Tino Chrupalla, July 9, 2026, Merz Government II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beatrix von Storch (AfD): Hear, hear!

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

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

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

President Julia Klöckner: Please come to a final sentence.

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

Many thanks.

[trans: tem]

Tino Chrupalla, July 9, 2026, Merz Government I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

earned tax means which secure the return of your shareholders. 

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Ach herrje!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bitte schön.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alice Weidel (AfD): And politicians!

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

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

Alice Weidel (AfD): Clearly less!

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

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

[trans: tem]

Alexander Gauland, June 25, 2026, Ukraine War

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/86, p. 10491.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Erich Maria Remarque’s best known novel ends with the protagonist Paul 
Baümer dying at the front while the army’s report for that day announces
„Im Westen nichts Neue“ [All Quiet on the Western Front]. The mass 
death in the trenches was by then nothing new.

The war in the Ukraine meanwhile lasts longer than the First World War. 
There will have died in 52 months hundreds of thousands. In the east, 
nothing new and no end in sight. We are accustomed to it. On the contrary: 
The Ukraine’s drone attacks far into the Russian hinterland awake brave 
hopes of some of those who dream of forcing back the Russians to Crimea, 
and perhaps even throwing them out of Crimea. I think that the Ukraine, 
in the sense of a reconstruction of the status quo ante, cannot win this war.

And for us, the war financially becomes the last straw. Self-evidently is 
Germany again the largest payer in the EU: 40 billion for the war so far; 
in addition, up to 35 billion for refugees. In the spring of 2026 alone, 4.2 billion 
euros in military aid were transferred. We send money to the Ukraine 
while in Germany poverty grows, the infrastructure rots, and the economy 
shrinks. The most recent results from the Deutsche Bahn are like the 
flaming writing on the wall. The Chancellor however has not rendered 
his oath to the Ukraine. If the Ukraine wishes to continue fighting, that is its 
good right, but not our business. 

Jürgen Hardt (CDU/CSU): Now you let the cat out of the bag!

For it is simply not true that the Ukraine also defends our freedom.

Peter Beyer (CDU/CSU): Oh, yes!

It is no NATO member, and its fight is a fight over the formation of the 
post-Soviet, indeed post-Czarist space. Even if we hold it to be false, 
it is the empire of Peter the Great which Putin wants to reconstruct.

Knut Abraham (CDU/CSU): Aha!

And, as is known, that reaches not to the Gate of Berlin, indeed not even 
to Warsaw.

Sara Nanni (Greens): Putin however speaks of coming to Berlin!

In German interest are the peace negotiations and an end of the war with 
a compromise. Yet in that the Federal government despite our own
failures in the past – we here have discussed it – deals with Putin as solely 
guilty and like a criminal, 

Sara Nanni (Greens): Like a criminal? He is a criminal!

Jürgen Hardt (CDU/CSU): He is a criminal! He kidnapped 20,000
children!

and grants Russia no legitimate interests in this conflict, it makes a 
compromise peace impossible.

The Ukrainian leadership wants to attain that the EU, better still the NATO 
becomes a war participant. Apart from proximate risks for us, that would 
for many years be the end of the peaceful relations with Russia. Cite: 

“A Ukraine in the EU would block any reconciliation with 
Russia in the future. And this reconciliation would 
nevertheless be decisive for the future of Europe.”

End cite. The last two sentences stem not from me but from Klaus Dohnanyi, 
my dear SPD.

The Ukraine war is not Germany’s war; yet all seek to make it that, 
with exception of the Linke. Germany expanded its support step by step. 
It began with helmets, with defensive armaments. Later came heavy weapons, 
air defense systems, panzers, and the training of Ukrainian soldiers for that. 
Now is again discussed whether we deliver Taurus cruise missiles whereby 
Germany would be in danger of being responsible for an attack on Saint 
Petersburg and Moscow. In the sense of the old formula “inter pacem et 
bellum nihil medium”, we are long since combatants.

No, the world does not go under if in the future eastern Ukraine belongs to 
Russia. It could however go under if the military escalation screws are
ever further turned.

Andreas Mattfeldt (CDU/CSU): Was that dictated by Putin?
Inconceivable!

There have always been spheres of influence. For the U.S.A., it is all of 
North and South America, as laid down by the Monroe Doctrine since 
1823. The U.S.A. acts accordingly and has always done so. Thus let us 
stop binding our own hands with fairy tales of the equality of all states, 
quite independent of their geopolitical situation. The end of the dying is 
more important, ladies and gentlemen. 

I am grateful.

[trans: tem]

Gerold Otten, May 22, 2026, Defense and Artificial Intelligence

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/81, pp. 9774-9775.

Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

The 2015 annual report presented for arms control documents far more than 
one mere crisis. It describes the systemic erosion of the global security architecture.

The Federal government's analysis in that regard named three central fault lines.
In first place here is the unsustainable disintegration of the nuclear order. The 
end of the New Start Treaty and the uncontrolled expansion of the Chinese nuclear 
arsenal mark the crossing into an indistinguishable, multipolar world of rival
superpowers. At the same time, regional agreements fail, as for example, the INF 
Treaty between Russia and the U.S.A.

The second fault line is the unconfinement of modern conflicts. Space has become a 
military operations area. At the same time, we experience the withdrawal from  
verified arms control treaties, as for example the Ottawa Convention on the ban on 
anti-personnel mines, and by EU states; a direct consequence of the altered 
threat perception in the East.

The third fault line is the technological disruption. The deployment of artificial 
intelligence and autonomous weapons systems on the battlefield is no longer a 
theory but reality. These weapons systems dictate the speed of modern warfare, 
and in seconds decide over life and death. 

In all of these points the report delivers a plausible description of the situation, 
although the description alone falls short. We need to posit for ourselves a      fundamental, inconvenient truth: The structures which defended us for decades were the result of the Second World War and the Cold War. They are the products of a past epoch.     We no longer find ourselves in a transitional phase. We stand in the midst of a        completely fragmented, multipolar reality. The era of unipolarity, of the uncontested supremacy of the U.S.A., is conclusively past.

China has established itself as a powerful counterweight. Russia manages an unconfined power Politik and forges alliances in the global South. The middle powers there manage a purely transactional Politik of interests. They conclude economic agreements with Peking, purchase armaments in Moscow and cooperate in security questions with the U.S.A.

The result is no stable, rules-based order, but a phase of the radical new categorization.        It is thus unlikely to be able to successfully analyze the challenges of the present            within the structures and with the methods of the past. 

That is to say: On the situation analysis, we here today are indeed largely agreed.                Yet where we fundamentally differ is the methodological approach for the            achievement of the goal. This is exactly shown in the Federal government's arms           control strategy. Its declared goal is the global stability by means of multilateral    agreement, transparency and the regulation of technological progress. Demanded                   is the outlawing of fully automated weapons systems and new rules for cyber- and        outer-space.

We support these ordnungspolitischen goals, yet we doubt that they can be achieved        with yesterday's methods. Who closes the eyes before this reality, manages                Geopolitik in the rear-view mirror.

An arms control requires two fundamentals: Trust and geopolitical stability. Both                no longer exist in this multipolar world order. Worse still, Germany has blithely       squandered its traditional role as honest broker on the world stage. 

Instead of pursuing a foreign policy lead by interests, Germany hides itself behind the template of an ancillary leadership role, and thereby submits itself unconditionally to the Brussels transnational technocrats.

We all pay the bill for this misguided Politik. Certainly in Germany, we feel harder than ever before the economic and political censures [Verwerfungen] of this world order. Our view is accordingly, it must be a core duty of a wise German foreign policy to stand for that the described tectonic shift does not escalate to a global war, that it does not harm Germany. 

That however would presuppose the acknowledgment of interests of equal rights of allied partners, yet also of competitors. Only on this basis is possible a success of diplomatic strivings and initiatives for disarmament and arms control. 

This recognition is denied by the Federal government and by the parties long sitting here in moralizing self-complacency. 

The Federal government seeks instead an impossible balance. It wants to be a wide-ranging, moral court for the arms regulation, and at the same time create a most modern army efficient in war, yet thereby obviously fails in its own ideological blinkers.

 
As in a magnifying glass, that is shown in regards military deployment of AI: The Federal government dogmatically persists in the primacy of human control and also wants to enforce this concept internationally.

That is clearly intended to be ethically noble, yet ignores the technical realities which today are clearly shown in the Ukraine war. For the defense against hypersonic weapons and drone swarms, to name an example, the human reaction time is no security factor but the deadly bottleneck. Who here persists exclusively in manual control, consents to accept technological inferiority in an emergency situation. Who however irresponsibly accepts the inferiority of our armed forces, risks the lives of our soldiers and destroys every military credibility.

The same paralyzing spirit prevails in Federal German science. While Washington and China radically drive forward the civil-military fusion, a well-fed scientific estate clings to civil stipulations. This artificial separation blocks precisely that technology transfer which the Bundeswehr so urgently needs to at all keep pace. We brake the progress exactly there where it is most critical for the national defense.

The third hurdle is the over-flowing bureaucracy. AI development cycles are measured in weeks. Our procurement procedures, on the other hand, continue to administer a decades-long hardware process. An army which reacts to technological disruption with formulas, over-regulation and control mania, loses the connection before the first shot has even been fired. 

These dogmas in dealing with AI characterize the Federal German Politik. Without a fundamental turning away from these dogmas, the Bundeswehr will not become Europe's most powerful army, but a grave for billions in tax money without any added value in security policy.

Who hopes AI weapons technology threats can be enclosed internationally, and at the same time ignores AI's defense potential, makes himself ridiculous internationally. The armed forces plainly cannot be modernized and at the same time the technological progress be blocked as this government is doing it. Both mutually exclude themselves, when the goal should be to be the strongest conventional military power in Europe. 

This report is thus no future plan. It is the written document of a strategic sluggishness and of a moral complacency which endanger the security of our country.
Many thanks.

[trans: tem]

Anja Arndt, June 17, 2026, Genetically Altered Plants

EU Parliament. Strasbourg, P10 CRE-REV(2026)06-17(3-0163-0000).

Herr President. Right honorable members.

Today is not about progress or stasis. Today it's about the trust, freedom of choice and 
control of our seeds, food and our agriculture. We vote on the de-regulation of so-called 
NGT1 plants. These plants are altered with new genome techniques and can end up in 
our food, feeds and in our farmlands. We will be told that this can theoretically arise 
naturally or through conventional cultivation, yet theory replaces not practical         experience, and speed replaces no security. 

Who broadens such techniques needs to guarantee control, transparency and free         choice. Yet precisely this is lacking because the labeling obligation is lacking.                 There is also no legally secured patent ban. NGT1 plants thereby become a 

gateway for bio-patents, concern power, monopoly and new dependencies for                     our farmers and breeders.

 
As long as labeling, traceability and a real patent ban are lacking, there may be no vote 
for the Council position. I welcome therefore the vote for all motions to amend which 
demand the labeling obligation and exclude ability to patent, and initially vote for the 
leftists' and greens' rejection.

[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]

Alice Weidel, June 11, 2026, Merz Government

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/83, pp. 9927-9929.

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

This government declaration was the recessional of one who has failed. Herr Merz, your own people already discuss your discharge, yet they sing songs of praise to themselves.

For the facts: The labor market topples. The German economy has lost a half million jobs in the first quarter vis-à-vis the previous year. Every 20 minutes a business falls victim to the insolvency tsunami. The number of industrial orders collapses twice as much as expected. The industrial core is melting. High taxes and energy costs, bureaucracy and a planned economy strangle the basis of our business while the state Apparat ever further grows. Industry’s exodus to foreign countries borders on mass flight.

With the businesses and the jobs go the people. In your first year in office, so many Germans citizens have emigrated as never before. 

Mirze Edis (Linke): On account of the AfD!

It is the young, it is the well educated who go because in their own country they no longer see a future.

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): You were first to go! To Switzerland!

The mass immigration into our sozial system from the third world, on the other hand, continues unabated. A six-figure number of illegals immigrates under the pretense of asylum, and with that an additional large city through the backdoor of family reunification. In regards deportations, your balance is still more catastrophic than that of the Ampel.

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Such nonsense!

Does thus appear a migration change?  Quite the contrary. You still manifest the failed mass immigration in which you discard the German citizenship to these illegal migrants. The trashing of the German passport in your first year in government has reached a new record. Who does not live in a sealed-off bubble, for her the increase of violent, sexual, brutal crime is no cold statistic, but a daily accompaniment in the form of one’s own fear and the concern for our children. At the train station in Nürnberg, hometown of CSU chairman Marcus Söder, migrant gangs plied a German female minor with drugs so to abuse her as a sex slave. I ask you: How many Nürnbergs are there in Germany? And what have you all – yes, all here – by mass immigration, brutality and moral decline made of our country?

Do not take the Germans for naïve. 

Harald Ebner (Greens); Eijeijei!

They very well register how you treat them. They hear exactly when the Sozial Minister and SPD chairman Bärbel Bas makes us contemptible as a “brown unit” [Einheitsbraun]. Who thus speaks, hates her own and herself and has no business in government. 

Your contempt for the Germans is also found in the Sozialpolitik’s expression. The German tax- and contribution payers shall pay higher pension contributions and work longer. They shall accept higher rising sozial contributions and massive benefits cuts and, in a case of maintained care, commit their entire wealth and their own homes for which they long saved. But they shall come up with the life-long, full provision for millions of third world boarders.

Dagmar Schmidt (SPD-Wetzler): That is a lie!

Siemtje Möller (SPD): That is simply fake news!

One need not know more of this Federal government!

For migration costs, 

Jürgen Cosse SPD): Have you another theme?

development aid, energy transition, climate protection madness, you yearly squander three-figure billion sums. There is no talk of savings and cuts. The failed energy transition has already squandered 500 billion euros and will still cost ten times that, thus over 5 trillion euros. You have wantonly and intentionally destroyed the energy infrastructure of the Federal Republic of Germany. 

Billions upon billions of euros you send to the Ukraine and thereby finance the prolongation of a war which long since ought to have been ended.

Florian Müller (CDU/CSU): Ask Putin!

Tilman Kuban (CDU/CSU): You get along with Putin!

To this day, you demand no accounting from Kiev over the explosion of the Nordstream pipeline. Vital infrastructure for our economy was thereby destroyed, and a massive harm was inflicted. Instead, you wantonly seek the confrontation with Russia, an atomic power, so as to distract from your own failures. You speak of war, you always only speak of war and want to support this war and draw Germany into this war. In that regard, peace is exactly what this continent needs – and the Ukraine also. Let us finally speak of peace instead of war!

And to the truth also belongs: No, the Ukraine may never become a member of the European Union and of NATO. Period, stop, basta!

Wilfried Oellers (CDU/CSU): You read what Putin wrote for you!

Record debts, higher taxes and duties, de-industrialization, danger of war, migrant violence, hate crimes against Germans: The citizens have no more to expect from this Federal government and from you.

– Hit hounds howl. –

That is not only your failure, Herr Merz, but that of your entire government. For that, you bear the responsibility, you have submitted yourself, for better or for worse, to the leftist SPD, hostile to Germany and to performance. With such personnel, a political change is not done.

Wilfried Oellers (CDU/CSU): With your kind, also not!

Therefore, urgent reforms now need be initiated.

We need to immediately declare the so-called climate crisis and the energy transition to be at an end. Even the world climate council has meanwhile cashed in its horror scenarios. Thus why wait? We need to set aside the CO2 duty, lower the energy taxes, re-enter the nuclear power, completely abolish the combustion engine Verbot and the heating Diktat. What we need is market economy and favorable energy, not a Verbotspolitik. 

Ralf Stegner (SPD): Your understanding, you’ve completely abolished!

The state citizenship law needs be reformed and the naturalization hurdles need to be drastically raised. The sozial state migration magnets need to be shut off. Illegals migrants need to be rejected without exception at our borders. Criminals and illegals need to be turned back.

– You should for once make Politik for our country, dear SPD. You are already at 11 or 12 percent. Or where are you now? –

If one has actually only been with the Antifa, then you can also make no reasonable Politik. This we of course see in the Vice-chancellor and Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil: Learned nothing, never worked, only been with the Antifa, cannot deal with numbers. And thus our country is precisely there where it certainly is.

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Oh Mann, Mann, Mann!

Dirk Weise (SPD): Here comes the elite movement, here forward!

You thus have two options, Herr Merz. You can loosen the blockade by which you end the leftist coalition with the SPD and seek new, constructive majorities, 

Alexander Hoffmann (CDU/CSU): Here, I laugh myself kaputt!

or you can continue to wait and do nothing – which is to be expected – until the citizens compel new elections for an AfD reform government. First in the States, then in the Bund.

We are ready to overtake responsibility, because Germany has deserved, 

Ralf Stegner (SPD): Germany has deserved democracy!

because we Germans have deserved to be well governed.

I am grateful.

Ralf Stegner (SPD): Such a farce!

Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU): Big propaganda show! That, you likely learned                                in Moscow!

Ja, schmerzlich, nicht wahr? Das tut weh!

[trans: tem]

Leif-Erik Holm, May 22, 2026, Nordstream Power Plant

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/81, pp. 9779-9780.

Dear Citizens. Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Germany speaks of exploding energy prices, of a lack of supply security, of new gas power plants which shall be built. Meanwhile, the Federal government wants to give away a fully functional gas power plant in Lubmin.

It is a question of an important power heating coupling system which pre-warmed the gas arriving there from the Nordstream pipelines. Since the destruction of our critical infrastructure, this power plant can no longer do its service. We say: That need not remain so. The AfD positions itself strictly opposed to giving away our infrastructure. We want that this power plant remain in the Lubmin location in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, and I demand of you to include yourselves in that.

All Germany shakes its head that we, in times of tight accounts, give away our functioning facilities to foreign countries, 

Michael Kellner (Greens): Out of solidarity!

And then even to the state which with high likelihood had the Nordstream pipelines blown up, on account of which this power plant was idled in a moment. That is really just grotesque.

Michael Kellner (Greens): Yet no one needs that power plant!

Claudia Müller (Greens): Grotesque is your speech!

How much corn need one have drunk to make such a policy? The presumed perpetrator receives a gift wrapped in ribbons. Out of self-respect, that cannot be in our own national interest. 

Many citizens also see it so. I experience it directly on my tour through Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. At a stand in Greifswald-Wieck, practically right opposite from Lubmin, a man came to me and said: He previously had actually been a non-voter, but since he heard the story of the power plant,

Michael Kellner (Greens): Jaja!

he had now decided: It’s enough: He now votes AfD. That is actually a good decision. Who wants a far-sighted Politik, he votes AfD. 

What is it then if the Ukraine war – hopefully soon – goes to an end and relations with Russia are again normalized? The power plant would then be ready to again prepare unrivaled favorable gas. Precisely this gas we need for an affordable energy supply.

Michael Kellner (Greens): You want to again make us dependent! Na super! Hearty thanks!

Beatrix von Storch (AfD): We become independent by power plant giveaways, ja? There, we become independent?

I do the math for you, Herr Kellner: We still have an operable strand from Nordstream. Which could deliver some 27 billion cubic meters of gas per year. That would be a quarter of our requirement, in the future even still less. There would thus not at all be any dependence. That, you cannot here assert. That is rubbish!

We await a responsible Politik that takes in view such opportunities. No one today can seriously forecast how the geo-political situation will appear in five or ten years. Perhaps the new cold war quickly goes to an end, what we all of us would ultimately wish. And then? Who this power plant gives away with a swipe of the pen, he thereby knowingly destroys an important strategic option of Germany and thereby inflicts a serious harm on our country.

Alice Weidel (AfD): An additional serious harm!

Let us look at a new construction. The new construction of such a system would last three to five years – plus planning time, likely eight years – and the taxpayer would need again grasp deep in the pocket. Around 100 million euros would again be gone. That makes clear: Here, we should be making SEFE [Securing Energy for Europe, GmbH] facts which are then scarcely to revise. A responsible government, which thinks further than twelve to noon, would keep this system on board in the country.  

Michael Kellner (Greens): Clear! It thus stands around and gathers dust!

And in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern the opinion is clear on that. Thus a majority of the local government in Vorpommern-Rügen also demanded examining domestic options. In Mukran, a power heating coupling system is sought for the LNG terminal.

Claudia Müller (Greens): Yet you demanded the opposite! What now?

The motion besides came from the AfD and was also supported by the CDU. And CDU State Chairman Peters said: Critical infrastructure should initially be used here in the country, and in doubt preferably not leave the country. – Aha! And so you also should also keep it here, dear colleagues of the Union. Herr Amthor, you can for once respond the same.

Ladies and gentlemen, the giving away of the system would from every viewpoint be a serious failure at the cost of our citizens and businesses. Who wants good, forward-looking Politik for Germany, he would leave the Lubmin gas power plant in the country, and indeed ideally there where it is now, where it in the future can offer new opportunities.

Many thanks.

[trans: tem]

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]

Paul Schmidt, March 19, 2026, New Nuclear Power Plants

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/65, pp. 7820-7821. 

Right honorable Herr President. Dear colleagues. 

The withdrawal from nuclear power was “a strategic mistake”, said Ursula von der Leyen as President of the European Commission. And Chancellor Friedrich Merz had previously on January 14 designated the withdrawal from nuclear power a great mistake.  Now he says, the withdrawal is irreversible. Yet that in fact is false, and we demonstrate that with our motion [Drucksache 21/4749]. 

We want that our nuclear power stations be examined, just as the CDU/CSU demanded in the Bundestag election campaign and in the coalition negotiations. The last three nuclear power plants disconnected in April 2023, Emsland, Isar 2 and Neckarwestheim II, we want in any case to again be put into operation, and also Brokdorf because there the dismantling has scarcely ensued. Measured by the branch association KernD, that is possible anytime within three years for one to three billion euros. 

In regards other stations, there are for us two different categories: For one, those which in view of their restart of operation need to be examined, and for the others, those where the construction of a new nuclear power plant is sensible. Of the latter, in our view, are two nuclear power stations in the east, namely Greifswald/Lumin and Stendal/Arneburg, and in the west, Obrigheim, Philippsburg 1, Neckarwestheim I, Isar 1, Stade, Würgassen, Unterweser and Gundremmingen B and Mülheim-Kärlich. 

Nuclear power plants which we want to newly build would be, for example, the European Evolutionary Pressurized-water Reactor EPR, 

            Harald Ebner (Greens): Yes, exactly.

a German-French development which has already been built in many countries, as in Great Britain, France, Finland and also China, or the American reactor AP 1000, which will be built in Poland directly on the German border in three blocks and permitted according to German safety guidelines. Both of these types are of relatively simple availability. There are however additional which may come into question. 

We need nuclear energy not 

            Harald Ebner (Greens): “We need nuclear energy not”, that’s right!

only because it is advantageous, robust and reliable, and makes unnecessary the further completion of the energy transition, for which we are certainly not paid, but also because it makes us independent of foreign countries. 

            Alaa Alhamwi (Greens): From Russia, yes!

 – Now listen! – Uranium we receive from Canada, Africa, Australia and Kazachstan. Yet in case of emergency, we still have it available in our own country as raw material, for example, in the Erzgebirge or in Schwarzwald. 

Following the oil crisis of 1973-1974, it was the government of Helmut Schmidt which quite decisively drove forward the build up of nuclear power in Germany: Nuclear power as freedom’s energy! 

            Harald Ebner (Greens): The renewables are the energies of freedom!

You should reflect on that, on Helmut Schmidt and his political reason. 

And please, Frau Scheer, do not come to me again with your “alternative facts”. You are the SPD’s energy policy spokesman, and with your “alternative facts” you have already two weeks ago in the debate in the professional world made a furor; that, I can say to you.   

In fact, our nuclear power plants can be daily reduced in performance by a third, and again ramped up, and that for months. Worldwide, in fact 66 nuclear power works plants will be built. We have produced the electricity in our blocks for 2.5 to 3 cents per kilowatt-hour. 

            Harald Ebner (Greens): 80 to 40 cents per kilowatt-hour!

And a basic load from nuclear power which is always available cannot be compared with photo-voltaic, which is available only 2,000 to 3,000 hours per year, and in autumn and winter as good as not. You can believe me. I myself have worked as plant physicist in steam reactors and pressurized-water reactors.  

Dear SPD, finally give up your blockade stance, since it is you who are permanently blocking the re-entry into the nuclear power. Vote for our motion! 

 

[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]

 

Peter Boehringer, March 18, 2026, German Gold Reserves

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/64, pp. 7742-7743. 

Frau President. 

The German gold reserves [Staatsgold] originate from the foreign trade surpluses of the early Federal Republic. The Bundesbank as trustee administered these gold assets for their producer, the German citizens. The book value of our 3,350 tons increases for decades, and has since 2024 alone doubled to 450 billion euros. 

Gold is an important psychological and material guaranty of stability for our currency. Its revaluation gain [Aufwertungsgewinn] alone amounts to more than 150 times the capital equity of the German Bundesbank. Gold is the sole substantial position in the balance. Without it, the Bundesbank would be over-indebted by ten times its capital equity. 

Following a successful citizens initiative and repatriation of a large part of our foreign gold, today 51 percent is stored in the Frankfurt area. Nevertheless, a stock worth over 220 billion euros is ever still found in foreign countries. For 60 years already, we have borne this risk of foreign location. Since the end of the Cold War at the latest, there is no more reason for this, and none military. 

            Frauke Heiligenstadt (CDU/CSU): Listen to the Bundesbank president!

In these 60 years, the price has risen around 15,000 percent. 

We nevertheless bring in our motion [Drucksache 21/4739] not because gold is the class of investment with the best return, and we also do not advise the motion because Donald Trump in matters of fidelity to contract and the honoring of property and international law in fact exhibits no good balance. In part, that is right throughout. 

This, colleagues of the other delegations have acknowledged: By chance, Stephan Mayer of the CSU: “The finance minister needs to answer the question of Germans whether our gold in the USA is…still…secure.” Yes, Herr Mayer, this question is justified and has been presented for 15 years, yet from the Union’s view, by the wrong ones. 

Even the Greens’ finance policy spokesman meanwhile demands a gold standard currency in Germany. Please show that you seriously mean that, colleague Beck! 

Trump is thus indeed not the primary problem – that exists independent of him – yet we rejoice in every case when the colleagues now finally come to the right conclusion. 

For centuries, gold establishes sovereignty. It is free from the risk of a debts default, and cannot be politically devalued. It is an instrument of strategic security [Absicherung] to protect oneself against debt, inflation and systemic risk, which are often, as presently, still united with geopolitical crises. 

Almost every second state presently increases its gold reserves. Ever more central banks fear that they may not recover their foreign deposits of precious metal. The location of gold currency reserves in foreign countries is not to be justified. 

The Bundesbank’s long-term counter-argument, whereby in a crisis situation the metal, as it happens in New York or London, needs be converted into foreign exchange, is for years absurd. Certainly in case of a global currency crisis, no one wants to have paper money. Certainly then market participants strive for what is physically tangible, as is seen presently almost daily in the gold and silver market. 

And the Bundesbank? It, as it happens, wants in a serious case to exchange the only asset position without third-party risk for demand paper, thus precisely into such paper which in regard world currency turbulences every other party wants to get rid of. No one understands that. It is ahistorical and irrational. 

In addition, gold would also besides be tradable in Frankfurt if in a crisis it really were seriously desired to sell the state gold, which of course no one should seriously want. 

And the Bundesbank’s concerns about a – cite – “Psychological harm for the German-American relationship” in case of a repatriation are absurd! We speak of German property over which we need to have complete power of disposal. 

Unfortunately, the Bundesbank thereby stands in a bad tradition. In 1928, Reichsbank president Schacht, in regards a futile attempt to find the Weimar gold in the treasury of the US Fed, suddenly no longer wanted to see this, and freed Fed chief Strong of proof of this gold, without any emergency. 100 years later, we are not one millimeter further. 

And the actually thorough estimate of the Federal Audit Authority needs in one place to be criticized when it suggested to the Bild newspaper an examination of the gold in 2025 has not ensued. Nein, a complete examination of the German gold in foreign countries has never occurred since 1951! 

            Frauke Heiligenstadt (CDU/CSU): That’s just not right! Is completely wrong!

Gladly put an interim question, Frau colleague! Then can I expressly answer it! 

            Mechthilde Wittmann (CDU/CSU): Ja, so far as it comes!

The Bundesbank loses itself in inventory data from foreign countries, in minimal spot checks. Smelting charges and inventory numbers replace no bar numbers. Abbreviated numbers contradict orderly bookkeeping. Double counting of bar numbers cannot be excluded, complete examinations were never carried out. In short, there are no clean bar lists. 

The Bundesbank continually emphasizes they have complete trust in the foreign banks. Blind trust is however no examination strategy. In crises of an instance of tension, the right of ownership without simultaneous possession is not guaranteed. 

Trust also replaces no sovereignty. Gold is a strategic anchor of value. Its availability at home is a prerequisite for our country remaining, in regards international instability of a systemic crisis, able to act in matters of currency. 

All of this is an awareness of responsibility. It is no fear-mongering, as in recent days was dictated by you in the press. 

Many states since 2013 want to repatriate their gold holdings from New York and London. Blind trust, in times of dwindling certainty in international and financial law, is today no longer appropriate. The AfD therefore welcomes that this ancient debate on the overdue repatriation of the gold is now resurrected, even if in part for a false reason. 

No fear-mongering – awareness of responsibility! Thus strike the same out of your script where you probably again have the word “fear-mongering”. 

            Frauke Heiligenstadt (CDU/CSU): Exactly!

Strike it out! Dear viewers, it’s not true. Only that which we are doing is responsible.

Show today that your concern about gold, which you in recent months in the bloc have dictated,  is authentic, and was no crocodile tears. Vote for our motion! And in case your firewall fetish forbids that, then simply bring in one of your own! 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]