death, Russian death. Second, the time pressure: We must immediately act! Third, the asserted lack of alternative. And, fourth, the character of the measure itself: Strong state intervention, new laws, a common debts program and, before all, the centralization of political power. 

The EU has thus used all crises since 2008 so as to drive forward the statehood of the Union: The finance and banking crisis, the climate crisis, the refugee crisis, and the Corona crisis. The Russian invasion of the Ukraine in February 2022 was a propitious opportunity to summon up the next crisis: The security crisis and defense emergency. Under the banner of the European security, the next great integration step will be prepared: An internal market for armaments, a common procurement, ever closer military integration. This is sold to us as pragmatic efficiency measure, as a technological necessity, as a rational step. 

In truth, it is a matter of something quite other: A political project. Since as soon as defense industries and military planning are interwoven with one another, dependencies arise which are scarcely to be rescinded. Then integration will no more be decided politically, it will be structurally compelled. With other words: An ostensible threatening situation is used so as to more closely and irreversibly interlock the member states one with another. 

Ladies and gentlemen, the Alternative für Deutschland expressly supports the goal of Europe’s strategic autonomy. The acquisition of the required military capabilities is however a fundamental decision, not a crisis project. The planned measures for the erection of an internal defense market will therefore not be supported by the ESN delegation. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alexander Gauland, January 30, 2026, Konrad Adenauer

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/57, pp. 6871-6872. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Herr Spahn, I believe it is not right to make use of Adenauer so as to place a party, which represents the conservative ideas which Adenauer represented, so to say, right away offsides. 

            Pascal Reddig (CDU/CSU): That is really just not so!

I grant you are, yes, right in many things – not in regards us, but in regards Adenauer. 

Germany has brought forth only a few important statesmen. In the Kaiserreich, it was undoubtedly Bismarck. In the Weimar Republic Stresemann, and in the early Federal Republic of course Konrad Adenauer. There, you are right. For the late Federal Republic, Brandt and Kohl still deserve the epithet. Helmut Schmidt lacked the circumstances. 

Yet what now makes an important statesman? The historian would say that he wisely analyzed the situation of his country and on the basis of this analysis successfully recognized and carried out the interests of the country. And that applies to Konrad Adenauer in especial measure. He managed, Herr Spahn, a Politik of national interests as Germany’s situation of that time made necessary. 

            Boris Mijatovic (Greens): Aha!

Hitler ruined to a maximum Germany’s power and reputation in the world and Adenauer stood before the duty to reconstruct both for the free part of Germany. He did that, in that he consistently united western Germany with the leading powers of one camp, and even against resistance offered much military assistance. That was, ten years after Germany’s unconditional surrender, daring and full of risk and for the eastern Germans, at least in the short and middle view, without profit. For that reason, to this day the way between the blocs is preferred by many as an alternative, as it so emerged in outline in the 1952 Stalin note. 

            Paula Piechotta (Greens): That is historisch!

I think those who so argue, misunderstand the deep fall of our country – in terms of power politics and morality – in distinction to the Weimar Republic which could still achieve the Politik of balance and also act correspondingly. 

Hitler completely destroyed the moral capital which is necessary for a successful foreign policy. And Adenauer first needed to rebuild it. Here, we will also likely be agreed. He did that with skill and perseverance to which also belong the settlement with and the aid for Israel. Certainly in Israel’s case, moral attentiveness and a wise German Politik of interests contributed much to rebuilding Germany’s reputation in the world; besides being one of the prerequisites of Willy Brandt’s later Ostpolitik which, without Adenauer, of course would not have worked. That Adenauer, in regards every rejection of Soviet Russia, as he Kölnisch called it, could act pragmatically, quite without ideology, the German prisoners of war were brought back in 1955. A high point of his career and also a high point for many people in this country. 

Ever again has been made a theme, primarily by leftists, that it was the reactionary Adenauer era in which old Nazis were allowed to again make careers. That remains, so far as something of it is right and is not merely due to a leftist antibürgerlichen reflex, 

            Paula Piechotta (Greens): Those are facts, Herr Gauland!

an impermissible involvement of his name with social conditions on which he once casually commented: If no clean water is at hand, the dirty needs be taken. – Or, you’ve already cited it: People need be taken as they are, there is of course nothing other. In this question he was even agreed with his great competitor, Kurt Schumacher. In fact, the people needed to once again become accustomed to democracy and a market economy. 

Yes, he was a bourgeois through and through as he showed in his passionate rejection of Hitlerism. Yet like most fathers and mothers of the Basic Law, he depended on an ethnic-cultural term for the people, and from his historical experience he mistrusted the Germans’ ability for political judgment. And, ladies and gentlemen, if I myself look at many of the debates in this country or in this parliament, he was in that thoroughly right. 

I am grateful. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alexander Jungbluth, February 11, 2026, Slovakia

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)02-11(3-0290-0000). 

Frau President. 

With a change of the constitution, the Slovaks have rebuilt the unrestricted primacy of national law ahead of EU law. That is a victory for the national identity of the Slovak people and the sovereignty of the country. Yet when the Slovaks protect their own people, they will of course be requited by the EU by means of a treaty violation procedure. Brussels wants to annex to itself ever more rights and thus further undermine the sovereignty of the member states. In that regard, the EU emblazoned on the flag the motto “United in Diversity”. Yet real diversity means confirming and defending the distinctive cultures, peoples, identities in Europe. The woke agenda counteracts precisely these goals. We should therefore be grateful to the Slovaks that they defend themselves against this attack from Brussels. 

 

[trans: tem]

Markus Frohnmaier, January 29, 2026, Germany, Ukraine, Nordstream

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/56, pp. 6745-6746. 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Chancellor Merz speaks of an age of “Great Power Politics”. The truth is: The power Politik was never gone. That, we see in the Ukraine, in Venezuela, in Greenland. New is not the reality of the power Politik. New is a persistent, chronic weakness of Germany which encounters an increasingly multipolar world in which the interests are again openly carried out. In such a world, Germany then is only capable of acting when it combines its powers, sets priorities, and finally learns to stand up for itself. 

Before all is the CDU responsible, through decades of government failures, for almost all major political mistaken decisions which have made our country vulnerable. The completely wrong mass migration, a threat to security since 2015, the anti-economic [Wirtschaftfeindliche] withdrawal from nuclear and coal energy which drove us to dependency on gas imports and de-industrialized Germany, with dramatic consequences for welfare, public finances and sozial peace. Germany cannot afford to give away its resources to the Ukraine while we here at home are vulnerable. 

Our capitol city Berlin has just experienced how vulnerable critical infrastructure is, and can be quickly omitted by sabotage. Tens of thousands of households, following a leftist extremist attack, sat in darkness and in cold. Diesel generators were lacking, diesel generators which were in the Ukraine. 

            Claudia Roth (Greens): Oh nee! 

            Kay Gottschalk (AfD): Listen!

Germany shall pay in the next ten years for the reconstruction of the Ukraine with sums which lie beyond any serious ability to plan. 

            Claudia Roth (Greens): Ja, serious!

The CDU combines that with the formula: “So long it is necessary”. Ladies and gentlemen, that is a blank check, and blank checks are in the Politik always the beginning of the end of any control. 

Every cent of the so far around 1,000 billion euros of the Ukraine aid is debt-financed – financed with debts which in the form of principal and interest cost will afflict all future Federal budget charges. 

            Stefan Keuter (AfD): The next generations!

Debts are tomorrow’s taxes, ladies and gentlemen. We forfeit the future of our children for a country the hand of which is outstretched for our money, and to thank us apparently blows up our own German infrastructure. 

            Knut Abraham (CDU/CSU): That is shabby!

Shabby is that you of the CDU permit such a thing. Shabby is that to this day you have not sought to clarify the Nordstream explosion, Herr colleague of the CDU. 

            Thomas Rachel (CDU/CSU): Shabby is that you still haven’t said a word                                         for the civilian population in the Ukraine which is attacked daily from                                      Russia!

What do we want to actually have happen? 

First: Corruption and lack of transparency. A corruption scandal again shakes the Ukraine up to the highest circles, with effects on the energy and defense infrastructure. When a state is at war, and at the same time billions seep away, then that is not only morally unbearable but is also extremely dangerous for security policy. Since money, weapons and material do not simply disappear. They again emerge elsewhere, in dark channels, in black markets, in criminal networks. 

            Stefan Keuter (AfD): Darknets! 

            Robin Wagener (CDU/CSU): Those are the things with which you are familiar.

Second: Demands without end. It is always the same process – more weapons, more money, more guaranties, more appeals. Yet where actually is the clear accounting, what happened with the donated benefits? 

Third: We as Germans can no longer afford this. While our local governments are at limit, while families and Mittelstand note every month how expensive everything has become, while the Bundeswehr cannot even secure it own basic equipment, we shall play the role of long-term paymaster in a foreign conflict thanks to the CDU Politik. 

            Claudia Roth (Greens): Thank Putin!

Ladies and gentlemen, there needs finally be an end to that! 

            Thomas Rachel (CDU/CSU): For that, the Russian Putin is responsible.

            What do you then say to a war of aggression counter to international law?

            What do you say to Russia’s aggressive war counter to international law? 

Listen for once! You are elected as a representative of the German people, and not as a member of the Ukrainian Rada! This, the CDU’s Politik needs finally to understand. 

            Thomas Rachel (CDU/CSU): That is,  ja, embarrassing!

Fourth, and this is the point which altered everything: How do we deal with the apparent  Ukrainian attack on our infrastructure, on the sovereignty of Germany? The Federal Court of Justice in its ruling of December 10, 2025, on the Nordstream sabotage, proceeded on the basis that the attacks on the Nordstream pipelines resulted from a “highly likely […] foreign state order”. It was accepted that the act was initiated and controlled by a foreign state. The defense of the Ukrainian suspects wanted to attain immunity for these, in which – listen well, dear colleagues of the CDU – it is argued the act is a part of the war between the Ukraine and Russia. 

            Knut Abraham (CDU/CSU): Who gave the order?

Everything, really everything indicates that this attack was ordered with knowledge of the Ukrainian government. The Federal government cannot simply so continue as if this was not acknowledged. I today quite clearly demand of you: Finally examine this! 

            Knut Abraham (CDU/CSU): Yes, yes! For months!

Billions of German tax money were invested in this infrastructure project, and you did not attempt to manage a clarification. That is harmful for Germany and our citizens. 

We therefore want that now an investigative and tracking staff for the clarification of corruption, money laundering, arms trafficking, and finance of terrorism be established [Drucksache 21/3839]. We also want that complete transparency be established vis-à-vis Bundestag and public by a website following the model of the American Ukraine oversight structures. One matter needs finally be clarified: Who expends the taxpayers’ money, he has no right to non-transparency. 

            Claudia Roth (Green): The AfD says that!

That, the CDU needs finally learn and understand, ladies and gentlemen. 

We say today quite clearly: No more weapons deliveries, no additional armaments. Yes, humanitarian aid is possible. But all that effects a prolongation of the war, we no longer want. 

            Stefan Schmidt (Greens):  Putin has written that for you, or?

We want that German tax money finally remains here in Germany, and does not flow to whichever oligarchs. We want to take care that this money benefits our schools, our streets, our German infrastructure, our citizens – something which these gentlemen have long since forgotten. For that, we were elected to make Politik for German citizens – and not for the Ukraine! 

            Thomas Rachel (CSU/CSU): We make Politik for all peoples. That is the distinction. 

 

[trans: tem]

Petr Bystron, February 11, 2026, State of Law in the U.S.A.

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)02-11(3-0213-0000). 

Frau President. Dear colleagues. 

We shall here discuss the Socialists’ motion on the state of law in the U.S.A. – thus, what a mockery! As it happens, this European Parliament this week rejected a discussion on what the European Commission has broken in the last ten years. Namely, the Commission for ten years has censored legitimate political opinions and facts, and at the same time also paid the media for defaming critics of the EU. We receive this information, as it happens, from Washington, from the U.S.A.; there, it was worked on, in contrast to here. Here, the discussion was rejected, and it was preferred to speak in plenary session on a two-years old Draghi report, or on the acceptance of Andorra and San Marino – ja, that is important to us.   

You are disturbed that Trump finally proves that you for years have lied: Remigration is possible, deportations are possible. We require in Europe exactly so an ICE. We need to act effectively and deport the criminal foreigners. And on that account, you here have instigated this discussion and have leftist extremists like Salis here speak at the podium. That is a mockery of democracy. 

 

[trans: tem]