Marc Jongen, December 17, 2024, Roumania, TikTok, Democracy

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE(2024)12-17(2-259-0000). 

Herr President. 

It cannot be conceived: Yesterday this parliament applauded the nullification of the democratic presidential election in Roumania. When the wrong candidate is in the lead, who does not suit the EU elites, then he obviously must go. We are on the way to a totalitarian system, ladies and gentlemen. And what is the reasoning? Manipulation of citizens on TikTok by foreign agents. 

You credit the citizens with so little discernment. You see the citizens as a manipulated mass. That is a declaration of bankruptcy. Following this logic, all elections in Germany need be nullified, since there the state media manipulates without end – but then nothing will be done. Yet when a 14-year-old posts something patriotic on TikTok, then in the morning the police are at the door. Where are we coming to? And following this logic, all elections could be nullified at will. Since how can the foreign influence ever be proved? 

Democracy enjoins accepting the will of the people, and even if it does not suit you. Respect that, if you want to be called democrats. 

 

[trans: tem]

Christine Anderson, November 27, 2024, Ursula von der Leyen

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2024)11-27(3-0025-0000.). 

Frau President. 

Donald Trump presents his new cabinet: Highly competent patriots determined to Make America Great Again, determined to again make policy for the people. And what do we get? You, Frau von der Leyen –hearty thanks. The wrecking ball which mercilessly demolishes all that made the European peoples strong. I want a Europe which is strong, sovereign and successful; a Europe of success, a Europe of freedom, of democracy and of the state of law. With you, we receive nothing of all that. 

Frau von der Leyen, you alone would be bad enough. Yet the prospective commissioners which you have gathered, they are the purest wrecking crew as far as freedom and democracy and the state of law are concerned. For once make an accounting, Frau von der Leyen, of your unspeakable mRNA vaccine delivery contract. Otherwise, your commissioners proposal can take its hat. My delegation will not support it. Now, regrettably, I am not allowed to call you corrupt, else my microphone again be turned off – but even so: Frau von der Leyen, you are corrupt to the last fiber of your existence! 

 

[trans: tem]

 

Petr Bystron, November 26, 2024, Ukraine War

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2024)11-26(2-0018-0000.) 

Frau President. 

More weapons to the Ukraine – you do it for whom, actually? The colleague has just said it: The majority of Ukrainians want negotiations, want finally peace – and for that they will even renounce territory. This is now a current poll from the Ukraine. Ten million Ukrainians have voted with the feet. They have already left the country. Among which are 500,000 men of military service age, who do not want to die most miserably. An additional 500,000 certainly could no longer vote, since they are dead. Is that not enough for you? 

Even Zelenskyi now says he wants negotiations and a diplomatic solution. That is precisely what we demand for two years. All of you have insulted for two long years those who demanded this as Moscow’s agents, as Putin’s agents. So, is now Zelenskyi Putin’s agent? Of course not. He has only noted that the war is over. Trump has won the elections. There is an end to further weapons deliveries. You here want in all seriousness to further escalate and draw us all into a third world war – just before the war’s end? 

Here actually the question needs be asked: Whose interests do you at all represent? Not those of the Ukrainian people. Here, you only represent the weapons lobby, NATO and the secret services, since they conduct the war against Russia. Who now feel themselves already in a war against Russia legitimated by no one. No parliament at any time has voted for that. The people in the Ukraine do not want the war. Most Europeans do not want the war. So stop drawing us into the war. It is over. 

 

[trans: tem]

René Aust, November 14, 2024, European Defense

EU Parliament, Brussels, P10 CRE-PROV(2024)11-14(2-0018-0000). 

Frau President. 

In the past decades, the European Union has neglected to coordinate the member states’ security policy so that a maximum standard is guaranteed for our citizens. Whether it be the defense of the air space, the ending of mass migration or the protection of our raw material or commercial routes on the world seas, we are generally dependent on the structures of the United States of America. In none of these areas are we currently in the position to independently defend our security interests. 

Yet the EU itself is guilty of this dependence. It invests much money in ideological projects – from gender questions to climate protection – it worries about all possible things, but does not correctly worry about what is important. It is therefore necessary to dismantle [zurückzubauen] the European Union: Fewer competences, fewer duties, fewer expenditures. The European level should concentrate on fewer, yet decisive, duties for all; one of which would be a coordinated defense and security policy at the European level; for example, fewer weapons systems instead of 150 in the European Union today, few of which are comprehensively compatible for the armies. 

Yet it needs be clear: More security policy cooperation does not mean the creation of a common European army. It would be a nightmare if the EU bureaucrats and Frau von der Leyen were allowed to decide on the mission of German, French, Polish and other European soldiers. The further distant from the citizens are the decisions over war and  peace, the greater is the danger that decision makers thoughtlessly undertake a war – and nothing is further from normal life, from we citizens, than Ursula von der Leyen. To summarize: We say yes to more cooperation in defense and security questions, but a clear Nein to any phantasms of a European army. 

 

[trans: tem]

Matthias Moosdorf, September 11, 2024, Foreign Office

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/184, p. 23905. 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

It would be difficult to find differing highpoints in the Ampel’s comprehensive failures. Nothing however exceeds the incompetence of the German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock. Never before has the Republic lost so quickly and so much in reputation and influence. 

You have managed to trample underfoot German interests, to bend the law and deliver over your Ministry to a green nepotism business. Open-handed gifts of passports, even to presumed terrorists: Does that actually belong to a feminist foreign policy, or is it merely normal, Green, anti-German policy? Who demands of embassies and consulates to agree to visa applications despite incomplete or obviously falsified papers, would long since no more be minister in a country with a functioning fourth estate. 

The embarrassing return of the Benin Bronzes, the routine failure of flight readiness, the much too late and poorly organized departure of Germans from Israel, consolidates the picture of an amateurish office. With rhetorical slapstick, 360 degree turns, the “Bacon of Hope” in South Africa, panzer wars in the 19^th Century, or the SPD as the inventor of the social market economy, you moreover daily send signals of a lack of education in the land of Dichter und Denker. Your blot at the European Council, “We are fighting a war against Russia”, unleashed an outcry precisely because your Chancellor took care not to make us a warring party. 

Bruno Hönel (Greens): How was it with your delegation chairman and the German poets? Do you want to tell me what that was about?

Thank God no one anymore takes you seriously! 

Foreign countries look with increasing alienation at Germany; our diplomatic relations with the most important neighbors have been destroyed. In that regard, ntv says: 

“The relations with China and Turkey are…clearly stressed; important developing countries…are alienated.”

Our

“values-led Twitter diplomacy…along with an instruction and confrontation potential, leads to that ever more of the world’s doors are closed to you. When then they…are used, as presently in the case of Qatar/Hamas, Germany has scarcely anymore possibilities of influence.” 

Deborah Düring (Greens): Say for once, you also sit in the committee! Do you actually listen? Or another to you?

And ntv further says: 

            “Not Realpolitik, but attitude and media effect”

are at Baerbock’s central point. Instead of substance, make-up and stumbling. 

            Deborah Düring (Greens): Oh! 

Bruno Hönel (Greens): Does anything substantial come here, Herr Moosdorf?

Dear colleagues, the former Ukrainian Foreign Minister Melnyk has this week demanded of Olaf Scholz to make way for peace talks with Putin. That was and is the position of the AfD from the beginning: Diplomacy, de-escalation, the search for a settlement of interests and an understanding. And that applies for all parts of this world. 

            Boris Mijatović (Greens): That is noted, ja, in your speeches!

Germany thereby of course requires no further NATO expansion to all the world, no additional color revolutions, no compulsion of woke nonsense in countries which – in a picture of the Minister’s – are “hundreds of thousands of kilometers” distant from us. 

            Boris Mijatović (Greens): Hundreds of thousands!

The immediate limitation of illegal migration, the comprehensive deportation of all those obliged to depart, a return to a definition of German interests: That, we require. Away with the sanctions which harm only us! Back to peace and sovereignty for the nations of Europe! You who are not capable of that, who disdain Germany and sell its assets dirt cheap, should finally make free the way, you and your unspeakable dilettante government. Please finally resign! 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Norbert Kleinwächter, July 4, 2024, Collective Bargaining

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/181, pp. 23574-23575. 

Valued colleagues. 

In this place, I greet all people in Germany who work hard and produce something significant. The members of the Linke group do not belong to that. You have the impudence to here again present for discussion a motion which this plenary session has already rejected, word for word – it’s about your motion in Drucksache 20/6885. 

            Matthais W. Birkwald (Linke): You did not find the distinction!

And that allows a deep look over your diligence and your intellectual depth, right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

Yet I again gladly explain to you why your demands which you have made are complete nonsense. You demand an action plan for strengthening the collective bargaining [Tarifbindung]  in Germany. First: Collective bargaining is of course a good. We want that people have wage contracts, that they ultimately have a secure work relationship. That is certainly in everyone’s interest. 

Yet we should not base that on an EU guideline. Quite honestly, the European Union has absolutely nothing to do with wage rate law. Just because some EU commissioner up there in Brussels thinks that some action plan should be developed for a collective bargaining quota of under 80 percent, we still need develop no action plan; since the European Union has nothing at all to do with that, ladies and gentlemen. That, you should for once understand. 

And generally, is it then significant to declare generally binding wage rate contracts? For starters, your argument that more is earned with collective bargaining than without is already false. We have heard differing numbers. In your motion, you write it is 36 percent more; Herr Dieron said  something like 12 percent. In fact, one arrives, when the numbers are cleared up, at 2 to 6 percent which the people earn more with wage rate contracts than without collective bargaining.   

            Frank Bsirske (Greens): Sorry nonsense!

So far, it makes no great difference. 

Primarily, it is nevertheless thus far significant for Germany as a business venue to preserve the coalition’s freedom, as a general obligation of course would also make possible excessive resolutions and thereby endanger the business venue of Germany. We also require competition by businesses not bound by collective bargaining so that the resolutions remain rational, ladies and gentlemen. 

For exactly that reason is it also quite dangerous to set aside the mechanism which we in fact have in regards the declaration of general obligation of wage rate contracts. Here it is certain that employee and employer representatives in common need to present a motion. In a wage rate committee, it will again be examined in regards the national economy, and then released or not by the Federal Ministry for Labor and Social Affairs. You want to abolish this system so that the employee representatives can even go and demand: We now want a 300 euros per hour wage for our employees. Ladies and gentlemen, I can say to you: For 300 euros per hour, then absolutely no one works, because the position no longer exists, because the employers are then simply no longer able to afford this wage. It first needs to be earned, what one is then paid in wages. This basic course in economics once again needs be given to the Linke, ladies and gentlemen. 

The solution is fully another one. The labor unions for that very reason still lose members, because they have become purely lifestyle unions, because they concern themselves with some LGBTQIA+ things, yet not in the interests of the workers, ladies and gentlemen. 

Frank Bsirske (Greens): That is clueless! You are clueless! You have no idea at all! I’m sorry! Nothing other! 

Martin Reichardt (AfD): That’s quite true for the Greens in the Bundestag! There they sit, the over-the-hill labor union bosses!

We now simply need to bring down the taxes, we need to bring down the duties for the businesses! Out of the socio-ecological transformation! Do you know how the wages then may rise? That, you simply cannot imagine, Herr Bsirske. Madness! 

            Vice-president Katrin Göring-Eckardt: Herr Kleinwächter. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Tino Chrupalla, June 26, 2024, EU and NATO

German Bundestag, June 26, 2024, Plenarprotokoll 20/177, pp. 22860-22861. 

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

We need security and cooperation on the continent of Europe. To create and maintain peace –  that will be the duty of the coming years and decades. For that, cooperative structures and alliances are required which delineate and represent the interests of the members. It is precisely these interests which are changing. 

It is the national interests which the peoples formulate vis-à-vis their state and inter-state actors. The maintenance and observance of these interests are the foundation for a successful and trustworthy cooperation at bilateral and multilateral levels. Only when the citizens are called upon, and feel themselves attended to, will they accept the institutions and the actors behind them. That is the reason for the slap, Herr Scholz, which you received at the European election; for that is precisely your problem. 

We are thus well into the midst of themes of today’s debate on the European Union and the North Atlantic pact. Both institutions should cooperate and guarantee security, freedom and prosperity in Europe. For both institutions in the time of their formation, there were counter-proposals on the other side, thus in the East. These presented a counter-proposal, but also a counterweight. 

In the time of the Cold War was placed right in the middle mutual deterrence – and by means of nuclear weapons. Today we need to re-evaluate whether these measures of force still present a promising and, before all, a negotiable [vermittelbar] strategy for pacification of conflicts. I think that is at least questionable. 

What nevertheless still remains for us, and what we should much more vigorously use, are the possibilities of diplomacy. Exchange, understanding and the willingness of individuals to understand, as well as opposed interests, will decide on war and peace. He who stops negotiating has already lost. For months, we of the AfD delegation seek to recruit for diplomacy and negotiations. Why do you not, as Chancellor and as Federal government, actively push this forward, Herr Scholz? Even today in your speech was there little of this to be heard. 

As a result, valued colleagues, both institutions – the EU and NATO – in their present form need to ask themselves the warranted question of their right to exist [Daseinberechtigung]. For quite a while, this question could be suppressed. The current security and economic policy problems in Europe however demand a discussion of precisely this problematic. 

The war still continuing in the Ukraine shows how urgently Europe needs a military alliance – no question – which represents, before all, our interests. In this difficult time becomes clear who with foresight formulates and represents our interests. A NATO in its present form can unfortunately no longer do this. Yet we are part of this alliance. Why does not the Federal government use this present status to pursue German interests? Why do not the partners help us  to bring about a clarification of the terror attack on our critical energy infrastructure? That would be the first demand that should be directed to authentic partners and friends – as we name them. That would besides, Herr Scholz, increase the credibility of which you always speak. Instead, the Ampel promotes the arming of Europe. In that regard, not a word on the NATO headquarters for the Ukraine in the middle of Germany, neither from Herr Scholz nor from you, Herr Merz. Thus is asked: To whom in that regard did you give the acknowledgement [Bekenntnis]? Exactly: To those who still have not withdrawn their nuclear weapons from Germany. You thereby fasten us still more to the maintenance of their military outposts. Better use the EU Council presidency of Viktor Orbán, and invite all warring parties to peace negotiations in Germany. That would be a sign of sovereignty. 

And in this connection: We need a Bundeswehr which can defend our country. You have bullied from the Bundestag a special fund – that is, special debts – in the sum of 100 billion euros. Much was promised, but nothing much has been realized. Quite the opposite: You prefer to demand the delivery of weapons in a war zone. Yet German weapons may serve the self-defense, not the support of foreign wars. 

The citizens were once made to believe that our freedom can be defended in the Hindu Kush. With which results? Destruction, suffering and a flow of migration which primarily endangered Germany’s domestic security. In that regard, you were often guilty of resolute action. The goal needs to be the immediate stop of uncontrolled immigration. Secure borders and consistent refusals are thereby indispensable. Simply look at the criminal statistics. There you see which problems we have with immigrants direct from Afghanistan. And we need no trivialization of the facts, as Federal Interior Minister Frau Faeser does almost weekly. The consistent deportation of culpable persons must be a consensus even so as for the rejected asylum applicants, ladies and gentlemen. 

The basic prerequisite for that is maintaining diplomatic relations with these countries; whether or not you wanted to recognize the governments is quite another matter. Yet so long as you apportion governments into first, second and additional classes, you will thereby run into scant success. As a result, you will again be disembarked, or left standing in the airplane. That is meanwhile the disastrous picture of Germany in the world which you leave behind. We are meanwhile simply ridiculed in foreign countries. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): On account of you!

Those are the present facts of your foreign policy. 

Year after year, you manage a sell-out of German interests. Your short-sighted policy disarranges growing bilateral relations and even divides the European Union without which you could not implement your policy in Germany; keyword: “Heating law”, or also the so-called climate policy. 

With the EU’s assistance, NATO’s security interests shall be implemented through the backdoor in the Ukraine and in Moldavia. I ever again say it: The European Union is not the extended arm of NATO, and is never allowed to become it. With all understanding for the individual interests, an escalation of the conflict and a prolongation of the war cannot be excluded. That applies to avoiding it. 

All of these are your duties. We would support you in that regard. You have the responsibility for Germany and its citizens. Finally do justice to this! 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Sylvia Limmer, April 24, 2024, Israel and Iran

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, April 24, 2024, P9 CRE-PROV(2024)04-24(3-036-0000). 

Herr President. 

Not just today with my last speaking contribution in the European Parliament do I stand here as a free member, and not particularly as a representative of the AfD delegation, due to a cowardly and malicious drone and rocket attack on Israel by the Iranian terrorist mullah regime. Yet not only the AfD and also the EU: Europe needs to understand that Iran’s attack on Israel and Putin’s attack on the Ukraine are two sides of the same coin. Yet the readiness to place oneself at the side of Israel is here often only hesitantly defined. 

Thus it is for me to designate the EU foreign minister’s acknowledgment of Israel’s security as  only half-hearted, and it is very disappointing. Herr Borrell, the epicenter is not Gaza but the terror attack of October 7 on Israel. Of course the concluded intensifications of the sanctions are right. Yet if a stabilizing effect in the Near East is really desired, states must be supported which guarantee aid to Israel in regards its defense. 

To write of Western values, it must be worthy of them. And most important: Strong resolution is required to stop the Iranian nuclear program. Atomic weapons in the hands of these mullahs will sooner or later be directed not only against Israel but also against us. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla, May 16, 2024, Petr Bystron and EU Election

AfD Kompakt, May 16, 2024. 

The lifting of the immunity and the search of the office and private space of Petr Bystron are a serious proceeding. So far, no evidence has been presented for the accusations raised for weeks against Herr Bystron. The AfD delegation therefore hopes for a speedy conclusion of the investigations so that the suspicion does not arise that here officials and instructed state prosecutors are attempting to influence the European election campaign. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

Harald Weyel, April 25, 2024, EU Opt-outs

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/166, pp. 21282-21283. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

It can naturally only be welcomed when, after a forced pause of almost half a century, Mitteleuropa again grows closer together. At the same time, we want to ask ourselves: What actually happened from 2004 to 2024, and why into this Mitteleuropa package, so to say, was also mixed Malta and Cyprus? In regards, Cyprus, it is certainly seen: That is an apple of discord. It is seen that the situation is in no case really pacified by the EU accession, but previously existing problems – fully financed – persist, perhaps even worsen, a solution set back at a far distance. That is also to be expected in regards an expansion by acceptance of additional countries in conflict. 

What has been experienced? In 2005, the EU referenda on the EU Constitution fell through in France and the Netherlands. Thus this inclination to a central state was similarly an addition. The accession countries could not unconditionally have its shelter because they of course had before them the EU of the 80s and 90s, and there was already enough to criticize. 

The constitution referenda failed. Nevertheless, in December 2009 further – in quotes – “improvement” was introduced with the Lisbon Treaty; namely, the assistance obligation of Article 42, paragraph 7, whereby each member has the obligation to do all in its extant power when another member is attacked. That in fact goes beyond the NATO assistance obligation of Article 5 of the NATO Treaty, in which mention is only made of doing all deemed necessary – thus ideally the provision of confetti for the victory parades which have been, ja, absent at all NATO undertakings in the last decades. 

            Christian Petry (SPD): That is sickening!

The economic and social effects have of course in part previously occurred; that is to say, investment flows by foreign investors, and by tourism and private investments. Primarily to be named is a pull of labor forces to the West, in part permanently. This labor migration is extensively replaced or supplemented by social migration to EU states, of which there is plainly more than at home. This is thus a rather negative development which is pursued or has been established. 

The EU monies which flowed in naturally have visible effects upon the infrastructure. And they were in part better invested than in the countries of the south. Thus, there, one sought to bestow superfluous golf courses and airports. It can be said that the new members invested better than many old members; in part, than many founding countries. I think of Italy. Nevertheless, these EU monies have harmed small business and especially small-scale agriculture, so far as it previously existed. 

And it is of course also to be observed that the thoroughly developed EU disease has spread to each new member country; namely, the politico-administrative complex has been fed – away from the productive economy, be it industry, be it commerce – into a party economy, to an over-dimensioned administration. All diseases of Brussels and the West were imported, have created a new class. That cannot really be seen as progress. 

Now these new member countries, especially those which have not yet accustomed themselves to all these abuses, can make a worthwhile contribution, exactly like the countries intent on acceptance; namely, an opt-out: An opt-out from the EU’s military adventurism; an opt-out from  a climate policy destructive of the environment; 

            Gunther Krichbaum (CDU/CSU): An opt-out from Russia!

an opt-out from a centrally planned agriculture and industrial policy, and a devastating foreign policy which only consists of boycotts and subventions; and an opt-out from a subsidized, treaty-violating, artificial currency. 

I thus come to a conclusion. Only so can the EU be basically, substantially and sensibly reformed. Only so can the uses of the expansion, or a contribution to the expected harms, be overcome. I thank all new and future members for assistance, particularly in regards this matter of a reform project. 

Thank you.

 

[trans: tem]

Markus Buchheit, March 26, 2024, Compulsory Refurbishment of EU Buildings

EU Parliament, Written Question to the Commission, E-000948/2024. 

The Commission has ordered the compulsory refurbishment of all public buildings in the EU. 

Can it therefore say which of its own or rented buildings in Brussels and Luxembourg, and those of its delegations and agencies, meet which energy standards? 

How much will refurbishment cost until single-glazed glass fronts, revolving doors, open garage entrances and draughty gaps between window panes and frames all meet the highest level of insulation it has prescribed?

Christine Anderson, March 20, 2024, Democracy Promotion Act

EU Parliament, Written Question to EU Commission E-000861/2024. 

Germany is in the process of bringing in a ‘Democracy Promotion Act’ designed to establish additional tools for promoting democracy. There are considerable concerns, however, as regards the act’s constitutionality and whether or not it runs counter to the EU’s core values. The criticism centres around potential government overreach and the creation of structures that threaten to curtail the freedom and independence of civil society in breach of the principles of freedom, democracy and the rule of law enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). 

1. What is the Commission’s assessment of the compatibility of Germany’s Democracy Promotion Act with the EU Treaties, particularly in view of the reservations raised by the Bundestag’s parliamentary research service concerning its potential unconstitutionality and violations of the EU’s core values laid down in Article 2 TEU? 

2. Does it consider there to be a risk that the Democracy Promotion Act would quieten or silence opposition voices and critical civil society representatives? How does this square with the principles of freedom of expression and democratic pluralism enshrined in the EU Treaties? 

Gunnar Beck, March 11, 2024, Climate Excommunication

European Parliament, Strasbourg, P9 CRE-PROV(2024)03-11(1-242-0000). 

In 1633, the Inquisition excommunicated Galileo for helio-centrism – that is to say, for his renunciation of a Church dogma that the Sun circles around the Earth. Last month, ECB director Elderson threatened all co-workers with discharge who – cite – “deny the reality of solely man-made climate change, or that the climate change endangers the price stability.” 

Now, as a conservative, I rejoice over anyone who believes that earlier was much better. However, the ECB should preferably exchange its climate inquisitors for good economic historians, who know that not the climate change but the expansion of the money supply accelerates the inflation, just as Hans de Witte and Wallenstein managed it without limit in Galileo’s time. For its climate dogma and monetary policy are the greatest hocus-pocus in Europe since the geo-centric world view. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

Alice Weidel, March 20, 2024, War and Peace

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/159, pp. 20331-20332. 

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

The omens under which you set out for this European Council are dark. The Ukraine war is already in a third year. Serious efforts to end the fateful bloodletting in the midst of Europe are  not in sight. Warmongering and war rhetoric determine the tone in Brussels as well as in Berlin. 

            Friedrich Merz (CDU/CSU): Not in Moscow?

Michel, the President of the European Council, demands: Europe needs to prepare itself for war and change over to a war economy. 

            Friedrich Merz (CDU/CSU): In which world do you live, actually?

The French state President Macron speaks of the mission of NATO troops in the Ukraine theater  of war, and boasts that France would be in the position for that. 

            Friedrich Merz (CDU/CSU): What you say, Putin could not say better!

In the ranks of the Union, in a remarkable historical amnesia, –  Herr Merz, because you the entire time interrupt – 

            Till Steffen (Greens): That’s in your manuscript, but he didn’t do that!

one dreams of carrying the war to Russia. The Union stands for that. In lock-step with the FDP armaments lobbyist Strack-Zimmermann forms a black-green coalition of warmongers which flatters itself with martial rhetoric – even you, Herr Chancellor; a shame that you are not here – and accuses others of defeatism. 

            Till Steffen (Greens): I believe that was a failure of translation from the Russian.

The bellicose over-bidding competition rings the more absurd against the background of the desolate state of our own armed forces. The Bundeswehr has at its disposal, as before, not one, single mission-ready army brigade. Nevertheless, the debate revolves steadfastly around new weapons deliveries and financial aid in the billions to Kiev, while the reconstruction of our own army and the recovery of capability for our own national defense is here obviously of no priority. It was right, Herr Chancellor, that you spoke against the delivery of the Taurus cruise missile to the Ukraine. 

Dorothee Bär (CDU/CSU): Yes, praise from the AfD! That is super for the SPD! Madness!

It would not be in the German security interest to strip our armed forces of an additional important weapons system. In that regard, the Bundeswehr does not even have at its disposal a sufficient number of these cruise missiles so as to fulfill its obligations vis-à-vis NATO. The delivery of this system, which as an offensive weapon may have effect far into Russia and can even reach the Kremlin, would be a quite clear participation in the war. The commitment of German soldiers for servicing would necessarily follow after it and thereby dramatically increase the potential of escalation. 

And even you, Herr Scholz, have ever again fallen down and have let yourself be forced into escalation. First should German armored howitzers bring the war’s turning point, then German defensive panzers and finally German combat panzers. None of that fulfilled the ratcheted-up expectations. Now the escalationists extol the Taurus as a game-changer or wonder weapon. Even with the Taurus, the Ukraine has not the faintest breath of a chance to achieve its war aims. The truth is needed for that. 

Even if this time you remain steadfast, the Nein to Taurus does not suffice. Germany is acting de facto as a war party. Germany participates by means of the sanctions in an economic war against Russia. Germany delivers weapons to the Ukraine. Germany gives to considerable extent financial assistance, 

            Christoph Meyer (FDP): Has the Kremlin written down all of that for you?

and Europe expropriates capital income on Russian reserve deposits – from my viewpoint, that is forbidden. 

Friedrich Merz (CDU/CSU): Russia Today speaks! Here is the latest news from Russia Today!

Instead of driving forward the escalation with warmongering and weapons deliveries, the German policy needs to call to mind its strengths. That means: It needs to venture all to step forward as a mediator and get negotiations underway. To that, we are besides also obligated by the peace precept in the German Basic Law. 

Without question is Russia’s war in the Ukraine an attack contrary to international law. 

            Friedrich Merz (CDU/CSU): Ach ja? 

            Christian Dürr (FDP): Ah!

Just so without question has the Ukraine the right to self defense. 

            Friedrich Merz (CDU/CSU): Aha!

The decision in that regard to support it does not however release us from the obligation to rational policy in the well understood interests of our own country and our own people. 

German interests are represented and defined in Berlin, not by chance in Kiev or in Washington. Even in the U.S.A. are there long since signs of an exit [Ausstieg]. To believe the Europeans could alone continue to conduct the U.S.A.’s proxy war against Russia would be folly and hubris in one. 

            Kordula Schulz-Asche (Greens): Proxy war?

The Ukraine war has long since run aground. It devours month by month billions in money and material and countless soldiers’ lives. The talk of victory and endurance from Kiev is unrealistic. This war must not be frozen in, it must be ended. 

            Katja Mast (SPD): Putin can pull out!

A Ukraine as a theater of war, de-populated and devastated for years, helplessly dependent on foreign payments and under the continual danger of the escalation to a Third World War, is neither in the German nor European interest. It can also ultimately not be in the interest of the Ukrainian nation. 

Germany’s interest is peace in Europe, the normalization of economic relations with all countries, Russia also, and the ending of the sanctions war which most harms us alone. The way there leads through negotiations. You cannot execute this charge, in that you glorify one of the war’s opponents and demonize the other. Realistic foreign policy has the duty, in the propaganda thunder of the war parties which we here everyday hear, 

            Patrick Schnieder (CDU/CSU): Just from you!

to find the contact points for a durable exchange of interests. Certainly, when the weapons speak, diplomacy is not allowed to be silent. 

            Vice-president Katrin Göring-Eckardt: Your time is expired, Frau Weidel.

Act for the best of one’s own people and the peoples of Europe. Seek the way to peace 

Vice-president Katrin Göring-Eckardt: Frau Weidel. 

so as to prevent a major European war.

 

[trans: tem]

 

           

 

 

 

Sylvia Limmer, March 13, 2024, EU and Combustion Engine

EU Parliament, Strasbourg, P9 CRE-PROV (2024)03-13(3-264-0000). 

Herr President. 

It is delightful that majorities across delegations could be repeatedly formed for the Euro 7 norm which, instead of green ideology and visions, could at least partially maintain measure and mean for the auto industry, and are thereby ultimately consumer-friendly, since it would have been autos in the low price segment which, with the EU Commission’s original draft, would have experienced a massive price increase. 

And that we could enforce with the stronger requirements the stability of drive batteries is in any case a success, and we are thereby a bit closer to the goal of ending the regulatory preference for e-autos. 

Obligatory on-board surveillance systems and stronger limit values for trucks and buses we definitely reject, yet it is of course a fact that it is basically not really about reducing harmful emissions, since these in regards nitrogen oxides have been reduced about 70% in the last 30 years, even though the permitted vehicles have doubled. The goal of the implementation of the so-called mobility transition of the Green Deal was always an accelerated end of the combustion engine. 

Thus in regards this vote out-weighs the fact that, with this vote for this Euro 7 compromise, the EU Commission’s fully unrealistic limit values are off the table, and we will vote for this proposal. 

 

[trans: tem]

Guido Reil, February 26, 2024, Food Prices

European Parliament, Strasbourg, P9 CRE-PROV (2024)02-26(1-150-0000). 

Herr President. Dear colleagues. 

We speak today on the fight against inflation, on foodstuff prices and their consequences and basic origins. Foodstuff prices have in fact in the last two years dramatically risen by 29 percent. Blatant examples: Sugar, 74 percent; wheat flour, 69 percent; margarine, 50 percent. 

What does this mean? People are driven into poverty. Poor people starve. Especially severely affected: Our pensioners, the people who have worked for the prosperity in our country. Those who create the relief are in Germany besides honorary members at the German Tafeln [food banks]. We meanwhile have 1,000 Tafeln and these care for almost two million people in need. The Tafeln need to alleviate the greatest emergency, an emergency which the politicians have provided. 

Since what are the actual origins? Interesting is: The foodstuff prices decline globally, they rise only in Europe. Globally, they are meanwhile again at the condition of 2021. A study of the American agriculture ministry from 2020 forecast: If Europe implements the Green Deal, the per capita cost of foodstuffs increases around 150 dollars. They forecast that in 2020. Who wants to lower foodstuff prices needs to toss the Green Deal onto the trash heap of history. 

 

[trans: tem]

Joachim Kuhs, February 27, 2024, EU Finance and Ukraine War

European Parliament, Strasbourg, P9 CRE-PROV (2024)02-27(2-025-0000). 

Herr President, esteemed Commissioner Han, valued colleagues, Herr State Secretary. 

Even this laboriously negotiated and stripped down revision of the seven year financial framework will fail. Whereon do I fix this? Now, if Herr Orban needs be sent to drink coffee so that all negotiation leaders thus agree, then everyone recognizes: Here, something is not in order. Is this a rotten compromise? 

When in the second round, two-thirds of the 50 billion euros for the Ukraine facility is financed by debt, and it is supposed this would not burden the EU budget, then, valued colleagues, one is self-deceived. Do you really believe that the Ukraine following this frightful war will be in a position to service the interest payments, to say nothing of the paying back the principal debt? 

When a third of 21 billion euros is scraped together from all sides and new gaps are thereby everywhere opened up, then every Schwabisch Hausfrau knows: That can only cause discord and irritation. 

Yet what most depresses me personally, and this I’ve said already in committee: Have you, honored colleagues, even once asked the people in the Ukraine what they really want? Do they really want more money? That, I do not believe. These people want peace for their country. If we here in plenary session – just recently, Herr Gahler, you said it – continue to promote the war with weapons deliveries, and not work towards peace, then we thus make ourselves culpable for the people in the Ukraine, and also for the soldiers, who daily die or are crippled by the hundreds. Dear colleagues, let us finally stop this war! 

 

[trans: tem]

Bernhard Zimniok, February 7, 2024, Digital Services Act

European Parliament, Straßburg, P9 CRE PROV (2024) 02-07(3-183-0000). 

Herr President. 

During Corona we clearly saw how divergent opinions were defamed by the mainstream as hate and incitement and were rigorously censored in the social media. That these opinions then later proved in large part to be correct – one need only think of the ostensible protection of the vaccination or the ostensible utility of masks – clearly shows that for the state it is only about the prerogative of interpretation [Deutungshoheit], about being able to justify the inhuman Covid preventive measures. 

The lesson should be to strengthen freedom of opinion, to prevent censorship and to oppose state fake news campaigns. Yet the present situation in Germany now indicates exactly the other direction. The anti-democratic strivings of the government are even intensified: Government demonstrations against the opposition on the basis of a fake news campaign stimulated by the government – as there is only in totalitarian systems. 

This is supported by the government broadcasters ARD and ZDF which at these demonstrations more than 100 times interviewed ostensibly random demonstration participants who then were revealed as representatives of the governing parties. These anti-democratic proceedings once again prove how important social media is at the present time, where citizens can independently inform themselves. And precisely on that account, the Commission opposes freedom of opinion on the platforms by means of the Digital Services Act. The Digital Services Act therefore ought to be just so comprehensively abolished as the public broadcasting in Germany. 

 

[trans: tem]

Sylvia Limmer, February 7, 2024, Farmers

European Parliament, Straßburg, P9 CRE-PROV(2024)02-07(3-040-0000). 

Herr President. 

And again this week outraged farmers stand in front of the the European Parliament in Straßburg, just as last week in Brussels. Do eggs, liquid manure and burning hay actually need to just blow up in your faces? 

It’s not only about the suspension of the idled acreage, not only about the stifling bureaucracy created by you, about Mercosur and unfair competition; it is not only about bio-quotas fixed by statute, bans on animal husbandry and care of wolves, the revisions of means of crop protection, and so forth and so on. 

Farmers plainly suffer from impractical political charlatans with their Green Deal and its hand-outs, and they do not want to let themselves be involved in the course of a fully confused climate rescue and to be degraded to CO₂ gardeners. 

Perhaps business wanders away without a sound, the farmers however are bound up with their land, and they will not weaken. And they now no longer allow themselves to be ignored. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

Gottfried Curio, December 15, 2023, Artificial Forced Migration

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/145, pp. 18457-18458. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

These days the EU negotiates a new version of the Common European Asylum System. Prominently discussed are external borders procedures for migrants from countries of origin with low recognition rates – not the largest group, which makes the measure little effective –, as well as a “solidarity mechanism” penalty payment for countries which do not participate in the acceptance of illegal migrants, the well-known Brussels Unkultur of presumption. Yet we need discussion neither of micro set screws nor of the EU’s encroachments. What we need is an end to this quite artificial forced migration of peoples, ladies and gentlemen. 

In the Dublin III system, the respective state of first entry was responsible for the asylum application – a regulation which the Union under Merkel destroyed in a striking breach of law,  with the catastrophic consequences of open borders. Since then, migrants set out aimed at Germany. Italy and Greece equally alike omit the registration and refuse the return transfer. And Germany bears the principal burden of this entire madness with its continually further strengthened tendency by means of additional family reunification for those already landed here. In that regard, the war in Syria in the peripheral areas has been ended for years. Required now is the return of one million Syrians, and not their naturalization. 

Julian Pahlke (Green): Have you inquired of Putin? You have good connections in the Kremlin! 

            Tobias B. Bacherle (Greens): The butcher Assad still commands in Syria! 

Stop with the continued misleading pretense [Vorgaukelung] of a need for protection – unconcerned with the consequences for our destroyed education system, the disaster of domestic security with over-propotional immigrant criminality in regards violent offenses, unconcerned with the 50 billion euros per year thereby squandered, the collapsing housing market, and even with the cultural identity of our homeland! Anyone who still intends well with Germany needs to end this artificial forced mass immigration, ladies and gentlemen. 

The new regulations foreseen in Brussels however do nothing for the necessary reduction of the influx. We therefore demand: Preventing the European internal migration, excluding multiple asylum applications, fundamentally ending a transfer of competence to Germany following the time period expiration – in the first half of the year alone, 15,000 cases; that asylum applicants from Asia and Africa be able to obtain their protection requirement preferably fulfilled in a region near to home and akin to culture, in any case, in secure countries on their continent which they certainly do numerously cross on their way to far distant Deutschland; 

            Julian Pahlke (Green): Aha! The China connection! 

further, the conclusive end of residency by cessation of possible reasons for refuge – Syrian – or by the abuse of “homeland vacations” which unmasks an ostensible necessity of refuge. Only a fundamental re-direction will stop the unfortunately willed migration storm, and only with the AfD is there a parliamentary majority for that, ladies and gentlemen. 

For all of that is also required an end to the false focusings in the migration debate.   

First, it is often not a question of seeking refuge – after crossing secure third countries, certainly not – often not even about leaving the country of origin. Many migrants themselves openly declare the wealth disparity as a reason. 

Second, the fairy tales of the good rescuers at sea. The foreign traffickers are service providers to their deliberately negotiating customers who, for a life-long full provision, slip a couple of thousand. 

            Michael Sacher (Greens): Hopefully, you never need to flee in your life! 

The German trafficking fleet operates no rescue at sea. That would be a bringing to the nearest safe harbor a few kilometers distant on the coast of Africa, instead of to Lampedusa at a distance of hundreds of kilometers. 

End also the lie of a lifetime of the “ability to produce integration” [Herstellbarkeit von Integration]! 

Julian Pahlke (Green): Na ja, your lifetime reality is the surveillance by the Constitution Defense, Herr Curio! Quite lovely greetings from Herr Haldenwang! 

Tobias B. Bacherle (Greens): That again shows where you have remained hanging, in which era, from which you yell out! 

The codification of standards of conduct – as in the Basic Law – is always a durable summary of matching realities [nachträgliche Zusammenfassung von gewachsenen Realitäten]. The idea of being able to successfully lead to its adherence in a brief time anyone from another culture is a failure of categories. Such culture codes will in the long term be accepted by means of an unconscious assumption of relations from the social surroundings – by no means through a merely rational acknowledgement of their codified form. The idea that contempt for women, an excessive male sense of honor, or a positive connotation of a lived-out propensity to violence, are to be corrected by a Basic Law presentation [Grundgesetzüberreichung], or an integration course, is at an absurd distance from life, ladies and gentlemen. 

Julian Pahlke (Green): “To present the Basic Law” [„Grundgesetz überreichen”] is a good keyword, Herr Curio! 

Filiz Polat (Greens): You need an integration course, a values course! You should here make transparent in which networks you act in your constituency. That would interest us!

And surely it may not ever again be only about how illegal masses of immigrants by unfortunate organization are allowed to run through the system, be it with debt money or mis-purposed gymnasiums and hotels!  Nein, the stream itself is to be prevented. For that, is required the elimination of all incentives here in this country, a most concentrated as possible action in Europe. Ever more states understand this. 

Julian Pahlke (Green): What do you actually know of the China connection in your delegation? 

Only Germany is the wrong way driver, which thinks all others should convert to its wrong way. 

Therefore is required a decisive re-direction that really represents the interests of our citizens. These threatened interests have found their asylum with the AfD. 

I thank you.           

Tobias B. Bacherle (Greens): How long did you require for the witticism? The entire legislative period, or longer? 

 

 

[trans: tem]