Alice Weidel, March 21, 2019, Brexit

Alice Weidel

Brexit

German Bundestag, March 21, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/89, pp. 10495-10496

[Alice Weidel is a chairman of the Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag delegation. She here responds to the German government’s latest statement concerning Brexit.]

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Worthy colleagues.

Frau Chancellor, you have spoken of the insecurity which Brexit will bring. We have thereby learned nothing new. It was your tested brew of boilerplate and sedatives. One thing is clear: This Brexit will be expensive – expensive for the EU and thus by definition expensive for the German taxpayer: Expensive like the banks bail-out, the Greek rescue, the energy change, the border opening, the destruction of the German automobile industry and key industries and the gigantic inflation of our common currency. Future-oriented policy appears otherwise, right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

Thus now the part you had in Brexit, which, in the best case, was one of negligence, though it was a rather intermittent assistance. In this way are the historically good relations with the United Kingdom endangered. Since what frightfulness had David Cameron demanded? No social assistance instantly for all, stronger national parliaments, less EU bureaucracy. Yet for that he bit granite in Brussels. It would have been a great opportunity to make and maintain a trimmer community, recollecting the core proposition of a common market. But no, no way. You prefer to put in play the cohesion of the EU member states.

Now we struggle with the reckoning: In the future, the 15 billion euro British contribution will be missing from the budget. Every family indeed knows when the income shrinks to more tightly fasten the belt, but not the EU. It does not have to, not when the German taxpayer is the paymaster. Greater than the hole in the EU balance sheet are the costs to the German economy. The United Kingdom is the second largest economy in the EU, as great as the 19 smallest combined. From the economic viewpoint, the EU thus shrinks not to 27 but to a total of 9. The unconcern and indifference of Brussels and Berlin regarding this matter, manifestly of the greatest magnitude, borders on a pathological denial of reality, right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

The United Kingdom is Germany’s largest trading partner in the EU. With no other country are the economic interweavings so close. Unhindered conduct of trade and investment clearly lies in the German interest. German prosperity, German jobs are here in play. You however place yourselves with unquestioning loyalty [Nibelungentreue] behind France which wishes even to deny to the British access to the common internal market. You are even weighing the possibility of not conceding British access to the European economic area because Paris rejects it. That would also be much too much: Much too much free trade, too much fresh air in the market, too much competition and contention over the best economic site. Of self-sufficiency is there nothing in your ratified Aachen Treaty which is extolled as the crowning of the Élysée Treaty. What a conceit! The Aachen Treaty from front to back bears a French handwriting. This “Europa”, for which centrally organized France with its failed industry and economic policy serves as a blueprint, is coming sooner than one thinks.

At the latest then, when the European Council next votes, will we see it quite precisely: The costliest consequence of Brexit is that Germany can no longer muster a blocking minority in the Council. In the present EU of 28, Germany represents 16 percent of the population, Great Britain 13 percent, making a total of 30 percent. With some of the smaller countries – Denmark, the Netherlands, Austria – was a blocking minority always secure. Thereby one could defend against a grab at the common till by the crisis-shaken “Club Med” states as well as by France. With Great Britain’s exit, that will now soon be history. And it is becoming clear: Without reform, the European Union cannot go on. Where is your strategy? You generally have none at all.

We begin with Article 50, which regulates exit. It is as bloated as a sponge. The only concrete instructions therein are how desertions and betrayals are to be dealt with: According to Article 218, thus as with any Choice-X third party. For a partner with whom one has lived together, in good times and bad, for 40 years can one not really find a modus other than that for Paraguay and Papua New Guinea, right honorable ladies and gentlemen?

That is just bare-faced scorn. Is it to be wondered that the British suspect ill will behind any maneuver out of Brussels? Brexit negotiator Barnier should have trusted his erstwhile friends. I cite:

            My mission will be a success when…the conditions…

            for the British are so brutal that they prefer…to remain in the European 

            Union.          

            Alexander Lambsdorff (FDP): Nonsense!

Who has such friends, needs no enemies, right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

           

            Alexander Lambsdorff (FDP): Unproven nonsense!

There is not a word of self-criticism on the continent, none in Brussels, none in Berlin, certainly none in Paris. The contrasts of those in Brussels are made distinct by Brexit. It also shows where Europe’s true enemies sit: among others, here on the government bench, right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Europe is too important to abandon it to them. Looking away is not worthy, nor is running away. The EU must be reformed from within. To that belongs the national states’ right of veto against the proposals of Brussels, as exactly so does a reform of exit Article 50 to maintain the internal market, even for the exiting country, and the securing of the EU external borders, which we for years have required. And to Europe belong our British friends, right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

Many thanks.

            Martin Schulz (SDP): European party spending regulation! Including 

            Switzerland!

[Translated by Todd Martin]

Albrecht Glaser, February 21, 2019, Brexit

Albrecht Glaser

Brexit Legislation

German Bundestag, February 21, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/83, pp. 9785-9786 

[Albrecht Glaser is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the central German state of Hessen. He has a number of years of experience as a public administrator and elected official and is currently a member of the Bundestag finance committee.] 

Herr President. Honored ladies and gentlemen. Honored fellow citizens - those who are still there – a hearty welcome. 

On March 29, 2019, at 11 PM, the British exit from the EU will take effect. This step was desired by a narrow majority of the British electorate on June 23, 2016. Whether or not it will result in a treaty, we do not know – apparently not. 

In 1973 the United Kingdom joined the EWG [European Economic Community]. In 1975 this decision of the British government was also agreed to by a wide majority in a popular referendum. In the 70s and 80s a preponderance of trades union members and officials demanded England’s exit from the EWG. Since the 90s, an exit has been demanded by an Independence party founded for this purpose as well as by several conservative politicians. The question “National State or Union of States with Discernible Development into a Super-State” has thus been put to this country for decades and, with great import for world history, will now be answered in favor of a far-reaching national sovereignty.

Considered by the world norm, the Kingdom returns to normality. Other than Europe, on no other continent is there a process of de-nationalization and with it the de-democratization in favor of supra-national quasi-states. From China, Japan and Russia, across Africa to South America, is it nowhere discernible that such a development is appearing, although one could most nearly propose something of such a fantasy in South America due to language and cultural affinities. 

Generally in the world, there have continually been military conflicts between states, especially between neighbors. Nowhere in the world is the Über-state seen as a problem solver for peace, democracy and human rights. Europeans should reflectively concur on that. 

As is well known, the grumbling of the people is to be heard in Europe. Its denunciation as nationalism and provincialism will be properly taken as the arrogance of the economic and political elite. How one is to best build a secure as possible world is an open question. Europe thereby does not become the orientation standard for the rest of the world – and with its decreasing population, the steady regression of its portion of the world economic performance, and its military agony – from year to year always less so.  

Today we are to dispose of two drafts of exit accompaniment laws which should shield citizens and businesses from Brexit. We regard these from the financial perspective as being reasonable; they ought to be fashioned with the discretion as would have been necessary in earlier negotiations. 

In regards finance, ten laws in eleven articles will be altered, from income tax law to pension fund supervisory regulation, of which each of you has heard. The government with its draft has corrected much and, nevertheless, forgotten much. It would have been more fair to conduct a public hearing of experts and, in our view, more surprising were the numerous suggestions also actually converted into substance. 

To the original 20 specific alterations of law are now a further 11 to be added. They refer to inheritance and gift tax, the real estate earning tax, the payments service supervisory law and the securities transaction law. We see a difficult detail work which is nevertheless of great importance for the real life of citizens and businesses. To represent that – as has been suggested – I can cite: 

Due to Brexit’s legal requirements, a dwelling in England requiring repair must not be disposed of. Building savings banks must leave their invested capital in England. Damage clauses in insurance policies with English businesses shall, for an interim period, be able to continue in effect. The British business form of Limited Company in Germany can be converted into a business of German legal form without having to reveal silent reserves. An exemptions clause for family businesses in Germany which have a British share of assets and much else are further subjects of these regulations. 

Together with this legislation, the federal government contemplates the introduction of a special notice of affairs for financial institution risk carriers; there have been discussions thereon. It seems plausible and meets with our agreement. 

The consultation process – I want to expressly emphasize this – in the finance committee, as well as the news conferences, are conducted factually and seriously. 

            Fritz Güntzler (CDU/CSU): As always!

Accordingly, the results are good and the entire legislative proposal meets with our approval… We will reject the motions of the FDP and the Linke. 

Otherwise, it is as I have reported and I have reported throughout with great calm and joy. 

Hearty thanks.

[Translated by Todd Martin]

Martin Hebner, January 17, 2019, Brexit

Martin Hebner

Brexit

German Bundestag, January 17, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/74, pp. 8600-8601

[Martin Hebner is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the southern German state of Bavaria and is an information technology consultant. Foreign Minister Heiko Maas was German Justice Minister in the summer of 2017 when the Bundestag passed the German internet enforcement law (NetzDG) which places substantial financial liability upon social media firms which fail to achieve a required degree of censorship on the internet. Edmund Stoiber is a former Bavarian Ministerpräsident and chairman of the Christian Social Union in Bavaria who subsequently served as an advisor to the EU Commission.] 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

All contracts must be announced, including those of marriage. For all are there rules, already made known before concluding the contract. Not so for EU membership! A separation for the EU was unthinkable, a sacrilege as formerly was divorce. And now we are experiencing a quite unpleasant, frankly dirty divorce. 

Herr Minister Maas, the British know what they want. They want not to be defined by foreigners [fremdbestimmt]! 

Over 60,000 bureaucrats work in Brussels, of whom 30,000 alone are engaged by the EU Commissioners. Naturally, they will at no price surrender their power and position. The Brussels bureaucrats will not allow their institutions and authorities to be questioned or be seen to be questioned. Yet the EU bureaucracy is not without alternative, exactly so, Frau Merkel, as the euro rescue policy. 

            Reinhard Houben (FDP): Like the European Parliament! 

We therefore want to help the British. The EU commissioners in Brussels direct us with their thousands of employees and lord over the citizens, who know not even one of the names of the EU Commissioners, with the possible exception of Herren Juncker and Oettinger.

Herr Minister Maas, you are responsible and known; one sees you at least occasionally. Here, when a minister, to put it crudely, makes a mess, then he is dismissed –  

Franziska Brantner (Bündnis90/Grünen): The Commissioners also, Herr Hebner, by the European Parliament. 

- insufficiently, I am sorry to say, in the case of the internet enforcement law [Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetzes, NetzDG]. The EU Commissioners however can do, or not do, whatever they want. They are infallible, like the Pope or the religion. 

Franziska Brantner (Bündnis90/Grünen): No, that’s not right. They can be voted out by the European Parliament, which you want to abolish! 

In this situation, the goal of many British is to “Take back control”. The British wish the return of the direction of their own country. 

The 28 EU Commissioners also have no interest in giving consideration to justifying their existence, either to themselves or to the citizens. In this house has there been much too little said in regards this matter. It would be immediately denounced as if it were a blasphemy. But with the Brexit, the Götterdämmerung has begun.  

And Brussels wants to delay this Götterdämmerung with the mud-fight over the separation, over Brexit. Prolongation is the means. That is definitive not only for the British, Herr Maas, but also for the EU negotiations management…And thus the two year duration of negotiations and the intractability now come to the present point, the only point to be properly arrived at, ladies and gentlemen: other nations are to be intimidated from such a step. 

All EU reform proposals put forward by Herr Cameron have run out in the sand. He was, sorry to say, not really supported by the federal government. Herr Stoiber had also once called for the dismantlement of the EU bureaucracy. 

            Florian Hahn (CDU/CSU): He had also done it, Herr Hebner. 

After he had entered the EU Commissariat, nothing more was seen of him. The EU was and is un-reformable. And that is something which disturbs many of the British: the EU Commissioners command with ever further expansion of their authority. 

“Take back control” is the motto of the British. What you have not understood – what we have in fact heard from Herr Brehm – and do not want to understand, is that many in our country, like us, are in no way enemies of Europe. 

Alexander Lambsdorff (FDP): Herr Gottschalk has in fact said that the EU belongs on the dung heap! 

We are against this EU bureaucracy and against this excessive centralization. We are convinced Europeans but not centralists. And the EU bureaucracy is in now way without alternative.

[Translated by Todd Martin]

Jörg Meuthen, November 13, 2018, Reply to Chancellor Merkel

Jörg Meuthen

Reply to German Chancellor Angela Merkel

European Parliament, Strasbourg, France, November 13, 2018 

[Jörg Meuthen is national co-chairman of the Alternative für Deutschland and the lone AfD member in the European Parliament. German Chancellor Angela Merkel had earlier spoken to the European Parliament and agreed to a proposal made by French President Emmanuel Macron for a European army. The no-bailout clause referred to is Article 123 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union: “Overdraft facilities or any other type of credit facility with the European Central Bank or with the central banks of the Member States…in favour of Union institutions, bodies, offices or agencies, central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of Member States shall be prohibited, as shall the purchase directly from them by the European Central Bank or national central banks of debt instruments.”]   

Frau Chancellor, the balance of your policy is, not only for Germany but also for the EU, a singular disaster. In the autumn of your time as chancellor, that becomes ever more obvious. At no time have you recognized an authentic vision of European policy. And earlier today you delivered a horror show of surrender of national sovereignty. A common European army presupposes a common military command over 27 nations, the existence of which is indiscernible. 

Where leadership would have been required, you have allowed yourself to be driven by disinterest. Where formation was required, for you suffice administration and a simple slackness. You have always only trimmed to the appearances. You have thereby not only achieved nothing, but you have in your years as chancellor, wrought heavy damage on the European Union.

In regards the euro, one sees with your violation of the no-bailout clause in the year 2010, how nations like Italy and Greece have been driven into a dead end situation, while the German savers have been expropriated by negative interest rates. You have tossed out the euro rule book because you understand nothing of economics. The bad consequences of this become discernible as business cycle growth now comes to an end.

You bear the guilt for Brexit because you left David Cameron standing in the rain when he despaired of finding partners for a European reform program. And today, just a few months before Brexit, you trouble yourself not at all for the requested solution to continued free trade with Britain or in the least for the interests of the German export economy. 

With your unilateral, entirely extra-parliamentary opening of the borders in 2015, you have tossed out the Dublin rules. To this day, you have not understood what incalculable damage you have thereby caused. 

Now it suits you to make the next historic failure. While ever more nations correctly conclude not to sign the UN migration pact, are you here again on the wrong side. You implement your fundamentally false migration policy to the greatest possible harm to Germany and to the European Union as a whole. 

It is high time for the approaching European elections. A new generation will succeed. And we free men will stamp our mark on this house. We will make of the EU what it ought to be: not a super-state subordinating national democracies, but a service organization for a Europe of nations. 

The EU requires this new beginning. With you, the necessary reforms will not be made. Frau Merkel, for once do something right and not just halfway: There is no alternative to your speedy resignation as chancellor. Frau Chancellor, I put it to you in your own words: “You can do it!“

 [Translated by Todd Martin]

Alice Weidel, October 17, 2018, European Union, Brexit

Alice Weidel

European Union, Brexit

German Bundestag, October 17, 2018, Plenarprotokoll 19/57, pp. 6248-6249

[Alice Weidel is a delegation chairman of the Alternative für Deutschland in the German Bundestag. Chancellor Angela Merkel had previously made statements indirectly accusing the AfD of spreading disinformation concerning a recent alleged murder of a German citizen by a Syrian immigrant in the eastern German city of Chemnitz. Street protests immediately following the killing were characterized by Merkel as a “Hetzjagd”, a term akin to purge or pogrom. Hans-Georg Maassen, president of the constitution defense office, was dismissed after criticizing that characterization. Christian Lindner is the chairman of the FDP.] 

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

Concerning disinformation, dear Chancellor, a word: when the president of the constitution defense office is expelled because he has contradicted your disinformation, then what is thereby indicated of your understanding of democracy? 

Concerning Brexit, I wish to cite: 

I cannot exclude that the British exit would excite a desire for more in 

other countries. 

Thus EU Commission president Juncker in May 2016, a few weeks before the Brexit vote. By such statements was made evident how the line of march of the commission and of the Chancellor would appear. Instead of acknowledging with humility the results of a democratic election in a partner country and practicing self-criticism, it is immediately agreed in Brussels that an example must be made: Great Britain must be punished. That is your policy. 

The now concluded, half-hearted extension of the transition period thereby also changes nothing, since access to the internal market for the British is already reduced. The European Union’s conduct of negotiations with the second strongest European economy is unfair, indeed, it is irresponsible. 

The EU bureaucrats are worried. Without a threatening demeanor, the Union itself by all appearances might no longer hold together. And that, Frau Chancellor, have you indeed in your speech quite clearly expressed: Parties which dare to contradict will be sanctioned. Reason seemingly no longer plays a fundamental roll. An ethic of opinion rather than of responsibility, that is your guiding maxim of management. 

While the history-nourished economic relations between Great Britain and the remaining continent are fecklessly destabilized, as you are doing, while a collective self-destruction is managed, Europe is left to whistle after the global economy. That affects before all Germany, since Great Britain is one of our most important trading partners. For these challenges, we require answers, answers which, up to today and in your speech, have not been delivered. Very well, we proceed. 

It is in the interest of our country that a free exchange of goods with the United Kingdom be securely and equitably regulated. Also, the European Treaty’s exit article 50 must be reformed for future exit candidates. That I required already before Brexit. 

The question of what comes after the exit door must still be clearly defined. The suitable treaty format is already at hand – the agreement on the European economic area…of 1992. Here is guaranteed the four freedoms, the movement of goods, capital, services and persons. We must in this regard refashion the movement of persons. We need a free movement of employees and self-employed, not free access to the social system. 

In a community of common liability in which, after Brexit, there is no veto minority, in the end it is Germany that pays, and no competition, no successful economy, is any longer possible. The ordnungspolitische principle of the unity of management and liability is violated and leads to the mis-allocation of capital, as we see today. And therefore we require a new conception of Europe, a reconsideration of individual strengths. A federation of states, instead of a federated state, is here the solution. 

In a successful community, the possibility of rejection and withdrawal must always apply; in brief, red card or exit door. That is to say, the member states by means of the veto power can make alterations and exceptions or, due to the inalterability of the rules, membership can be renounced. That makes for competition, a site competition, a competition of the best system, which we so urgently require. 

Europe must again consider the founding principles of subsidiarity and the rights of national parliaments. Therefore, as a first step, the legislative authority must be withdrawn from the EU Commission. 

Roman Herzog, already in 2014, had turned to you, Frau Chancellor, and clearly demanded: 

We require a right of self-defense for the national parliaments against an

over-stepping of authority in Brussels. 

Unfortunately, the words of the former president of the federal republic and constitution

justice, for you, have fallen on deaf ears. An opportunity for Europe would yet –  

            Christian Lindner (FDP): Subsidiarity reprimand. 

“Subsidiarity reprimand”, I hear here, united with a distinct reconstruction of the EU, of the institutions that indeed hinder just that site competition. What might this reform look like? A union of states, with members with equal rights, which organize a free commerce among themselves, without assumption of liability and without bureaucratic threats. 

Yet we do the exact opposite: A fiscal union by means of tax harmonization, a social union by means of migration into the social system, a collectivization by means of ECB financing of governments, are not the answers to the future of Europe, esteemed ladies and gentlemen. 

The elected national parliaments require a clear veto power against the handicapping of Brussels. Member states, when in doubt about the odds-making in Brussels, must be allowed to decline, and let it be completely clear: Authority over the EU institutions belongs to the elected national parliaments and not the other way round. 

Only thus will Europe again have a future, and so preserve what has always been agreed Europe is to be: A unity in variety. Many hearty thanks.

 [Translated by Todd Martin]