Jochen Haug, November 27, 2025, The Arbitrator of Democracy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 21/44, pp. 5087-5088. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

When we today speak on the Interior Ministry’s budget, then we should take a step back and ask ourselves a fundamental question: What is the duty of this Ministry? What is the duty of the Federal Interior Ministry in a free society? 

            Sebastian Fiedler (SPD): Yes, when you don’t know that!

Preservation of security, freedom and order, that is the core duty. For that, the Ministry is responsible. 

Yet today the Ministry presents us with figures which show: This state ever more loses itself in ideological side shows. Millions flow into projects for social cohesion, to the financing of church conferences, to political foundations, to migration counseling and expensive integration programs. All of this has one thing in common: It does not belong to the core duties of an  Interior Ministry. 

An example: Over one billion euros for integration courses. My colleague Marcus Bühl has just addressed it. While the Federal Interior Ministry in regards protection of the borders, its original responsibility, fails completely, the consequences of these failures shall be overcome with integration courses. That integration courses prevent parallel societies, the overloading of the sozial state and the escalation of violence is of course an illusion. The entire approach is false. Who comes into the country illegally does not need to be integrated, but returned back. And who legally comes into the country permanently and may remain, he himself primarily needs to take care for his integration. In classic immigration countries like the U.S.A. and Canada, that was always self-evident.   

We as the AfD delegation want to save one billion euros in the Interior Ministry estimate. And despite that, we strengthen police, border protection and catastrophe protection. We simply go through the whole: We eliminate ideological expenditures which no one needs. We end the false incentives of the immigration and integration policy. We place the security of our citizens above the socio-political experiments. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Bravo!

Ladies and gentlemen, this budget is also a mirror image of the situation in our country. There meanwhile prevails in the States an understanding that this is made an ideologized full-service provider. This has nothing in common with a free polity [Staatswesen]. The principle of the people’s sovereignty guarantees the decision making [Willensbildung] from below to above. The state has to preserve strict neutrality and is not to interfere in the democratic discourse. Today, the opposite is practiced. We have to deal with an opinion-forming and an opinion-suppressing state. 

            Leon Eckert (Green): Your colleague wanted to storm the Bundestag!

Thus for years the Constitution Defense [Verfassungsschutz] sees as its principal duty a fight against the opposition and citizens critical of the government 

            Sonja Eichwede (SPD): Nein, against extremism!

and here even invents a power of observation category of its own: Delegitimization of the state. Here obviously prevails a gross misunderstanding. Therefore, be it again expressly explained: The Constitution Defense is not the arbitrator of democracy. 

            Sebastian Fiedler (SPD): Its protector!

That is the people. 

And still one thing be said: It is intolerable in a democracy when critical comments lead to house searches. Lately in October it affected the famous media expert Professor Norbert Bolz because he had ironically replied to a tweet in the taz – a renewed attack against freedom of opinion, in the middle of Germany. For democracy, that is fatal. It requires critical citizens with civil courage, not intimidated vassals. 

Ladies and gentlemen, over 200 hundred years ago Theodor Körner demanded: “For freedom, a way!” [Der Freiheit eine Gasse!]. That is also today again necessary. We need a state which protects its citizens, yet does not patronize. For that, the AfD stands. 

Thank you. 

 

[trans: tem]

Jochen Haug, May 25, 2023, EU Election Law

 

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/106, pp. 12811-12812.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

The EU Parliament’s proposal debated today for a change of the EU election law is an attack on the national states of Europe. The planned changes are alien to the citizens and fundamentally undemocratic.

Of this are first of all the trans-national lists which certainly have been often spoken of. The EU parliament shall be further enlarged, initially by 28 seats. These shall then be filled by the  European parties instead of by the national lists of the recognized parties. This is a particular act of alienation of the citizens. The European parties are largely unknown in Germany and in other member states. Their positions on concrete political questions are unknown. The citizen shall vote for persons whom he does not know and of whom he in many cases simply cannot inform himself; since there is no EU-wide media public. Information is here not routinely available in each man’s mother tongue. Yet that fits the picture. You want uninformed voters who simply nod to your personnel and positions. You want an EU central state with politicians who owe accountability to no one. Transnational lists are in this way a momentous step which we of the AfD oppose.

            Christian Petry (SPD): What nonsense!

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Super speech! Listen to what you can learn!

            Jörg Nürnberger (SPD): No idea of Europe!

No less do we oppose the attempt to introduce compulsory gender quotas for election lists. The EU Parliament’s proposal foresees precisely this in the form of a zipper procedure [Reissvershclussverfahren]. That means that men and women are to be alternatively installed. This is obviously unconstitutional. The Constitutional Courts in Brandenburg and Thüringen have already decided corresponding regulations. Among others, here is put forward a violation of the fundamental principles of the freedom and equality of the vote.

            Götz Frömming (AfD): The SPD is not interested.

To what unbelievable bleeding such gender quotas can lead may be observed in regards, among others, the Greens of NRW [Nordrhein-Westfalen] who in their statutes have consequently further developed the zipper procedure and call it a “minimum quota”.

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): And now?

I cite with permission of the President from §1 of the Women’s Status of the NRW Greens:         

Election lists fundamentally are to be filled by at least half women whereby the odd places are reserved for women. The election procedures are to be so arranged that, separated, positions for women and positions for all candidates will be elected. All women lists are possible.

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Well cited!

This needs to be looked at clearly: With the Greens, for odd places may only women be candidates, for the even, everyone.

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): With you, even fascists can be candidates!

If this should be democratic, then democracy in our country is truly at an end.

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Discrimination against men!

Not least is there today a restrictive clause in regards the suffrage for the European election. What you here propose – the introduction of a two percent hurdle – is a shameless circumvention of the legal ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court. This had twice, in 2011 and 2014, declared restrictive clauses for the European election to be unconstitutional. Now shall one such be introduced by the avoidance of EU law. There is no sustainable foundation for it. It is solely about building up the large parties’ sinecures at the cost of the small parties. It is simply the arrogance of power.

In conclusion, we maintain: The plans of the EU election law reform are undemocratic and in part violate the German constitutional law. It remains to hope – it was certainly already pointed out – that across Europe considerable resistance arises against it. It remains to hope that it never becomes reality.

Thank you.

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Very good speech! 

 

[trans: tem]

           

Jochen Haug, September 22, 2022, EU Citizens Initiative

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/54, pp. 5928-5929.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

We today debate the law to amend the European citizens initiative by which themes can be brought to the EU Commission without the EU Commission being obligated to become substantially active therein. Understand: This toothless tiger is to give the EU a democratic coating. It is nothing more than a simulation of democracy in an undemocratic EU.

Were the EU a state which proposed its acceptance to the EU, the motion would need to be rejected – due to a lack of democratic substance.

Martin Schulz, formerly here with the SPD, then still President of the EU Parliament, said that. Herr Schulz quite correctly acknowledged: A parliament without a right of initiative, a parliament with restricted budgetary rights, based on an election law which violates the fundamental of election freedom, is in fact lacking in democratic substance.

To that pertain political discussions without a common public as a sounding board and a state power without a homogenous state people. That is rule almost without accountability. That is the dream of every technocrat. And a strengthening of the European citizens initiative would not contribute a solution to this problem. On the contrary: Every strengthening of the EU leads to a weakening of the national states. Yet only on the national level can democracy be earnestly lived. What we really need here is the introduction of direct democracy at the Federal level in Germany.

Right honorable colleagues, if you want to promote elements of direct democracy, then begin that here. Say yes to referendums on all questions concerning the national sovereignty. Say yes to referendums on amendments of the Basic Law. Say yes to the facultative referendum which gives to the citizens the opportunity to bring to a vote laws decided on by the parliament. In Switzerland especially, these instruments have been absolutely preserved. These are all points which we for years demand, which you however, out of fear of the sovereign, the German people, reject.

We of the AfD do not want that Germany be governed from Brussels and in that regard we hold that foreign citizens demands with effect, via the Commission, in Germany are fundamentally wrong. We therefore reject this draft law.

Thank you.

 

[trans: tem]