Jörn König, July 4, 2024, Digital Euro

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/181, pp. 23585-23586. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable colleagues. Dear savers. 

I affirm that the FDP and the Union have taken over our slogan from the first reading, “Cash is Printed Freedom” – very nice! 

            Enrico Komning (AfD): Excellent! Well done!

Our goal is namely to maintain cash as the only legal means of payment, and bind the introduction of the digital euro to a referendum vote according to Article 20, paragraph 2 of the Basic Law. 

The Union cannot do that; since the AfD is the only party which wants to introduce the popular referendum at the Federal level. The Union is thus restricted in its possibilities and thus “only” demands that the German Bundestag needs to agree to the introduction of a digital euro. More, the Union cannot do. 

The Ampel coalition is still much worse: They want to allow introduction of the digital euro by the ECB without any parliamentary control. 

Currencies – this, the German Currency Union of 1 July 1990 has shown – need to be a matter of the entire people, 

            Enrico Komning (AfD): That is true democracy! 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): Of that, you have no idea! 

            Enrico Komning (AfD): Yes, direct democracy!

and plainly not the decision of technocrats. Yet the ECB consists only of technocrats, and presently Germany as the largest nation in the ECB Council does not have a vote. 

            Frank Schäffler (FDP): No, we have a vote!

For many months, no vote; the voting rights rotate every four months. 

In the U.S.A. also the risks are recognized and the central bank by law is forbidden three points, among others: First, to issue a digital dollar without express approval of the Congress; second, to issue the digital dollar direct to an individual person; and third, to give up control over the digital currency policy to unelected technocrats. If indeed our hegemon U.S.A. warns of the surveillance by means of digital currencies, then there must be something to it. 

The digital euro is from our viewpoint a further step in the direction of the virtualization of money – away from the human haptic 

            (The speaker holds up a piece of paper)

to a virtual abstraction. 

Jens Zimmermann (SPD): Yet you think it is not too big! What then is done with 200 euro bills?

Together with the EU-ID, a possible programming ability and a social credit system, some horror visions could become true. 

            Frank Schäffler (FDP): Your friends in China do it!

The authorities could limit where, when and what one may be paid, they could observe any transaction and take note. 

            Johannes Steiniger (CDU/CSU): Nonsense! 

            Armand Zorn (SPD): Simply just nonsense!

The state could connect the account with the CO₂ exhaust and the social credit score. 

            Johannes Steiniger (CDU/CSU): Are you still reciting correctly?

Yet the ultimate horror would be that account could be completely frozen. We do not want all of that, since freedom is the only thing that counts! 

            Jens Zimmermann (SPD): Do the people in the Ukraine also think that?

For all who think that the euro is a success story: The euro since its existence has lost 80 percent of its value. An 80 percent loss of value, that is a catastrophe for the saver. The measurement of value in euros is as absurd 

            Vice-president Katrin Göring-Eckardt: Herr König.

as if one wants to measure length with a rubber band. 

            Vice-president Katrin Göring-Eckardt: Come to an end. 

We are thus in favor of the measurement of value by money with a fixed, defined connection

Vice-president Katrin Göring-Eckardt: Your speaking time is up.

to natural resources. 

            Vice-president Katrin Göring-Eckardt: Your speaking time, Herr König, is up.

Many thanks for your attention. 

 

[trans: tem]

Jörn König, November 17, 2023, Cum-Ex Tax Fraud and Olaf Scholz

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/138, pp. 17617-17618. 

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable colleagues. Dear citizens. 

Olaf Scholz, our patron saint of every purposed lapse of memory, is indeed the chancellor with the tightest scandal entanglement in the history of the Federal Republic. We recall: There was once a firm, Wirecard, in Finance Minister Scholz’s area of responsibility – a gigantic scandal due to a lack of financial oversight. At the BaFin [Federal Finance Office], the chief and vice-chief needed to go. Its state secretary however remains untouched. In the good, old times of the Bonn Republic on the other hand, ministers resigned on account of shopping tokens. 

Gabriele Katzmarek (SPD): Yet nothing new occurs to you! The speech you have already made here a couple of times!

Yet one scandal alone is not sufficient for Olaf Scholz. He still has, ja, Cum-Ex and lately a breach of the constitution in reserve. 

            Matthais Hauer (CDU/CSU): And G 20!

With Cum-Ex, taxes could be saved, and this doubled and multiplied. On the whole arose a damage of almost 36 billion euros for the German people. That was in fact illegal, yet it functioned for years. 

As Cum-Ex finally went up in smoke, what did Olaf Scholz as First Bürgermeister do? Instead of rendering a report, he met with one of those responsible for the illegal deals, Herr Olearius of the Warburg Bank, and he has evidently lied about that. Following this meeting, Hamburg’s finance administration then decided in November 2016, in the face of the legal situation, not to demand 46 million euros in taxes back from the Warburg Bank. 

Chronologically, it went further. One year later, a Finance Minster, namely of the Union, Wolfgang Schäuble, took care that the city of Hamburg not again renounce the 46 million euros. 

Frauke Heiligenstadt (SPD): That’s all old hat! There’s nothing there. On the contrary!

The leader of Hamburg’s tax office at that time was sent into early retirement, after Olaf Scholz became Finance Minister in Berlin. 

            Michael Schrodi (SPD): The AfD’s lies are long since overhauled! 

            Matthais Hauer (CDU/CSU): The SPD becomes quite nervous! 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): The truth hurts!

At the end of 2020, the bank finally paid back to the fiscal authority the demanded millions from the Cum-Ex business, plus interest. The Hamburg SPD is deeply entangled. Alone in 2017, at least four donations of the Warburg Bank or subsidiaries to the Hamburg SPD. Later, 215,000 euros in cash were found in a safe deposit of SPD comrade Johannes Kahrs. Nothing has to do with nothing. 

            Beatrix von Storch (AfD): That’s the facts!

Since October 2020, an investigative committee finally pursues the Cum-Ex affair, first in Hamburg, then in Berlin. The state attorneys investigate many persons on account of suspicion of favoritism. In that regard in April 2021, the investigators noticed that there were e-mails which include for consideration effacements of data. There is the suspicion that in Olaf Scholz’s calendar from his time as Hamburg Bürgermeister information is lacking or was even effaced. 

The former member of the Bundestag Fabio De Masi could even later in August 2023 demonstrate that. 

In April 2023 the Union in the Bundestag, thus here, moved for a parliamentary investigating committee. A vote in plenary session was prevented by quite shabby procedural tricks. 

            Frauke Heiligenstadt (SPD): Ja?

Since probably the required 25 percent was quite surely present. 

Gabriele Katzmarek (SPD): The only ones who here always seek to                         trick are you! Only, it doesn’t work out for you!

In July 2023, the lead state attorney in Cologne, Joachim Roth, placed himself in quasi retirement so as to forestall a dismissal. Were the investigations somehow too good? Four months later, in November 2023, this man is suddenly dead. 

            Jens Zimmermann (SPD): Ey, Leute!

In any case, in November 2023, laptops learn to run. Steffan Jänke, the SPD’s chief investigator, was submitted to the security testing of Hamburg’s Constitution Defense. He was nevertheless made chief investigator by the Hamburg SPD. This man takes into possession evidence laptops and presumably makes evidence on the side; notably from a safe. 

Frauke Heiligenstadt (SPD): He does not take into his possession! He is straightforward and impressively qualified!

To say it in the exactly suitable words of Olaf Scholz of a year ago in this place – he himself will have already again forgotten these words: Who believes that Olaf Scholz has nothing to do with all of this, he also believes in talking white rabbits. Welcome to Alice in Wonderland! Welcome to the Wonderland of the SPD where reality stands on its head! 

Herr Scholz, what will your legacy be? You lead a coalition of breach of the constitution, you demonstrably lie, you are involved in illegal machinations, and you have lost the trust of the citizens. Resign! Lord God, what needs to happen so that you finally take responsibility? 

            Norbert Kleinwächter (AfD): Herr Scholz is set in concrete in his                                         Chancellor’s chair! 

 

[trans: tem]

Jörn König, October 14, 2022, Heating: Tax Relief vs Direct Subsidy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/61, pp. 6913-6914. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable colleagues. Dear citizens.

The CDU recently had its national party day with us in Hannover. The principal theme was not about the heating change as in the motion put forward, not Russia’s war, not the energy shortage, not the wave of bankruptcy of many businesses; no, the principal theme was the women’s quota. It succeeded, you passed the introduction of the women’s quota. Congratulations; for thus does the Alternative für Deutschland, free of quotas and discrimination, once again have one more unique position.

            Michael Donth (CDU/CSU): Tätä, tätä, tätä!

You demand in your motion new tax relief for the construction and reconstruction of buildings as well as in regards the establishment of photovoltaic installations. Amazingly, what you do not demand is a women’s quota at construction sites. Generally in recent years, construction and reconstruction have become significantly more expensive. The principal reason for that is the ever more rigid construction guidelines, primarily in the energy area. In addition come further problems like the homemade inflation, the homemade energy crisis by way of power plant disconnections and supply chain problems.

In your motion, you wish to fight the symptoms, the origins of which you yourselves in great part have furnished by tolerance of the ECB debts policy and the atomic withdrawal. With this fight against the symptoms, you reach back to tax advantages; that in our view is false.

Tax advantages in comparison to a direct means of promotion are unfavorable; since the advantages are only remunerative at a far above average income. It is indeed nice that in the first three years a twice as high tax reduction of 40 percent instead of 20 percent shall apply. Yet who really has an income tax burden of 80,000 euros in three years?

The payment of the tax promotion also results clearly later than would be the case with direct subsidies, and only long after the costs fall due. The relief will further only be realized with the tax decision and plainly only partially for most citizens. These tax regulatory arrangements are complicated even for professional people – just what shall Otto Normal Consumer say?

What we need are simple solutions, and that calls for direct promotion of the hardworking citizen who with hard work has built or bought his own home and now must outfit it in terms of energy. To reverse the promotion program was the precisely wrong signal. The new government needs to be thoroughly criticized for that. One of the first measures of Herr Habeck was to stop the promotion program.

The demands in the CDU/CSU delegation’s motion are, for all that, also unsozial; since private persons with a small or moderate income, due to their smaller tax burden, have no opportunities to participate in these tax advantages. Once again: We need the direct promotion of the hardworking citizen who builds his own home or rebuilds in terms of energy. That is the better means to reconstruct as many as possible houses in terms of energy and to equip with photovoltaic.

            Bernhard Herrmann (Greens): Ach, take a look!

One thing was completely forgotten in the motion. It will become increasingly difficult to obtain appropriate, competent skilled labor from the trades [Handwerk] for the energy reconstruction. Already, the planned heating pump offensive is therein failing. We will put forward a motion concerned that expert trades work finally once again pays in this country.

Demand number 5 is sensible: That home ownership societies can also erect and operate photovoltaic installations without much bureaucracy – it is at this time a horror; I say this from personal experience – this demand we expressly support.

We are happy with the consultation on this motion in committee yet need realistically say that it is a very long way to an agreement by our delegation. Yet even a very long way begins with a first step.

            Bernhard Daldrup (SPD): Was that Mao Tse-Tung?

In that sense, there is still a little hope.

I am grateful for your attention.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

Jörn König, June 23, 2022, Digital Euro

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/44, pp. 4569-4570.

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable colleagues. And before all: Dear savers!

The ECB has a project of which the public knows much too little. It wants to introduce a so-called e-euro; that is, digitalized central bank money, an ECB bitcoin, almost a central bank digital euro. The project is non-transparent and will be pulled through according to the motto of Jean-Claude Juncker: We decide something and wait. If then there is no great outcry and no revolt, then we go further, step by step, until there is no going back.

            Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP): Ja, ja! You certainly know that!

We, the AfD delegation in the German Bundestag, hereby [Drucksache 20/2357] make a revolt against this central bank euro. There plainly still is a going back. We want transparency and demand first an information campaign on the formation of money in a central bank system, on the duties of the central bank and the prospects and risks of the e-euro; and then secondly a referendum according to Article 20 of the Basic Law on the introduction of the central digital euro.

Right honorable ladies and gentlemen, for the euro’s introduction there was at that time no referendum. Today we have inflation, debts, poverty and a shaky currency. The euro has already needed to be saved many times. We recall the “Whatever it takes” of debts master Mario Draghi. Thereby is to be noted: Always at the expense of Germany.

Yesterday evening on “Maischberger”, Peer Steinbrück said: The over-expansive monetary policy of the ECB is to blame for the inflation. He is right. Yet the duty of the ECB, according to charter, is the securing of price level stability. The arsonist ECB is today sold to us as a fire department.

A digitalized central bank money, as the ECB wants it, makes the two-stage banking system superfluous. Indeed in Germany we have 800 Volksbanken and 400 savings banks with a total of 340,000 co-workers. If that were a thing of the past, it would be the end of Germany as a financial venue and a definitive separation from our prosperity.

The risks of the central digital euro are enormous. The data protection is questionable. Negative interest rates could be directly subtracted from digital cash. And even the selective digital expropriation of unfavored persons would be possible; for example, from anyone who anywhere does not want to renounce his diesel, from anyone who wants to continue to make short trips by airplane five times per year, from anyone who does not want to be mRNA vaccinated. Such a central digital euro is a wet dream of Klaus Schwab and his Great Transformation. Away with that!

Just be sure that paper and coin money remain the only unrestricted, legal means of payment. To that belongs that one can settle his taxes with cash; since only cash is genuine.

Many thanks for your attention. And keep an eye on your money!

…

 

[trans: tem]  

 

Jörn König, April 27, 2022, Digitalization and Taxation

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/30, pp. 2686-2687.

Right honorable Frau President. Dear spectators.

The CDU/CSU with a motion wants to make transparent the digitalization costs of tax law proposals.

            Sebastian Brehm (CDU/CSU): Correct!

We share this goal.

            Johannes Steiniger (CDU/CSU): Very good!

We find however that the Union cannot credibly represent these concerns.

            Johannes Steiniger (CDU/CSU): Why?

The motion is a historical digression on the partially failed introduction of tax software in the financial administration, beginning in the year 1991, thus prior to KONSENS; called namely FISCUS. Since then, the Union has governed 24 years. At the latest after the Machtübernahme [taking power] in the year 2005

            Antje Tillmann (CDU/CSU): “Machtübernahme” is not at all the right term!

            Sebastian Brehm (CDU/CSU): Verantwortungsübernahme [taking                                            responsibility]!

– after taking charge of the government in the year 2005, you the Union would have been able, and needed to, implement this goal of the motion. This motion, a few months after the change of the government, actually shows your failure as a government.  

Ladies and gentlemen of the Union, you have with your greatest Chancellor of all time in the years 2010, 2012 and 2017 declared digitalization to be a top priority. Yet in the entire 16 years, you forgot to cast into law this relatively simple digitalization motion. On that account, we can all of us still well recall that many Union members had sufficient time for, as an example, lucrative mask deals.

Thus why should the governing delegations actually do you the favor of now implementing your motion? Do you understand the new government as a repair operation for neglected duties?

The motion quite well describes the origin of the failures and eternal delays in the IT implementation.There are – I cite: “Constantly new legal and political requirements”. In fact, the legislation ever again ever more rapidly changes. Meanwhile, there are monthly – earlier, it was yearly – articles in the newspapers; here is one from 2022:

            [The speaker holds up a paper]

Pension Taxation Changes. – And here, it changes in October. – This is for the normal citizen just simply bewildering.

We here in parliament, and especially the present governing delegations, attend to these failures with ever new laws – it can be safely said, with a regulation mania. The constant changes in the tax law are simply harmful. The Union’s motion is in this connection also simply just muddling along with eyes on the road. What we need would be a long-term concept for the digitalization of our administration and tax collection – simple, slim, free of bureaucracy and secure for the future. In regards the citizens, trust, mutuality, transparency and durability are more imperative than ever.

The question thus is: How is it made better? The AfD in this regard has laid on the table the right proposal on the basis of the Kirchhof model. With this model, you, dear Union, campaigned in the year 2005; unfortunately, you afterwards quite opportunistically chased Professor Kirchhof off the Hof – once again, a broken election promise; for you, it is, ja, a routine.

With the AfD model, the complexity and thereby the lack of transparency would have been eliminated in the tax law. It is ever still more ridiculous to assert that 80 percent of the tax literature comes from Germany. It is in reality only 15 percent. Yet that too is an expression of over-bureaucratization; since we have only 2 percent of all taxpayers worldwide.

The goal must be that the average taxpayer once again understands his tax statement. This must be united with a distinct relief of the middle class. If you want to make the tax collection modern and contemporary, then implement our motion, Drucksache 19/25305, which enlists for a tax collection pilot project with Distributed Ledger technologies.

            Jens Zimmermann (SPD): Oh!

You will ask, What is Distributed Ledger?

            Jens Zimmermann (SPD): No, we know.

            Johannes Steiniger (CDU/CSU): We know.

            Anke Domscheit-Berg (Linke): That is [****]. Almost always!

It is what your commissioner calls “blockchange” when he means blockchain.

Right honorable parliamentary colleagues, take the motion as an occasion to reduce taxes and radically simplify the tax law on the basis of the AfD proposal. Then the motion also has its good. We will abstain.

            Matthias Hauer (CDU/CSU): Since it’s not so bad when you abstain!

Many thanks for your attention.

 

[trans: tem]