Roman Reusch, February 26, 2021, Direct Democracy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/213, pp. 26826-26827.

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Since the introduction of our Basic Law, our political system has taken on a development for which the Italians have a very pertinent designation, a pun: “Partitocrazia”. Which is translated: The rule of the parties. Which rests on three pillars.

First pillar: The limitation of powers, which we have laid down in the Basic Law. It is the principal duty of the government coalitions, come what may, to defend the government with tooth and nail. Parliamentary control therefore rests on the much too narrow shoulders of the opposition.

            Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): You are a bit clueless there!

Second pillar: The self-disempowerment of the parliament, conveyed by party and delegation discipline, which to oppose can have possibly unpleasant consequences for one’s subsequent career- and life-planning, and on which account, when in doubt, one prefers to walk softly.

Third pillar: The wretched business of the party book which has proliferated in all state organizations and today nor more stops short of the lower ranks. And this naturally serves the overcoming of competences and the separation of authorities [Gewalten] in the sense of the exercise of power [Macht].

This has led to a concentration of power in the hands of a few leading functionaries, which the renowned mothers and fathers of our constitution at Herrenchiemsee reliably wanted to prevent. A correction is required; an opposing power is to be built which in a democracy only the people, the sovereign, can present.

With our draft law [Drucksache 19/26906], we want to give to the people the means to exercise this power which it should have. The core of our draft is that the expressed will of the people must be the highest law.

            Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): In the Basic Law, “elections” are for that!

In regards instruments, we refer to proven procedures from the Swiss federal constitution.

            Anna Christmann (Greens): Not at all agreed!

For one, the obligatory referendum; for another, the facultative referendum. Obligatory, thus binding, popular votes are to be held for changes to the constitution, for changes to the people’s previous decisions, for cession of sovereignty, for entry into supra-national organizations. For the facultative, the people themselves shall receive the possibility, from their own ranks by means of a petition for referendum, to place before the people a vote on substantive issues and draft laws. Finally, the government shall maintain the possibility of realizing the people’s will by means of organization of a people’s inquiry. Brexit sends it respects, one or the other will say. With this instrument, much can be put in motion, as the example indicates. On the whole, the realization of the presentations would at a minimum distinctly reduce the power of the backrooms.

            Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): You must free yourself of AfD customs!

            Christoph de Vries (CDU/CSU): The backrooms, which with you are of the                            worst!

I now greatly rejoice over the speakers of delegations which themselves already have brought in initiatives for direct democracy; that is to therein refer to the dislocations with which they set forth why all of this is not at all needed.

Many thanks for the attention.

 

[trans: tem]

           

 

 

 

 

 

Roman Reusch, November 26, 2020, Patent Court

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/195, p. 24664.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Thus, Frau colleague Dr. Scheer, you now have really very much startled me; for to be quite honest: That was not us. We ourselves have not had recourse to the Constitutional Court. That was a constitutional complaint. When the law was passed, at which time it was first ratified, we were not even in the Bundestag. Just the opposite: At the last debate on the ratification, we had moved to repeal the law which you had ratified so as to spare the Bundestag this disgrace which was then entered into.

For that it has come to this, you quite alone are responsible. Had you listened to us, all of this would have turned out with more moderation.

            Nina Scheer (SPD): Then you stand behind the complaint.

Now it should be supposed that one learns to fear the flame. Yet apparently that has not happened here; undeterred, it will be continued. So far, there has still been no hearing on this matter in the Committee for Legal Affairs. We in the Committee for Legal Affairs hold all possible hearings on, for example – how is it called? – containers for foodstuffs, yet not on highly complex questions such as this. Since the beginning of the project “European Court of Patents”, considerable attacks against it have been conducted in the literature: EU legal incompatibility, unconstitutionality, it shall be completely superfluous, so it is called, antipathetic to the Mittelstand. All of these attacks from people who are to be taken seriously ought to have for once been listened to in the Legal Affairs Committee so as to reach an informed decision. 

That has not happened. Yet last Wednesday, all delegations have rejected our motion in the Legal Affairs Committee for the holding of an experts hearing.

In addition, owing to Brexit, we have a fully new state of affairs. According to my information, there were two countries the courts of which, as per previous practice, had something of a leading function for all the others. Those were the German and English patent courts. Owing to Brexit, the English are now gone; thus now it is the German courts which could engage in a leading function. Where is the problem? On which account must a European court still be installed?

Yet even if reasons are sought and found to do that, there is still another problem that results from Brexit: One seat of this patent court should be in Great Britain. That has been omitted. It is a German interest to now retrieve it for Munich; yet there are no arrangements whatsoever that are not long since in the bag. And now we here wish to ratify that and thereby surrender out of hand the single trump card we still hold to safely retrieve the thing for Munich. Does Söder Markus know how Bavarian interests are being dealt with here? I think for once, Bavarian members may now do good today in not voting for this law.

Then the Federal government would still have an opportunity to repair this. We will not vote for it. To the others, I wish a happy trip over the Bodensee – eyes firmly shut, as you gladly do it [Augen zu und durch, wie Sie es gerne machen].

Thanks for the attention.

 

[trans: tem]

 

Jörg Meuthen, October 9, 2019, Brexit

Jörg Meuthen

Brexit

EU Parliament, October 9, 2019,

P9 CRE-PROV(2019) 10-9 (1-071-0000)

[Jörg Meuthen is a national chairman of the Alternative für Deutschland 

and he leads the AfD’s delegation in the European Parliament where the AfD

belongs to the Identity and Democracy party.]

Frau President. Herr Commission President Jüncker. Herr Barnier.

Allow me to enlighten another aspect. I am horrified over what has been reported of the telephone call between Frau Merkel and British Prime Minister Johnson. I begin with the best of it: Merkel has indeed said that Germany could without a problem leave the EU. That was always an option, although not a good one. Yet in the view of the chancellor there were to be sure other rules for the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom, she said, could leave when it left Northern Ireland in the customs union with the EU – forever.

Frau Merkel evidently wishes, in case of a Brexit, to partition Great Britain. What arrogance of power! Thus a United Kingdom shall become a separated Kingdom. I find that inconceivable coming from Frau Merkel who herself was raised in a divided country. How could she have presumed? Or as the British say: “How dare you!” She must know what that means. Basically, Frau Merkel has said that a deal was impossible without violating Great Britain’s sovereignty. When she concerns herself with the future border between Ireland and Northern Ireland she necessarily casts a glance at the border between Norway and Sweden. That is always a possibility. Under these provisions, further negotiations as well as a further extension conforming with Article 50 can be cheerfully dispensed with.

For once finally be honest here in this house and admit that the EU institutions are relentlessly doing everything to prevent and render impossible an orderly exit by the United Kingdom. And you always do the same, politically smart thing – namely, shove the blame [den Schwarzen Peter zuzuschieben] onto the United Kingdom. Great Britain shall now draw the dividing line, and will not agree to the EU conditions for an orderly Brexit. The Earth will continue to turn, the economic damage will be less than forecast. In political terms, it will be for the British a liberation.

[Translated by Todd Martin]

Alexander Gauland, July 26, 2019, Brexit

Alexander Gauland

Brexit

AfD Kompakt, July 26, 2019

Boris Johnson has made clear that the Brexit treaty in its present form is unacceptable to the British. The EU must therefore finally jump over its shadow and do what it always promises: bring people together. It should go to the British and at least re-negotiate the rules for Northern Ireland and so make possible for Great Britain an orderly and dignified exit.

No one can have an interest in Brexit resulting in chaos, with the British leaving the EU in enmity. Great Britain is too important to Europe for that. Brussels must finally accept that a majority of the British in a referendum have declared themselves for an exit. Should the responsible EU politicians not give up their blockade and deny London new negotiations, then is formed the impression that a disorderly Brexit will be allowed so as to terrify other states from also leaving the EU.


[Translated by Todd Martin]