Christian Wirth, September 10, 2026, Constitution Protection Office

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/93, pp. 11497-11498.

Frau President. Herr Minister. Valued colleagues.

In the year 2016 - ten years ago - the addition in the Federal budget for the 
Federal Office for Protection of the Constitution amounted to some 260 million 
euros. Since then, the Constitution Protection clearly receives almost every year 
a growth of means. In the year 2025, the means already amounted to 577 million 
euros. In the present budget for the year 2026 we have reached 690 million euros. 
In the budget plan for the year 2027, it is as per the government draft 860 million
euros, again an increase of some 25 percent in comparison to the previous year. 
What have the taxpayers received for that as a return? Since the CDU-led Federal
government under Merkel opened the borders, numerous Islamist terror attacks 
have been thwarted. Some unfortunately could not be prevented. In nearly all 
thwarted cases, if not even in every, single case, the decisive evidence came 
from secret services of our foreign partners. The Federal Office for Protection of 
the Constitution is blind. 

Why is that so? For one, the Federal Intelligence Service and the Federal Office  
for Protection of the Constitution [VS] lack authority and, for another, the 
German secret service for years is misused for criminalizing unfavored opinions 
of citizens and the opposition. A unique proceeding among democratic states!
The Federal government now wants to work on the problem of the absent 
authority, yet with its planned reforms clearly goes too far. For Interior Minister
Dobrindt has overtaken from his predecessor the partisan political narrative that
the greatest danger proceeds from the extreme right. 

Instead of, at enormous expense, gathering crimes of opinion and construing an 
unconstitutionality beneath the threshold of criminal culpability, the VS should 
apply itself to the actual threats to our free, democratic basic order. Those are 
espionage, terrorism and violence-prone extremism.

The Constitution Protection shall however in the future not only observe, 
evaluate and report, but itself covertly intervene in the reality. Among other 
things are foreseen the access to private IT systems, entrances of domestic 
dwellings, interventions in data connections, as well as the deletion or 
falsification of stored information. Those affected, under circumstances, could
never come to know of such measures. 

Especially alarming is the planned possibility of recruiting of 16 and 17 year olds
as confidantes. Minors would thereby be made paid informers of a domestic 
secret service. This is no harmless instrument of inquiry, ladies and gentlemen, 
but an attack on trust, family, school and social cohesion. A state, Herr Minister, 
which makes spies of minors tends not to freedom but to denunciation. 

Still more heavily weighs that the Constitution Protection's draft shall enable 
diverting or altering data streams, providing false information and deleting or 
falsifying stored data. The secret service thereby from observer becomes actor.
And the control is not convincing. An independent control council is indeed 
foreseen. In urgent cases the authorities' administration shall nevertheless be able
to immediately carry out measures. The control then follows subsequently, while 
a report on the Mebrofenin [radioactive tracer] can be permanently omitted. The 
control board in addition shall be elected by the parliamentary control board on 
which the largest opposition delegation, the AfD delegation, is denied a seat on 
partisan political grounds, even though it is legally entitled [rechtlich zusteht].

Konstantin von Notz (Green): You will not be elected! In a 
democracy elected! You are entitled to absolutely nothing!
[Ihnen steht gar nichts zu!]

The obviously partisan political misuse of the Constitution Protection now certainly
becomes public when party politicians of all colors strike an alarm shortly before 
a possible AfD-led State government. The State Office for Protection of the 
Constitution may in the end be accountable to an AfD interior minister. Hear, hear!
Involuntarily comic and self-revealing!

The chief of the Thüringen Constitution Protection Office and SPD member 
Stephen Kramer wants in the future to withhold from the Sachsen-Anhalt 
colleagues, for example, information from the Constitution Protection association,
and have specific agents and sources withdrawn and overtaken by other authorities.
Many citizens may ask themselves in regards such plans what then is actually sought
to be hidden with such measures. 

Ladies and gentlemen, the AfD stands for a domestic secret service which occupies 
itself with the actual threats. 

Sebastian Fiedler (SPD): Say for once something on Russia! I'm
listening! What do we do with Russia?

Those are terrorism, espionage and violence-prone extremism. Here, we extend the
hand, Herr Minister. 

Many thanks and Glück auf!

[trans: tem]

Kerstin Brinker, July 2, 2026, Housing in Berlin

Berlin Abgeordnetenhaus, Plenarprotokoll 19/89, pp. 9106-9108.

Oh, man, that was class warfare rhetoric par excellence - without an economic 
understanding of the matter.

Right honorable Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. Dear Berliners.

Who works in Berlin, provides for a family, cares for relatives, or is every day 
concerned for that our city functions, needs naturally to be able to live here. 
That is a quite simple standard, and by which the Berlin housing and building 
policy needs to be measured.

Many Berliners however unfortunately experience the opposite. They find no 
suitable housing when their lives are changed. The Berlin housing market is 
quasi frozen. Who has an affordable dwelling remains housed there, even 
if it is no longer suitable. Who urgently requires a new dwelling finds none
which he can afford. That is the result of years and decades of false course 
corrections in the housing and building policy. Responsible are all those who 
in the last 30 years have sat here in the government, namely those who now 
so loudly brag and snort they knew entirely better. Nein! You are all 
responsible for this shortcoming, from left to black all. Just one little 
indication: Under red-red-green, the rent in Berlin doubled. Na, oh Wunder, 
how did such happen? - Through your senseless, fully incompetent economic 
Politik. 

Berlin requires not only corrections in individual laws or terms, Berlin
requires a change, primarily in regards costs and guidelines, and we 
require a rational investments climate. Therefore, these leftist 
expropriation debates need finally be off the table. Expropriation creates
no housing, expropriation however stands for more debts, for complicated
and expensive [aufwendige] processes, and an inflated new state economy. 
Honored Linke, Greens and SPD! Name me one country in which communist 
redistribution, thus the abolition of private property, lead to more prosperity
for all. You cannot do it. 

It plainly does not, because life does not work thus. Communism - what 
you want - leads to a scarcity economy, and straight to a shortage of housing. 
All, up to a small political caste to which you all openly want to belong, are
in the end in communism similarly poor. Should that be our future model of
living? Ours does not agree. 

Who wants to abolish property profanes the basic ideas of the sozial market 
economy, and needs not wonder about absent investments. Who wants more 
housing needs to make construction possible. That begins with reliable terms
and clear competences. Construction planning and approvals are not allowed 
to last longer than three years and buildings, before all, need to become less 
costly. For that, the construction guidelines need to be considerably reduced, 
and over-drawn additional obligations be dismantled. The law for simple 
construction is certainly a beginning, but it does not suffice by far. Every new 
obligation in the end makes the rents more expensive. Every unneeded
prescription makes new projects more difficult, and each regulation makes 
projects more difficult. Who wants affordable housing must thus speak 
openly of the real costs, namely those originating from the state.
The state's quota in regards construction - this, I've never heard here - 
is meanwhile at, believe it or not, 37 percent. For 100 euros of 
investments in construction, the state's quota costs 37 euros. The state is 
the costs driver. With taxes, levies, bureaucratic hindrances, the state, 
the lawgiver, thus you, makes more expensive the construction for us all. 
If this cost factor were cancelled, then rental costs in new construction
could be no more at 20 euros but at about 14 euros net per square meter. 
Here you see what a leverage effect this has. This applies for all things 
regarding the disastrous added energy requirements. Climate policy 
symbolism is not allowed to further increase the expense of housing 
construction. What costs much and brings scarcely anything may not as a 
rule be accepted. 

The private housing business which is here so diabolized presents the 
largest part of the Berlin rental housing market. Those are the small and 
mid-sized landlords. Who incessantly frightens them off, diminishes the 
supply of housing, and who diminishes the supply of housing intensifies 
the housing emergency. Thus finally stop measuring all landlords 
by one measure. Black sheep are everywhere, and need to be and will be 
held to account. Yet surely the small, private landlords suffer even now 
under the prevailing regulations. 

Therefore we are also opposed to the rent registry. You will not manage
the black sheep with a registry, they always find the gaps. The honest 
landlord, he is always the dummy. That cannot still be! Ever more small 
landlords want to take leave from the housing market and sell. Three times 
they may consult with those to whom they then sell. - They sell to the large 
investors, to the internationals, to the funds, to the insurers. 

Tobias Schulze (Linke): You must find that good!

Do you notice something? You drive the Berlin housing market with your 
regulations into a complete dead end. You always achieve exactly the 
opposite of what you actually want to achieve. That for once finally needs 
to be realized, Herrgott noch mal!

Frank-Christian Hansel (AfD): Bravo!

What instead needs to happen? - In regards the housing construction 
promotion, Berlin requires a clear standard. Rent allowances and 
supplements housing money for WBS Berechtige [housing entitlement
certificates] can of course work faster than a promotion of individual 
objects. The sozial housing needs to succeed with those for whom it was 
conceived. False verifications need to stop. Sub-leasing of sozial housing
is not allowed to become a business model. Cooperatives need to be 
more strongly supported, and Berlin needs to make possible long-term 
property formation. Housing ownership protects against old age poverty, 
and that is no secret.

Frank-Christian Hansel (AfD): Right!

Housing ownership protects against dispossession and against dependency 
on the rental market.

Tobias Schulze (Linke): When the rents are too 
expensive, the people should stop buying, neh?

Here we see a top priority completely neglected for decades. A city 
which gives up on ownership for normal employees, takes from Berliners
opportunities for security and quality of life. 

Tobias Schulze (Linke): The market regulates that, 
Frau Brinker!

I say what you here can learn for once: In Berlin, the housing 
ownership quota is around 14 percent. Have you taken a peek at the other
major European cities?

Tobias Schulze (Linke): The market regulates that!

- Ja, wunderbar! - Paris: 30 percent, London: 50 percent, Budapest, Warsaw
even a 80 to 90 percent ownership quota! They do not have such a problematic
situation like Berlin, because we have never taken care to promote that 
the normal employees be in a position to provide themselves with housing
ownership. Precisely that is the problem.

The Berliners feel the consequences of the false housing construction policy
every day. Families find no larger dwelling, seniors find no smaller housing, 
young people do not leave the parents' house. Many businesses which keep
Berlin running can scarcely afford this city. The state-owned firms are here 
for that. The state-owned housing stock is, despite 400,000 units, a scarce 
public good which requires a fair distribution.

On that account, we are for that we allocate our state-owned housing to the 
Berliners. The state-owned undertakings, in 2024, rented on average at 8.81
euros Nettokalt [per square meter, without heat], the free supply price was 
around 14.50 euros. Thus who receives state-owned housing obtains a real 
opportunity to be able to live and remain in Berlin. Thus precisely is this 
allotment question of public housing no peripheral matter, but a central 
component of construction policy justice. 

To the point, we want and we require a transparent allotment model of 
state-owned housing by way of a reasonable point system, as is possible 
and was implemented in other cities. It considers the local connection, key 
and scarce occupations like tradesmen, nurses, police officers, firemen, 
honorary officials. In any case shall be considered as well additional 
sozial criteria: Handicap, old age mobility, cramped living conditions of 
families, income from the housing entitlement certificates. These are all 
people who require the sozial housing of the state-owned firms. Decisive
is thus: Who here lives, works, overtakes responsibility, he shall receive a 
publicly promoted dwelling. That would be just because it considers the 
roots and the Berliners who over decades finance the housing construction
with their taxes and duties. 

Ario Ebrahimpour Mirzaie (Greens): Housing space 
for white Germans. You want that!

It is a sozial point system because it includes the actual need. It is practical
because it creates a standard which all citizens can understand and examine. 
The standard for us is simple. 

Ario Ebrahimpour Mirzaie (Greens):  Racism is your 
standard!

Who keeps Berlin in the running needs to be able to live in Berlin.
I am grateful for your attention.

Frank-Christian Hansel (AfD):  Bravo!

[trans: tem]

Leif-Erik Holm, July 9, 2026, Public Broadcasting

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/89, pp. 10933-10934.

Dear citizens. Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

The theme of public broadcasting [öffentlich-rechtlicher Rundfunk, ÖRR]
affects very many people. They are rightly discontent with an extremely 
expensive broadcasting which we all need to finance and which at the same
time often reports without balance. When over 40 percent of the citizens no 
longer trust the ÖRR along the path, then is clear: We need to change 
things, and that we will do. I personally will also do that in my 
homeland in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern if I should become the next 
minister-president.

The question is: Is in the digital age still at all required so large a public 
broadcasting? The media supply is meanwhile gigantic; there are many 
free providers on the internet. And that is thus good. In this place, I thank 
all who are active on the internet, for thus has been developed a corrective
for a public broadcasting very close to the state. I say in addition not 
everything on the internet pleases me. Yet there is a distinction to public
broadcasting: I need not pay for it. 

Martin Renner (AfD): So it is!

And exactly that is it. While we need pay for everything on the ZDF, even 
for a dose of poison like Böhmermann, things can be freely received on the
internet. I can really understand anyone who no longer wants to finance 
the format like “Böhmermann” and Co. 

Maik Brückner (Linke): I don’t want to finance you!

That of course goes for me exactly so. Unfortunately, there are too many 
examples of it.

It is ever again the problem in the public broadcasting: It plainly does not 
report as it would be in its contract, objectively and balanced, but it ever 
again has a slant. We see that in the talkshow invitations, in the ever again 
tendentious reporting. For example, it was asserted in the NDR, in regards 
me in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, our government program had a völkisch-
nationalistischen keynote – completely absurd!

Everyone who has seen the program sees it. Even other journalists shake 
their heads over it. Or it is seen in the “Correctiv” fairy tales, or in the attack
on Elon Musk, he had called for a hunt of migrants. That completely
by-passes the truth. On that account: The ÖRR need not complain about its
loss of trust.

The citizens do not want to pay 9 billion euros so as to then receive 
curated [betreutes] television. They want an honest service provider which
says to them what is, which shows them the entire picture in a debate so 
that the people themselves can form an opinion. And here the public 
broadcasting ever again fails. 

Maik Brückner (Linke): Just don’t scream so!

In addition, the costs run out of control. When intendants earn more than 
the Federal Chancellor – over 400,000 euros per year – that can be 
explained to no one. We will change that. 

We need also end the power of parties in the supervisory boards. I find 
it an unequalled impudence that in regards to me in Mecklenburg-
Vorpommern, the Minister-president Schwesig deployed two active State
legislative politicians in the NDR broadcasting council. I find that simply
not suitable.

One thing is clear, ladies and gentlemen. If the AfD in the autumn 
overtakes responsibility in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, then there will be 
reforms. For the broadcasting clearly needs to become cheaper. It needs 
to guarantee a balanced reporting. And the partisan clique at the 
broadcasting and administration council needs to stop.

Therefore, my promise: As minister-president, I will directly after 
overtaking office cancel the NDR broadcasting contract

Vice-president Josephine Ortleb: Your speaking time is 
at an end. 

because it is necessary. 

[trans: tem]

Alice Weidel, July 9, 2026, Industry, Budget, Free Speech

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/89, pp. 10882-10883.

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

The Chancellor is there; I can see him back there.

Beatrix von Storch (AfD): He shuns the picture in common!

Herr Merz, since you are in office, with narrow-minded assurance you do 
the opposite of what you have promised and what would be right for this
country. 

Michael Kellner (Greens): “Narrow-minded assurance”, yet you 
know of what you speak, or?

You wanted to speak on the situation. You have not done it; for the situation
in this country is disastrous. Month by month, 15,000 industrial workplaces 
fall away. The auto industry is in a downfall. The de-industrialization turns 
into mass flight. Even Volkswagen staggers. 100,000 workplaces are on the 
verge. Suppliers and service providers fall like dominoes. Not a week without 
bad news. The German Mittelstand expends reserves. The insolvency tsunami 
expels prosperity and good jobs from Germany. Every 20 minutes a German 
firm goes bankrupt. The productive future investments have fallen to the null 
point. Germany has declined in international competition.

The ideological costs of your Politik and the Politik of your predecessors 
burden the German economy and all Germans and are no longer to be borne. 
At 6 trillion – 6,000 billion – euros estimates the economist Bernd 
Raffelhüschen the accumulated costs of the German migration policy. So 
expensive again becomes the failed energy transition if it is then executed to 
the bitter end, and nothing other than an industrial desert is left behind in 
Germany.

And the citizens and the taxpayers? They grow poor. They feel the downfall 
every day in their own pocketbook. The sozial spending explodes. It rises faster 
than the pay. Who works and pays taxes, he is the dummy torn between rising 
tax and duties costs, escalating costs for energy, housing, cost of living, and 
shrinking real incomes which everywhere do not suffice for a living. Out of 
such a situation there is only one exit: To lower the state expenditures, to 
eliminate all that is superfluous from the budget, to end the ideological wrong 
way, to leave in the citizens’ pocket more of the hard earned money, and to 
immediately liberate the economy from bureaucratic and fiscal restraints and 
immediately end the artificial increased expense and scarcity of energy. That 
is precisely what you promised the citizens before the election. You do the 
opposite. 

Instead, you deride the taxpayer with an anti-reform package which lifts the 
exploitation to the next stage. You preen yourself with a fake tax reform. You
do not relieve the taxpayer, you further burden him. You increase and discover
new taxes on tobacco, plastic, alcohol, sugar and crypto investments. You cut 
the parents money, burden families, increase the sozial contributions. Under the 
title “rich tax”, a pure tax of envy, you draw money from the pocket of the 
Mittelstand. You load the accounting for the expenditures. You one-sidedly
seek out the taxpayers and contribution payers and in addition insult them – 
they should work more and longer, not so many sick days – as complainers who 
should step aside, if you please. 

So that citizens and journalists put fewer inconvenient questions, you tighten  
the freedom of information law. You give more competences to the secret 
services and to the Constitution Protection. Ja, the fleecing and the suppression 
of the citizens and of the opposition need to conclusively proceed with the state
repression. 

And that fits that today your Ursula von der Leyen of the CDU in the EU 
Parliament wants again to have by expedited motion a vote on the total control
of the citizens, chat control, after this was rejected umpteen times. Vote until it
passes! By the total control in autos, in the chats, you thus want to control the 
citizens, while Ursula von der Leyen has deleted her Pfizer deals by SMS.

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): It’s about sexual abuse of children!

I say to you one thing: To you applies the saying “All men are equal, many are 
more equal”. And that exactly is your CDU Politik summed up. 

You put forward a draft budget and a finance plan which explode all limits 
of  the spending frenzy and debt-making. You thereby further finance the eco-
socialist climate protection ideology of which the rest of the world for long 
wants to know nothing more. You continue to squander billions and billions 
of  euros for useless development aid which makes BlackRock still richer and 
nourishes some profiteers and lobbyists. With your Politik, you serve not 
Germany, but perhaps secure for yourself a high paid occupation by 
connection after you have left behind nothing other than scorched earth.
You pump additional untold sums into the NGO swamp and into the migration
industry, even when its favorites sink into a morass of corruption and infidelity; 
or, like the flight assistant of the murderer of six in Stade – from the SPD – are 
entangled in criminal machinations. 

You stir up Kriegsangst, and mis-use this as a license so as to, under the pretext
 of security expenditures, let fall the last inhibitions in regards debt-making. You
drive the arms spending to astronomical heights, without that thereby something
would be won for Germany’s security. Instead, you construct a state-controlled
and -financed armaments economy as a replacement for the real industry directed 
to fundamentals – an armaments industry the products of which you donate to 
the Ukraine. 

Year by year, you want to make more than 200 billion euros in debts; that is 
one trillion euros until 2030. In the next year alone, we pay interest in the sum 
of 40 billion euros, this year 32 billion euros. This then accumulates until 2030. 
I know, you laugh, you find that funny. 

Heidi Reichinnek (Linke): We don’t laugh. We suffer. 

To 2030, we have an interest service of 80 billion euros. – Listen to yourselves, 
for you cannot deal with numbers, especially you of the SPD. You can’t do it. –
You thereby risk losing Germany’s top rating in the capital markets. Your 
financial policy drives Germany directly into state bankruptcy, and the owners, 
the citizens with homes and mortgages, into ruin. Who profits? Perhaps BlackRock
or international investors can purchase at the lowest prices the German real estate 
in the year 2029 or 2030 at the latest. There again is closed the circle for this 
Chancellor Merz.

You leave behind a heap of rubble for those who come after you. A heap of 
rubble! I can say one thing to you: We will, despite this, accept the challenge and 
do the necessary when the voters give us the mandate. 

Dirk Weise (SPD): That, they will not do!

And when everything will have been knocked kaputt by you, we will liberate the 
state budget, the sozial system and the taxpayer from unnecessary and harmful 
spending and subventions. We will cut back the rampant Staatsapparat, halt 
the mass migration into the sozial system and push the consistent deportation 
of illegals and criminals. And we will abolish the individual right to asylum! We 
will end the ideological energy transition and lower the oppressive energy costs 
and tax burden. We are ready to overtake responsibility for Germany. Finally 
make free the way for a new government!

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Boring!

That is the one service which you can still do for this country, Herr Merz!

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Boring! Always the same!

[trans: tem]

Tino Chrupalla, July 9, 2026, Merz Government II

German Bundestag, July 9, 2026, Plenarprotokoll 21/89, pp. 10868-10871.

[...] Let us come to healthcare reform and to the first day illness note, Herr 
Chancellor. And here again becomes clear that you really have null empathy,  
primarily for the citizens. Were such a proposal submitted by me and us, I 
would place myself before the voters. You however are full of mistrust and 
ill will in the face of the sick. Much more, you would thereby still further 
strain the already thin medical coverage. There are now full waiting rooms and 
long lines at the doctors' offices. There is actually shown that you apparently
do not at all know what proceeds out there in the country: Full waiting rooms, 
as was said, added to that the documentation obligations, overburdened health 
personnel; these then need to wait in line at the nearest doctor's office for an 
illness note. 

Herr Merz, such unmenschliche proposals will only be represented by politicians
who themselves seemingly never worked with the hands, but only have controlled
foreign capital from a manager's seat as an upper employee. 

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Does that apply to Frau Weidel?

Please do not get me wrong: I rejoice for everyone who in his calling is successful
and earns money. Those citizens who even perhaps came somewhat easier through 
these difficult times will nevertheless even so be burdened by your unpleasant 
approach to Politik.  

Wherein we also see you generally plan new costs. Just in the health field, the 
chronically ill and families will be burdened with the greatest costs - be it the reduced 
subvention for dental replacement, the obligatory costs of co-insurance for spouses, 
the rising costs for pharmacists, or the financing of gaps in the rescue service. All that 
damages the provision for young and old, their health and the attractiveness of our 
country. You drive with these measures remaining medical professionals out of the 
country. You worsen the health of middle- and low-earners - this is besides the 
majority of the citizens in Germany - the retirees and, before all, the future generations. 
Herr Merz, you also ever more leave the way of the sozial market economy. The bow 
is more quickly over-stretched than you actually think. 

The Alternative fur Deutschland is also here in position to build bridges, for the market regulates much in the area "Business and Economy". In the area of basic duties of the 

state, like health, education and infrastructure, or affordable energy, we in Germany see 

the state obliged. The people primarily need again to be at the center of Sozialpolitik, 

those who have contributed to creation of value and are also plainly active and will be active: Those are our children. With them stands and falls a sozial system. It thus can 

conclusively only be about using the savings potential of 12 billion euros in the area 
of Bürgergeld contributions for precisely this group of persons, so as to bring into 
employment all, namely those who are capable of work and are of corresponding 
age and thereby ending the state incentives for tax-financed non-work.

This concerns even so the immigrants into our sozial system, primarily from the 
Ukraine and from Syria, as precisely those who simply no longer want to 
work because they have settled themselves. Only with a strong focus may we 
strengthen the sozial accounts and, before all things, the community. We thus 
need to take in hand quite clear limitations and also formulate severe penalties 
for benefits abuse. These are exactly the important signs to the majority of 
citizens that thereby their hard work and willingness to perform again pays.
Germany can thus also again become family- and children-friendly. Like a 
thunderclap then the news of the planned cuts in the parents money hit all 
young families. You have spoken of families and children, Herr Merz. I am 
astonished that you at all formulated that. Yet which signs do these cuts send? 
What is this actually for priorities of this Federal  government? We have in 
Germany meanwhile the lowest birthrate since 1946. And what comes from 
this government, what pertains to family policy, what pertains to promotion?
Nothing. Null. That is really a disgrace for this country.

This Federal government wants to obligate everyone up to the 70th year of 
life to work, and invest preferably in panzers instead of children. It will play 
off the generations one against the other, and in the end commit the valuable 
tax money to none of either side.

You want the control of conflicts and wars not through diplomacy but through  
sanctions. These damage the German economy, the German people and the entire
European continent. Peace means prosperity, and prosperity is the basis of
security. 

Yet with horror I need see that you want to achieve the prosperity at the cost 
of peace. Massive upgrades and armament have nothing to do with the mandatory
fulfillment of alliance obligations. In the past twelve months, the spending for war 
weapons increased about 25 billion to over 124 billion euros. You regularly
celebrate your armaments intoxications, and have no one who wants to take up 
arms. The Federal Minister of Defense, Pistorius, needed to painfully experience
that following the reaction to approximately 300,000 questionnaires sent for 
military registration - merely a scarce 530 reports for voluntary service followed.

Beatrix von Storch (AfD): Hear, hear!

The German people quite obviously no longer want to have themselves made 
fit for war.

And the young generation has decided. The time of the War Minister is past. In 
place of being employed in the construction of a destructive war economy, there
needs finally again be at midpoint an impulse for a peaceful living together between
the peoples of Europe. The NATO could be an alliance of peace, and not the finance
machine of the Ukraine war.

For a conclusion, yet a brief remark on law, and on the obligation of parties for 
holding their party meetings. We are all legally obligated to the same conduct. Just so 
more reprehensible are the calls for violence of individual members of this sovereign 
house who have exchanged democracy for the right of might. We could see in Erfurt
who these are, who ostensibly defend our democracy. They of course have 
contributed to that Apollo journalists were victims of uncontrolled assaults and the 
split in our society was driven ever deeper. The security measures for our national
party meeting in Erfurt cost many weeks of preparation time by police and Bund 
security forces. I want in this place to state to all mission forces my express thanks. 

President Julia Klöckner: Please come to a final sentence.

Dialogue and diplomacy are also the basis for security and prosperity.

Many thanks.

[trans: tem]

Volker Schnurrbusch, July 9, 2026, Humanitarian Aid

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026) 07-09(4-0019-0000). 

Her President. Frau Commissioner. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The less real influence the EU has worldwide, the more it portrays itself 

as a moral great power. Nothing against assistance in acute emergency 

situations and the protection of humanitarian personnel, but your resolution 

wants to make of humanitarian policy a permanent instrument in the 

billions with its own implementation architecture and sprawling political 

obligations.

It's always the same pattern: The Greens demand in the Bundestag three billion
euros, yet as long as in Germany bridges decay, hospitals suffer a personnel
emergency and retirees need to gather deposit bottles, such an application is 
simply inappropriate. 

And what happens with the money? In Yemen, the GIZ [Society for International
Cooperation] for years misappropriated German aid money - manipulated accounts,
gang-organized fraud, two-figure millions in damages which here will be further 
reinforced: The financing of NGOs and oftentimes corrupt regimes without we 
in Europe gaining something from it.

And where in the world our aid shows good results, it is often others who profit
from it. China manages its development policy strictly geo-strategic, and 
exclusively for its own uses. If Europe does not want to be the useful idiot who 
prepares the field for China's investments, then this claim to saving the world 
needs to stop.

Humanitarian aid - yes, but oriented to need and strictly controlled. It is not 
allowed to be considered isolated from the other development policy. We require
conditionality: Who wants our means needs to cooperate in regards, for example, 
fighting illegal migration. The blank check for global NGOs and endless transfers, 
which the left half of this house into the EVP demands, that is a sell-out of 
European interests and thus we reject this resolution motion. 

[trans: tem]

Tino Chrupalla, July 9, 2026, Merz Government I

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/89, pp. 10868-10871.

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

Herr Chancellor, I really need say before all things that, in regards the first part 
of your government declaration, I really asked myself: Where do you live, actually?
In regards your statements, your wishes which you spread here, your polling
results must have gone through the roof. If one looked at that, you spoke  
of the costs of failures - of the costs of failures! I say to you: The costs of the 
failures rise everyday so long as you are Chancellor. Allow me please to 
continue with a citation: 

"That which the Social Democrats can do well is to make
debts, raise taxes and ever higher state spending. Now they 
give money to foreign people. We now have almost 900 
billion euros in state income. Can we occupy ourselves for 
once with the thought whether we have a problem on the 
spending side?"

End citation. The former Chancellor candidate of the CDU and CSU, Friedrich Merz, 
spread these understandable thoughts about one and a half years ago on 6 February
2025 on X. One may therein see, Herr Merz, what interests you in your idle talk 
of yesterday. It can be said, that is a mirror image of your entire Chancellorship.
It is and remains for you a unique tragedy. No one can rely on your word. You wriggle 
through autumn of reform, through reform spring, into the reform summer. In 
regards the duration, we take it you've been quite a time in a reform jam on the decaying
streets and bridges. A quarter of your government time has already run out, and we all 
know that the remaining time of this legislature until 2029 will pass by more quickly
than you believe - even if you hold on so long. You nevertheless cannot make me believe
that you had at all thought out the contested themes in the victory whirl of the spring 
of 2025.

Exactly so dishonest do you behave in the face of the citizens. The loss of trust in the 
word of this Federal government is scarcely still to be figured. You say the one thing, 
and as a rule first of all do nothing. As soon as something in the form of a law reaches 
the German Bundestag, you in the coalition are at least disagreed in the media or 
contradict yourselves on the public stage. Honestly said, I thought you in your parties
are somewhat further. All in all, you paralyze the economic and social progress. 

The Union in addition still walls itself in behind a firewall; for the party enemy 
identified by you gains ever more in approval, and you lose support and, before 
all things, credibility. You underlined this today with your speech. What however
is still not clear is, Herr Chancellor: If you in angst need to hide from us behind your
firewall, why do you actually at the same time make use of the proposals which were
worked up in our Bundestag delegation? 

Let us name it by name: You already long understood that you and your party need
to make Politik with our themes so as not to be swept from the political market, like 
the erstwhile FDP. Out of pure opportunism, you have turned left in a green direction
and drive in a circle without success. 

Your business model thereby further exhausted, you negotiate bad deals so as to 

remain in power. As example I just want to recall the climate and transformation 

fund. The increase in the billions of this budget item clearly did no harm to your 

election as Chancellor in the second round. Only, it appears you were, in your time 

out of politics, not really thus prepared for the leadership of a state. And that is 

logical, since BlackRock stands, ja, on the other side of the recipients of hard 

earned tax means which secure the return of your shareholders. 

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Ach herrje!

And precisely this you make clear with the budget Politik of your Federal 
government. Your cabinet in the 2027 Federal budget wanted to expend a 
total 555 billion euros. For that, the Federal Republic of Germany will be 
indebted by an additional 118.7 billion; with that of last year, over 200
billion euros of new debts. That is already double that of the original planning.   
Besides: Of the European treaties like Maastricht, Herr Chancellor, we 
no longer need speak at all. You for long no more observe them.

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): How then would you 
do it, Herr Chrupalla? Tell for once!

I want to again remind you, Herr Merz: A state is no business firm quoted on the 
exchange, which in any case cannot at option be quickly purchased, wrecked 
and merged.

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU):  Ever the same speech!

What however you could know: In regards to personnel and to processes, a 
state needs to be set up lean. And also there, this Federal government uses no 
savings potential in which for example it consistently takes into the state 
pension system the servants of the state, Herr Hoffmann. That would be a real reform.

 
How then do you want to still longer explain to the citizens that, for example, 
officials without a high income have at their disposal 70 percent already at 
pension age, and all others need to secure their retirement portion through ETF 
financial business, by which apparently armaments concerns still earn money 
for your war. And just in times of rising insolvencies, weak economic growth, of 
de-industrialization in the chemical industry, of the de facto elimination of mini-jobs, 
in times of war which make necessary the rebate at the pump, the sozial 
splitting needs to have an end. And just that which is financed by the community
needs to act as a part of the community. 

President Julia Klöckner: Herr member, do you permit an interim 
question from the ranks of the Union delegation, and that is from
Herr Alexander Hoffmann?

Bitte schön.

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): Thanks, Herr Chrupalla, that 
you permit the interim question. I was of course well nigh 
astonished. You speak here for minutes and thereby do what you 
always plainly do: You bad mouth [quatscht] our country into 
a depression. 

Stephan Brandner (AfD): Na, na, na!

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): You bad mouth our people 
into a depression, Afterwards, Frau Weidel will speak. She                                                       does precisely the same. Now I am happy that in your speech                                                    finally for once occurs a position which was clear on how the                                                   AfD would do it.

Bernd Baumann (AfD): We say that continually every day!

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): That was the following position:
We reconstruct the pension account when the officials finally pay
into the pension. That was finally a concrete proposal. You have 
clearly occupied yourselves with funding it. I want to share with 
you - 

President Julia Klöckner: Excuse me. Quite briefly: It needs be 
possible when a member of your delegation permits a question
that you first listen to the question. Yet this also belongs with 
that: This is impulse control. Bitte.

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): Thus, you are the delegation 
with the most interim questions, then you can also listen for 
once when someone else asks. How would that be, actually?
The AfD thus finally makes a concrete proposal. The officials 
pay into the pension account, and we thereby reconstruct the 
pension system. Herr Chrupalla, there are various studies - 
besides, the preceding pension commission also occupied itself
with this question - which have arrived actuarily at a fully clear 
result: The pension account cannot thereby be reformed and, 
before all, also not be placed on a stable footing, since opposed 
were corresponding payments costs. Apart from that, the officials
provision is fundamentally protected on that account. I now 
confront you with these studies and would gladly have your
answer whether you, against this background, still want to 
adhere to this epic proposal. 

Thus first, Herr Hoffmann. When I permit to you the question - you speak frequently
of the "delegitimization of parliament" to which we, ja, allegedly contribute - and when 
the leader of the opposition gives a speech here, then he speaks, and does not "bad
mouth", as you label it. 

Point one: You nevertheless always speak of civility [Anstand], and then I at least 
expect that you as State group chief of the CSU also have this civility. Point two: 
Yes, we in our demands have also included that all pay into the system of the 
Pension Insurance, officials also. 

Alice Weidel (AfD): And politicians!

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): Do the math!

That is justice; it is about us. You have taken the politicians as a circle of persons 
which we have always supported. You espied this from us, because of course
ever more citizens demand this. That it does not proceed from today to tomorrow, 
that officials - with a terminal date regulation - should pay in, this is fully clear.
Yet it should nevertheless be. Why? A pensioner in Germany receives an average
3,400 euro pension for the same employment time 

Alice Weidel (AfD): Clearly less!

of a tradesman, a member of the Mittelsand, a quite normal doctor, a nurse, thus 
all those who have paid into the retirement system. The average pension of these 
is nevertheless 1,200 euros for men and 1,000 euros for women. Do you find that just?
Precisely that is the injustice, and that is the two-class society in the retirement which
we want to abolish. 

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Question not answered!

[trans: tem]

René Aust, July 8, 2026, Climate, Balkans, Taxpayers

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)07-08
(3-0021-0000).

Frau President. 

Europe and Germany already have a thousand heat deaths to lament 
and, during this, one wants to make the price for energy still more
expensive by means of the CO2 emissions trade so as to influence 
the climate worldwide. Precisely this is the distinction between theory 
and practice; this is the distinction between those on the left side and 
the patriotic powers of Europe.

We do not believe that higher taxes and an added burden for the citizens 
would somehow change the world climate - and this thesis has, ja, 
already failed in reality. Instead, we want to quite practically help the 
people; for example, in which old folks homes, care residences, 
hospitals, schools are outfitted quite completely and systematically
with climate systems. We want practical Politik instead of Cloud
Cuckoo Land. 

Something else which is on the daily order is the question of 
the expansion. The Balkans are an unbelievably important region
for us; they are strategically important for Europe. On that account, 
we also want that the Balkans and the European Union work together
much more closely; for example, by means of privileged trade relations
- that these be still further expanded. 

What we however do not want is that these countries in the present 
situation are accepted into the European Union. We do not want that 
additional recipient countries are accepted which at the end of the day
further and still more burden the German taxpayers.

The last expansion rounds have not been completely processed by the 
European Union. As before, there are large conflicts; as before, the 
institutional rules have not been laid out at this dimension. We first 
need to work out that this European Union and the European 
cooperation again become feasible, in which one concentrates on 
the essentials and to which are plainly not added ever new duties
and countries.

We want that the Balkans are brought up [herangeführt] nearer to us, 
but plainly without burdening the German taxpayers.

[trans: tem]

Alexander Jungbluth, July 6, 2026, European Investment Bank

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, 
P10 CRE-REV(2026)07-06(1-0106-0000).

Frau President.

The report makes clear the growing role of the European Investment 
Bank within the European Union. With a balance of around 600 
billion euros and a record volume of 100 billion euros in financings, 
the EIB has become one of the most influential of Europe's financial 
institutions. This expanded role nevertheless needs to remain anchored 
in AEUV Article 309.

The EIB was created as an investment bank, and not as a replacement 
for a political decision process. Its strength lies in the financing of the 
European economy, not in the expansion of its mandate. 
True economic sovereignty begins with a strong productive economy; 
the investment priorities thus pose a question: While 53.5 billion euros 
are foreseen for climate goals, agriculture and bio-economy receive 
merely 6.2 billion euros.

Beyond that, ten percent of the EIB financing flows outside of the 
EU. Europe should nevertheless not afford itself this capital outflow. 
The EIB should undertake exclusively investments in our national 
economies, strengthen our member states, and promote industry, 
innovation and competitiveness.

The EIB should ultimately be measured by one, simple standard: 
Whether it helps strengthen Europe's productive economy and 
the interests of its member states. 

[trans: tem]

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

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

Herr President. Honored colleagues.

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

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

[trans: tem]