Mary Khan, May 20, 2026, Victims of Migrant Crime

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)05-20(3-0404-0000).

Frau President.

A 15  years old girl in Hamburg was a victim of a gang rape. To this day,                             she is traumatized. Eleven men appeared before a court, only one was jailed. She was left in the lurch by this system, by that system which by means of the illegal mass immigration also imported the phenomenon of gang rape – even if the SPD, as before, lies about it.

And then the incomprehensible: An enraged women wrote a so-called hate commentary against one of the perpetrators and was arrested. The convicted rapist remained at large. That is no victims protection! And to victims protection also belongs justice for the parents. Since 2015, ever more migrant perpetrators are declared not legally responsible [unschuldfähig]. The mother of Lianna K. and the parents of the murdered Yannis from Aschaffenberg will never know justice since the murderers, on account of war traumas, were categorized as incapable of reason [unzurechnungsfähig] – the new favorite framing of the leftists.

We miss that in this draft and therefore we will not vote for it.

[trans: tem]

Markus Frohnmaier, May 21, 2026, Nordstream Investigation

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/80, pp. 9520-9521.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

On September 26, 2022, the greatest assault on the economic infrastructure in the history of the Federal Republic was committed. Three of four strands of the Nordstream pipeline were exploded – critical infrastructure in which Germany and its partners had invested over 16 billion euros.

Today, in May 2026, we still have no conclusive explanation. We know only: Seven Ukrainians are under earnest suspicion, among whom is a Ukrainian former secret service man as operations leader, and a saboteur who previously received military training with the Bundeswehr – you heard right: German taxpayers have paid for the training of the man who later blew up German energy infrastructure. Thus appears Ukrainian gratitude and the short-sightedness of this government.  

The Federal Court of Justice on December 10, 2025, in all clarity declared: The explosion was a violation of German rights of sovereignty. The pipelines were no legitimate military target, certainly after Germany had supported the Ukraine with weapons and billions of euros. The act occurred with a high likelihood – listen well, dear colleagues of the CDU – by state order, at least of the Ukraine and perhaps also of additional states. Period!

And the Federal government? Silence in the woods. I put a written, single question to the Federal government, quite simple: Have you requested an extradition of the five suspects to be found in the Ukraine? A question to be answered with yes or no. A question which any government which acts in the German interest, which does not understand itself to be Kiev’s marionette, would have answered with a clear yes. Yet the answer of Herr Wadephul’s ministry: Rejection, no information can be given on this.

Either the Federal government has never seriously demanded an extradition – or the Ukraine has rejected it. In both cases, ladies and gentlemen, it is a scandal which this Bundestag needs to clarify. Ladies and gentlemen, who does not answer such a question, he has something to hide. Who does not answer such a question, he does not serve Germany. Who does not answer such a question, he serves someone, but not the German citizens. 

Who then in these days – and this is the last straw – proposes an associate membership in the EU for the Ukraine, a country at war, inclusive of EU assistance clauses, dear CDU/CSU, he serves a foreign country to which he can send his own children. As a father of two children, I distinctly say to you one thing: You don’t get my children!

Let us look at Warsaw: There, a court has quite knowingly set free one of the suspects. A provocation contrary to the state of law. 

Alice Weidel (AfD): Absolutely!

Quote, Minister-president Tusk: “Europe’s problem…is not that Nordstream 2 was exploded, but that it was built.”

Irene Mihalic (Greens): So it is!

Ladies and gentlemen, it is unbearable that an EU partner approves of terrorism and sabotage against German infrastructure and that in this regard until today there is no clear reaction from Berlin.

This shows one thing quite clearly: In foreign policy, this government consists of servants of foreign interests. 

Jürgen Hardt (CDU/CSU): This, the righteous says!

I promise you one thing: We will end this national self-abasement for which the CDU here in Germany has to answer. 

Instead of demanding compensation from Kiev, instead of defending German interests, Chancellor Merz publicly excludes the re-start of the intact pipeline – a voluntary self-mortification. While German households today pay 80 percent more for gas, while our industry for this pays quadruple what American competitors pay, you sacrifice our energy sovereignty on the altar of unconditional loyalty to Ukraine. Germany has transferred 94 billion euros to the Ukraine since 2022, 55 billion euros for the military alone. For thanks, President Zelenskyi, to whom all of you here collectively in plenary session, with a non-parliamentary term for a  designated body part, have crawled, according the Wall Street Journal, has quite personally approved the terror operation. 

Alice Weidel (AfD): So!

Ladies and gentlemen, the question is no longer whether an investigative committee comes, the question is why you are afraid of this. You for years have left your own people in obscurity. You have taken care for the perpetrators’ business, 

Jürgen Hardt (CDU/CSU): You stand on the side of Russia!

President Julia Klöckner: Your time has run out. 

and undertaken as good as nothing to hunt the perpetrators. I promise you one thing: 

President Julia Klöckner: Your time, regardless of promises, has run out.

You cannot still take up time.

The investigative committee will come at the latest after the next Bundestag election. 

[trans: tem]

René Aust, June 15, 2026, European Economic Independence

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)06-15(1-0060-0000).

Over night, Europe was cut off from leading technologies. In this area also, the dependence on the United States of America once again became a boomerang . Yet who actually is responsible for this? Just a few decades ago, it was so that Germany in regards the development in this area was quite advanced; names like Schmidhuber and others were exemplary for that. 

Yet it is so that the financial regulations here in the European internal market make it ever more difficult to really drive forward such large developments - in contrast to the U.S.A.. And the AI Act, the law on artificial intelligence and the regulations pertaining thereto were once again - so as to formulate it carefully - over-formulated. The excess caution, to be able to regulate in advance all that is possible, lead to that our firms could not develop at a sufficient scale - in contrast to the United States of America.

Today, the outcry is again great. We need to place more freedom and less bureaucracy at the disposal of our businessmen. Yet in other areas also the dependence of Europe and Germany is simply horrifying because we thereby make ourselves liable to extortion. Europe needs more partners in the world, and this only works when those responsible in Europe no longer instruct with the upraised middle finger and want to re-educate other cultures, but by which we extend the hand for honest cooperation.

[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]

Hans Neuhoff, May 19, 2026, EU Defense and the U.S.A.

EU Parliament, Strasbourg,  P10 CRE-REV(2026)05-19(2-0383-0000).

Frau President.

The United States is withdrawing troops which in the course of the Ukraine crisis it had moved to Europe. That was politically announced and thus foreseeable.

Who is now concerned the U.S.A. would quite suddenly leave Europe in the lurch, can calm down, turning to the other page: Great powers tend to have their vassals tremble occasionally. Yet the U.S.A. will not choose to to give up its bridgehead to Eurasia. The true enemy of Europe is not the Russian Federation but the Islamic totalitarianism. It threatens the open societies not only from without but also from within – supported by the leftist-green zealots of this parliament. 

Thus the actual question is not whether America remains. The question is whether Europe will awake. Who preaches strategic autonomy may not at the same time order his security policy maturity in Washington [darf nicht zugleich seine sicherheitspolitische Mündigkeit in Washington bestellen]. It does not go well together to emancipate oneself rhetorically from the U.S.A., yet to practically always purchase new weapons from it. 

[trans: tem]

Christine Anderson, May 19, 2026, EU Veto Right

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)05-19(2-0150-0000).

Mr. President, history teaches us something important: political systems tend to become more bureaucratic when confidence in their political leadership dwindles. Once democratic trust declines, institutions attempt to compensate through procedures, frameworks and mechanisms. Bureaucracy, however, must not ever replace legitimacy. As Hannah Arendt warned, bureaucracy easily becomes the rule of nobody, a system in which decisions are made everywhere, while responsibility is nowhere to be found.

An EU without the veto right of Member States would slide down a very dangerous slippery slope, which we are actually seeing already. A Union that struggles to build democratic consent falls back on permanent crisis, government governance and an ever-increasing institutional expansion, while gradually hacking away at the very roots on which it rests – the sovereignty of its Member States.

But Europe does not need a permanent machinery of governance, nor does it need a foreign policy detached from its nations and peoples. It needs democratic legitimacy, and it needs accountability, and it needs leaders capable of building consensus between sovereign nations. Because once unanimity disappears, the EU ceases to be a union of equal nations, cooperating freely. It becomes something fundamentally different, a union subjecting sovereign nations to its rule – a foreign rule. History has seen such systems before – Rome, the Soviet Union. Hit the books, read up on it and draw the lessons.

Christian Wirth, May 6, 2026, Immigration Law

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/76, pp. 9113-9114. 

Frau President. Valued colleagues. 

A nation consists of a citizenry [Staatsvolk], state borders [Staatsgrenzen] and state power [Staatsgewalt]. This has bestowed on us for decades security, prosperity and a solid sozial system and with which we improvise [damit wir die Notdürftigen auffangen]. This system since 2015 crumbles. It is characteristic that today two delegations, which are rather socialist oriented, put forward respective motions as if to say: All may enter, none need go. 

You have at least acknowledged that, according to German asylum law, anyone can be turned back at the border who comes from a secure third state or an EU state. Yet let us consider the Dublin decree. What is in the Dublin decree? In article 1 of the Dublin decree is that a state is responsible for the examination of the asylum application. That makes sense. 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): The rest of the article you have not read?

Since the 1990s, since the first Dublin treaty, two things were important: For one, asylum shopping shall be abolished, thus no refugees in orbit: Which is to say: No asylum applicant shall be able to seek out a system, a country, in which he receives the highest sozial payments. For another, no situation shall be created where no state considers itself responsible. That is the expression of article 3, paragraph 1, of the Dublin III decree whereby only one state is responsible for the examination and the execution of the asylum application. 

Who is responsible? That is in article 13 of the Dublin III decree. Responsible primarily is the state in which the member of the third state for the first time enters the EU. There are exceptions which are to be examined; for example, in regards family members in another state. 

How do we examine this? In article 20, paragraph 4, of the Dublin III decree is expressly provided that, for this, there can be at most two states: The state into which the third state member enters the EU, and, when he arrives in a further state, the state which then has to examine which state is responsible. That is in the rule of the first state, i.e., for Germany, when family members are there. 

Now comes the decisive sentence. In article 3, paragraph 2, is provided that every EU state is justified to then turn back at the border when it is clear that the processing of a member of a third state, of a migrant, is to be carried out by another state. That is nothing other than what is provided for in article 18, paragraph 2, of the Dublin III decree. And there provides: When another state is responsible for the execution of the asylum procedure, every EU state can turn back the refugee. That is precisely what German asylum law also says. 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): A proceeding is required! 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): We need do that once!

You demand the observance of EU law. I think, we are agreed: EU law is contract law. We have a contract between EU states and the EU. Everyone needs adhere to contracts – pacta sunt servanda – regulated in the Vienna convention on the law of international contracts. 

Now there is article 3, paragraph 2, of the EU Treaty which also applies to Schengen and to  asylum: There is provided: 

           "The Union shall offer its citizens an area of freedom, security and justice without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of persons is ensured in conjunction with appropriate measures with respect to external border controls, asylum and immigration and the prevention and combating of crime."

What did the EU do? It fulfilled none of these treaty requirements. We indeed have, in article 23 of the Basic Law, given over in part our sovereign rights to the EU. Nevertheless, the EU has obligations, and when it cannot fulfill these obligations there is, according to article 23, paragraph 1, of the Basic Law a regualtion – a subsidiarity principle – which says: We need to concern ourselves with our own affairs. That is to say: If we want to have security, order and an asylum system which function, then we ourselves need to regulate that, because, for that, the EU is not in position. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Tomasz Froehlich, April 29, 2026, Russian Athletes Ban

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)04-29(3-0414-0000). 

Frau President. 

You want to exclude Russian citizens from large sporting events. That disgusts me. That disgusts me because it is small-minded, dishonest and, at its core, totalitarian. Yes, Russia has attacked the Ukraine and, yes, we condemn that most sharply. Yet what can the Russian athletes do? You ascribe to the innocent a collective guilt, you take the innocent into a guilt by association. And it is pure civilizational regression. For, was the exclusion of the American athletes demanded as the U.S.A. marched into Vietnam? Or into Guatemala? Or into Cambodia? Or into Nicaragua? Or into Panama? Or into Somalia? Or into Yugoslavia? Or into Afghanistan? Or into Iraq? Or into  Libya? Or into Iran? Where was your guilt by association there? Where was your collective guilt thesis there? Where was the outrage? Nothing, null, nada! According to your logic, the U.S.A. would have been allowed to take part not a single time in the Olympic Games in regards all the wars which it has conducted. And no, please do not mis-understand, that would be wrong. Since American athletes can do exactly as little for the Politik of their government as do the Russians. 

Sport should unify peoples, yet you abuse sport for dividing. Your entire indignation is pure hypocrisy. It is a sign of weakness. In the Ukraine, you have achieved nothing. You pump billions into a corrupt leadership in Kiev, while our people are ever more impoverished. You torpedo peace efforts of others, yet yourselves renounce peace diplomacy, Frau Strack-Zimmermann. You impose sanctions which harm us more than Russia. You prolong by all that only the war. Internationally, no one takes you seriously. Generally, Brussels is left out. This, what you are here managing, is a hateful symbol Politik at the cost of the innocent.  More, you cannot do. Diplomatic failure paired with geo-political meaninglessness. A pity that Europe has sunk so low. 

 

[trans: tem]

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]

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?

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]

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]

 

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?

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]

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 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]

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]

Mary Khan, February 10, 2026, Mass Immigration in Spain

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, February 10, 2026, P10 CRE-REV(2026)02-10(2-0460-0000). 

Herr President. 

Of what leftist governments are capable, Spain shows us. A half million illegal migrants, simply with a wave of the hand, will be thus legalized, inclusive of work permission and the prospect of a permanent residency in Europe. This, what we since 2015 experience on our continent, has nothing more to do with measure and control – and I say this to you as someone with a migration background, because there is a great distinction between regular and irregular migration. 

This, what Spain now plans, manifests a destructive policy from which our continent in foreseeable time will scarcely recover. It is quite clearly a political signal. It is a signal to the world that illegal residency – yes, and that is a crime – in the end pays. It is a signal to Europe that national ideological projects are obviously more important than responsibility in our Schengen area. Since anyone of these 500,000 illegal migrants can tomorrow freely move about in all Europe. And they will move about, and indeed to Germany, since, following the legalization, there is clearly more money here than in Spain. That shows the true face of leftist policy. 

When it is recognized in regards one’s own people – this is quite important – one in the long-term can no longer convince, then a new group of voters is sought. Thus the earlier Spanish minister from Podemos quite clearly and before all fortunately welcomed it. Migration, so she said, needs be used so as not to leave leave society and democracy to the wrong ones. Everyone knows what she thereby meant. 

Herr Magnus Brunner, directed to you: We had two important votes today which go in the right direction so as to be able to finally control the problem of the migration policy. We expect from you it will be tested here, primarily according to Article 258 of the EU Treaty. That would be for us quite right, since this, what Spain is doing, will ultimately pull us all into bankruptcy. 

 

[trans: tem]

Siegbert Droese, February 9, 2026, Digital Euro and Inflation

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)02-09(1-0107/0115-0000). 

Frau President. Frau President Lagarde. Honored colleagues. 

We debate today the year’s report of the European Central Bank. This report shows primarily one thing: A central bank which is ever further removed from its actual mandate. The monetary policy of the last years has led to noticeable inflation. Millions of citizens, savers, pensioners daily lose purchasing power. Instead of clearly reappraising these failures, the ECB already plans the next profound intervention – the digital euro. 

The digital euro was sold to us all as a harmless modernization project. In truth, it is a political project which deeply intervenes into the citizens’ financial freedom. The digital euro solves no real problem, nevertheless creates numerous new risks. It is a great experiment. A digital euro creates the very concrete danger of step by step driving out cash. It makes possible the state tracking of payments, and opens the long-term possibility of taking influence in how and for what citizens may use their money. Who believes this instrument would never be politically mis-used ignores the experience of history. 

Yes, President Lagarde, you seek to pacify us today, in which you announce the third series of euro banknotes. Yet: The Alternative für Deutschland, the ESN delegation, demand a clear return of the ECB to price stability, transparency, and adherence to mandate. No digital euro without unlimited preservation of cash, no further power increase for an institution without democratic control. Stable money and freedom go together. Both today are on the daily order, both today are in play. 

[…] Herr colleague, many thanks for your speech. You speak of the ECB’s duty: Currency stability, price stability. The ECB president today here admitted in parliament there supposedly had been in the past only 10.8 percent inflation. Now the inflation is again at a normal level. The question to you: Do you believe that the ECB heads, Frau Lagarde is here present, that the ECB heads realistically estimate the social consequences of inflation? 

 

[trans: tem]

Ruben Rupp, January 15, 2026, TTPA and Freedom’s Advocate

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/53, pp. 6312-6314. 

Right honorable President. Honored members. 

The CDU Minister-president Daniel Günther just a few days ago quite openly declared the press to be an enemy. He spoke of censorship, ja, even of a ban of free media – statements which, let us be honest, had they been used by an AfD minister-president 

            Bettina Hagedorn (SPD): Happily, there are none!

would have immediately led to demands for a party ban proceeding. They will now by the Union be relativized and applauded, dear colleagues of the CDU/CSU. If you have the decency, then distance yourself here and today from such authoritarian fantasies of the minister-president. 

            Maja Wallstein (SPD): You speak like the blind man of color. 

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): Wow! Can the next speaker do the same?

Especially handy for Günther and his supporters is that the European Union meanwhile delivers precisely this tool suitable for his authoritarian dreams from the Digital Services Act, which the coordinating office for digital service in fact degrades to a censorship authority 

            Konrad Körner (CDU/CSU): That is false!

by the planned EU chat control which shall make possible an unfounded mass surveillance of citizens, up to a so-called decree on “transparency and targeting of political advertising”; in short: TTPA. And before you, as so often in these debates, respond to our motion [Drucksache 21/3609] with over-reaching allegations: 

            Ronja Kemmer (CDU/CSU): Mimimi!

Just because we want to cancel the TTPA is not to say we are against transparency or would tolerate foreign influence in elections. 

            Anna Luthmann (Greens): Ach so!

These fairy tales of the AfD as a supposed foreign marionette are simply untrue. Possibly you are simply envious because you yourselves scarcely still have international contacts. In short: This marionette card is in all cases the cheapest propaganda, and I am sure you will again today unpack this propaganda, because you have no arguments against the AfD and against this motion. 

            Sonja Lemke (Linke): We have quite good arguments against the AfD!

In fact, this decree is an attack on the opposition and freedom of the press. Yet in turn you come along. 

Ostensibly, the TTPA theme comes as so often with an apparently plausible reasoning: No influencing of elections! Yet it’s only about transparency. That this decree for transparency is not necessary is shown by the state of the social media prior to the introduction of this decree. 

I myself have connected digital advertising on Facebook. I needed to quite clearly specify who financed the advertisement, needed to authenticate it with the personal statement, and much more. That was transparent, that was sufficient. 

What now does the TTPA do beyond that? Expensive compliance, extremely difficult targeting, massive legal insecurity for platforms. What now exactly is political advertising? And at what point is it political advertising? – And a high risk of compensatory fines for the smallest mistakes! The result: The effective withdrawal of almost all large platforms – Meta with Facebook and Instagram, Google with YouTube. Since October 2025, political paid advertising in social media is de facto no longer possible. 

And whom does that harm? Not the governing parties, not the established media houses, 

            Johannes Schätzel (SPD): So far from the reality!

not ARD and ZDF. Harmed will be new parties, opposition forces, critical associations, candidates and think tanks. And yes, quite especially Germany’s strongest party, the AfD, will be harmed. Since we are present in the digital spectrum, because we enjoy no favorable, continual coverage by large publishing houses, or by public broadcasting media, like all of you here. 

What thus here is in fact happening is the targeted shutdown of a political competitor under the pretense of an ostensible transparency. I say: Away with this undemocratic, junk decree of the European Union! 

And if you now ask: Yes, AfD, what then is your solution for the influencing of elections? Quite simple: The fight against foreign influence is a duty of the security authorities, among others, the Federal intelligence service [BND, Bundesnachrichtendienst]. This ought to be strengthened. Since in the secret service work, we are meanwhile near completely dependent on the U.S.A. – and that because you in the area of security- and key-technologies have slumbered for years. That is your responsibility and your failure. 

Nevertheless, you are especially disillusioning in this debate – and this I cannot spare you, Herr Digital Minister Wildberger – with your cabinet draft law for political advertising transparency, the national ensuing legislation for the TTPA. This draft in regards so-called advertisers, thus parties, associations, business and political candidates, expressly enables house searches and seizures on account of ostensible violations of transparency. We are here quite quickly into criminal law. Who works politically needs in the future to thereby figure that he receives a house search. 

            Johannes Schätzel (SPD): Such rubbish!

And just retroactively can he defend himself against that. You thereby clearly create an intimidation effect. I ask you: Is that your idea of freedom of the press and fair, democratic competition? Ours is quite clearly not. 

And it becomes still worse. In regards danger in delay, house searches shall even be possible without legal writ. What may we then imagine of that? Does that mean that the successful pay videos, critical of the government, from Alice Weidel or from Nius chief Reichert are a danger in delay? The video is uploaded – danger in delay – and directly there are house searches on the initiative of the coordinating office for digital services which is controlled by the Digital Ministry? Need we imagine it? 

            Johannes Schätzel (SPD): Nein!

That something so is at all in a cabinet draft is incomprehensible. On this account, I say: Without delay, take back these regulations, Herr Digital Minister. 

If you do not believe me: It is in black and white in §6 and §7 of the cabinet draft. I myself have again taken a peek. I yesterday questioned the minister in committee. He disputed all of these problems which I listed here, designated the criticism – by analogy – as disinformation. 

            Konrad Körner (CDU/CSU): You too! 

            Johannes Schätzel (SPD): You too!

Herr Minister, here is the last opportunity to set it right. 

I expect here and today a clear statement of the Federal government. Take back this cabinet draft! Or do you adhere to seizures and house search even without a judicial decree? Yes or no? It cannot be so difficult to here clearly declare. 

Regardless of how the Digital Ministry positions itself, the AfD remains now and in the future the advocate for freedom. 

            Bettina Hagedorn (SPD): Hahaha!

You can be sure of it. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]