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]

Peter Boehringer, March 13, 2025, Debt Brake and War Budget

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/213, pp. 27710-27711. 

Frau President. 

“I would find it…most highly problematic if the 20^th German Bundestag, which has an almost completely lost democratic legitimacy,…reached in its last days such fundamental decisions.” 

These are not my words, but of colleague Frei of the CDU, not of today – today, he said something different – but of a good ten days ago. That is approximately the shelf-life of CDU promises. 

We thus today as the 20^th German Bundestag are then still allowed to act only if, fully surprising, an existential and unavoidable decision for our nation is pending. Which however is not so. This morning here already could the 21^st Bundestag sit. It is simply anti-democratic that Herrn Merz and Klingbeil, disregarding the 21^st Bundestag, want to have the Basic Law changed with majorities of the old, outgoing Bundestag.   

We speak today of hundreds of billions of euros of special debts. We speak even of the long-term undermining of the regular order of a unified Federal budget with a clear debts upper limit. Over one trillion euros as additional state debt shall be taken up. Upon every net taxpayer shall be inflicted debts calculated at more than 60,000 euros if these amounts are issued, which will only last a few years – perhaps pretty much like this coalition’s time in office. 

Debts are, despite the propaganda, never investments in a good future and also never, Frau Dröge, in the state interest. On the contrary: The interest and thus tax burden take design options from future generations. Naturally the debts intoxication leads to high inflation under which primarily the little man suffers. You devour in advance one trillion euros for which others need later starve. In this regard, the recognition of the debt brake is even in the Union’s election program: 

            “We adhere to the debt brake…Today’s debts are tomorrow’s tax increases.” 

And Herr Merz said in the election campaign: 

“The debt brake defends…the tax payments of the young generation. Shall we today expend their money? We take in 1,000 billion euros in taxes…and with that we should make do.” 

Herr Merz, you commit, even before entry into office, the quickest and greatest election fraud in German history. Nothing, simply nothing in today’s situation is surprising. The problems exist for decades. Supposedly, the money will now be expended exclusively and rapidly for infrastructure and the Bundeswehr. Investments in these areas under black-red chancellors in the last 35 years – the fat years – were never sufficiently undertaken; otherwise, there would not generally be giant, structural deficits: Who should believe that this time, for the first time, it will be different? 

In addition, the 2022 100 billion euros of special debts were in part mis-appropriated [zweckfremdet] for the Ukraine. Mis-appropriation now also threatens with the new regulation whereby such defense expenditures may be under taken without regard to the debt limits of the Basic Law. Note well: Open at the top and without time limitation. That is unbelievable. 

Besides, today in Article 87a of the Basic Law, of which all of you here formulate lies, is that debt-financed military support would be one time only. That is in the Basic Law. The truth is: You conceal, with the debt mountains created today, the giant budget problems which you in any case would have had. The truth is: This coalition could not draw up its first of all budgets in the summer of 2025 in conformity with the constitution, if you did not today approve a giant gulp from the bottle of future tax payments. You want to create an enormous ancillary budget which nearly doubles the money available for your dubious purposes. You obtain the means to govern authoritatively for four years, cost what it will. So too could Laurel and Hardy govern [Sie erschleichen sich die Mittel, um vier Jahre durchzuregieren, koste es, was es wolle. So könnten auch Dick und Doof regieren]. 

In a real Cold War, the GDR, for 40 years until 1991, could bring in Federal defense spending of a sum of two percent and more of GDP, quite without special debts. The Bundeswehr has no budget problem, but a management and strategy deficit. Yet who with negligent frankness talks up enmities and war, can naturally no longer pocket a peace dividend. 

The future indebtedness relations, ladies and gentlemen, were earlier only in times of war and pre-war. The war capacity demanded by Pistorious, Merz and von der Leyen shall be completed by a war financing without a war. That is irresponsible – not only fiscally. 

“Who is against debt is for Russian panzers in Germany.” That is the perfidious argument – from Frau Haßelmann – which brands every critical budget member as a traitor. That is a quite wicked level. Do not make an enemy of both East and West! Invest in diplomacy! We will then need billions less for the military. And it is not initially clear what then shall be the defense policy ideas behind the new, unlimited armaments spending: An EU army, or perhaps a NATO with the U.S.A. or without the U.S.A.? It’s all open. Yet there is not unlimited money in a machine which does not even have a basic plan. We will give you here no 13-figure blank check. The way to the war economy goes without us. 

Your chancellorship, Herr Merz, leads, before its beginning, without any emergency, to a crisis of democracy. In case this delegitimizing coup against the 21^st German Bundestag and against the people’s will ascertained by the Bundestag election is in fact forced through, then is actually just the question: Where is the Constitution Defense when it is needed? 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Peter Boehringer, September 13, 2024, Delayed Bankruptcy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/186, p. 24196. 

Frau President. 

Following this week’s debates, it is increasingly confirmed: The government attempts everything to drag itself through to the autumn of 2025. And furthermore, no clarity is created for the central questions of the draft budget. 

How perchance should one deal with the giant gaps in the two fully distinct military estimates? For one with the regular costs for a Bundeswehr for the defense of Germany: Legitimate expenditures, yet even today and first of all, quite unclearly financed in the finance planning time frame. For another with the expenditures for misguided foreign missions, primarily for the Ukraine war which in addition is not our war. Billions in costs for direct and indirect German participation in war, concealed by an EU peace facility, a 50 billion EU Ukraine facility and in a Federal budget by the so-called post-procurement [Nachbeschaffung] of material, which however means nothing other than the physical donation of Bundeswehr material for use at a foreign front. German weapons will be given to Zalenskyi and then post-procured; that is in x places in the budget: Pro forma for the Bundeswehr. Here, the Bundeswehr is misused as a transshipment warehouse for an unfortunate and lost war which needs to be solved diplomatically. 

Then your sustainability budget for 2024. That the Ampel on account of the fully “unexpected” worsened business cycle still brings in the autumn of the current year a sustainability budget is a novelty in the history of budgets. Thereby will now be obtained the indebtedness margin, increased 11 billion euros by purely technical formula, ten months after the issuance of the original budget. That is not serious, particularly as the Ampel embezzles transaction proceeds from the sale of the Bund’s silverware – over 4.1 billion euros –, simply illegal in the accounting, so that then the debt brake will no longer be observed for the fifth year in a row. 

Colleague Bury plainly said something correct, and for another reason is this budget again not constitutional. 

The Ampel here besides profits from the evil fruits of its own policy. Since of course the origins of the worsened economic activity were the years-long oppressive and fraudulent Corona preventive measures, the world’s dumbest energy policy, and the omnipresent, false incentive which you set above all with the planned economy CO₂ religion. Only that allowed you, on the basis of the somewhat questionable debts logic of Article 115 of the Basic Law, to today also obtain an extra 11 billion. 

There still continues to be some billions in risks in the budget which you yourselves have created. The risk of still further excess EEG compensations due to the planned economic guaranty price, the risk of a further exploding citizens’ wage [Bürgergeld], the risk of an abolition of the solidarity surtax, soon to be prescribed by the Constitutional Court, of course also the risk of a dramatically broken down economy. In the auto industry, that risk is already a reality. In July 2024, an orders breakdown of minus 29 percent vis-à-vis the previous year was to be written down; in regards E-autos, even a minus 69 percent in comparison with the previous year’s month. 

The Ampel apparently just plans precisely until the election date in September 2025. With you, it is therein clear, even if you deny it, that at the precise point after September 2025 there will be no more money. Any new Finance Minister will need to immediately order a budget embargo. Or then the Ampel or a successor perhaps proclaims yet again an emergency situation, so as to be able to conceal and compensate their own self-made budget emergency yet again by means of an ostensible external catastrophe? That is not academic. The coalition’s speakers in this week have explicitly not denied a new budget emergency on the basis of – cite Habeck – a historical struggle in the Ukraine. Whenever those governing trouble themselves over the pathos of endurance and historical dimensions, it becomes dangerous and expensive for the citizens. 

Yet then Herr Habeck also says what for an Economy Minister is a legendary sentence: The “Budget is not the center of the world”. Indecent numbers are thus to the Economy Minister all the same, – unbelievable! – all the same to him also is presence at this budget debate. 

The Ampel in any case is from the summer of 2025 no longer interested in the entire misery; Germany unfortunately still needs to be interested. In business, delayed bankruptcy is a criminal act; in this government, a common practice. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Peter Boehringer, March 21, 2024, Debt Brake

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/160, pp. 20611-20612. 

Frau President. 

For the umpteenth time the Linke wants to abolish the debt brake, this time disguised as a “reform”. Meant, however, is the cold abolition; Herr Görke was certainly at least honest. Since 2020, we clearly have a great coalition of all old parties for a boundless making of debt. In addition, we know that the tax money will not be sufficient for the government even in 2025. And the SPD’s speaker has confirmed that a great left-green debt coalition thoroughly sympathizes with this “reform”, or with the abolition idea. 

What does the Linke now concretely propose? In the future, a “transition phase” of precisely one year shall increase the possible excess indebtedness, which diametrically contradicts what the Federal Constitutional Court permitted just last November: Very clearly, a setting aside of the debt brake only for the year of a catastrophe itself. Any time exceeding a year was explicitly forbidden by the Federal Constitutional Court. That does not interest the leftist writers of the motion. 

In the motion’s second demand, the single hard guideline of Article 115, namely the structural deficit limit of 0.35 percent of GDP, shall be annulled. That however would be no “reform” of the debt brake, but a material alteration of the Basic Law’s wording, which may not proceed with a simple motion but only with a law to amend the Constitution with a two-thirds majority. The motion is thus also badly written. 

With the third demand, the besides already highly mathematical finding procedure for the debt brake’s business cycle component shall be still further complicated. Who for once takes a rudimentary look at the formulation [Formelwelt], and the arbitrary scope of valuation which will be used for this calculation, knows that a self-indebted government chronically short of money can thereby vastly exceed the permitted limit of indebtedness – even today. The aim of the Linke, to receive still “greater fiscal scope”, as it is in the motion, is thus absurd, since this scope today already is enormous. 

Clearly, the terms in Article 115 of the Basic Law are very spongy. There are therein named arbitrary expectations without clear deduction criteria, free of parameters as a result of unclear entities, certain cyclical norms, gaps in production, estimates of potential and cyclical settlement procedures, all without binding definitions. And the number in the end will determined by technocratic procedures and legal decrees. 

Dear Linke, you should here just simply love the already existing planned economy, instead of wanting to reform it. Precisely that of course already is your vulgarized Keynesian theoretical model of a world. Simply enjoy it as long as you are still permitted to sit here and play with a national economy. 

Many thanks. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): Nothing missed there!

 

[trans: tem]

 

Peter Boehringer, November 28, 2023, Budget Crisis

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/139, pp. 17659-17660. 

Frau President. 

We experience historic weeks. Years of law-breaking and false decisions culminate in a budget crisis behind which is hid a crisis of government and also one of reason. The Chancellor’s conclusions from a compelling decision of the Constitutional Court are deviant and illogical. The government cannot in 2023 retroactively assert the continuation of an uncontrollable emergency situation which in 2022 itself had declared to be ended. That doesn’t go.   

It might have been strained as to whether this time it would be based on an energy emergency, or a foreign war, or a newly inflamed Corona rage, or the immediately impending over-heating of the Earth, – we have heard even that from Herr Kindler – or like a storm flood of the previous week in Schleswig-Holstein, it needed to be held out as an emergency basis for 2024. Yesterday evening came the solution: The war of February 2022 and even the Ahrtal flood of 2021 are the culprits for the emergency of 2023. All of this you discover directly after the decision and quite suddenly in November 2023, retroactive to January. At which embarrassing level should we here still be deceived? 

To expect a vote in favor of this reasoning in the Bundestag will similarly be the next breach of the constitution. Neither in 2023 nor 2024 arises an emergency situation in the sense of Article 115 of the Basic Law. One breach of the constitution is not healed by another, Herr Chancellor. And your demonstrative exit from the hall at this sentence in my speech therein alters nothing at all. 

You decided on, – you still adhere to it – in one of your first acts in office as Chancellor together with the new Finance Minister Lindner, the absurd 2021 supplementary budget in January 2022 and therein also the quite clearly unconstitutional accounting system. The special funds’ illegal credits of many billions should be the cash box for the implementation of the red-green goals altering society. The entire policy of the CO₂ hysteria energy guidelines, the mass immigration, the woke transformation of society, the hostility to industry, the Corona lockdowns costing billions, and gifts of weapons to foreign countries, would not have been thinkable without this money. 

Unfortunately, the Constitutional Court has withdrawn from you the financial operations basis just now, dozens of billions too late. For four years already, Germany is governed by financial emergency. There is a whiff of Weimar; from 1930, there was emergency government, mostly supported by emergency decrees. Since 2020, by the Groko and by the Ampel were generally declared “emergency situations”. In this way is the debt brake shredded, the Basic Law circumvented – the people need to know this! 

The Greens chief Ricarda Lang even demands the permanent suspension of the constitutional debt brake. Herr Mützenich has also plainly more than implied it. It is desired to declare a permanent emergency. “We will also need to discuss the suspension for next year, that is a debate which now…is next”, said Frau Lang. The Ampel stands before political, moral and financial bankruptcy. 

The country can be governed according to the constitution only with a fundamental change of course. The self-named democratic middle – the oh so democratic middle! – has with at least three budgets governed beyond the constitution. And the SPD delegation chief here in this place has a few minutes ago designated the Basic Law as a monstrance, as an embarrassing relic! Shame on you, Herr Mützenich! Where is the Constitution Defense when it is needed? Where is it? These are attacks on the free democratic basic order, here from this podium! 

One cannot be permanently pressured by a crisis. The decades-long, lies-of-a-lifetime policy of all the old parties cannot be compensated by debts and tax money. I here in this place in the Bundestag said exactly so at the proclamation of the first emergency situation in March 2020. It still does not go. 

Herr Scholz, from the beginning, your uncovered, deliberately illegal checks have even worsened the German misery. Had this money not been expended, Germany today would be not only financially but generally better, because then a mass of social-political nonsense would not have been able to be financed. And all of you have participated since the Kohl’schen checkbook times! 

The AfD is ready to clear away this debris, yet only when you put away the false decisions and make free the way for a new beginning, for finally a once more rational-, national-led  government. Then, despite the horrendous damages resulting from eight years of borders given up and billions of interest-bearing indebtedness which will burden the budget until 2070, 

            Vice-president Yvonne Magwas: Please come to a conclusion.

exists the opportunity for a rescue of Germany. – My last sentence. – Yet initially required is your exit as a purifying catharsis which, yes as in classical tragedy, is the prerequisite for a healing. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Peter Boehringer, November 16, 2023, Budget

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/137, pp. 17323-17324. 

Frau President. 

The Federal Constitutional Court has announced a decision not surprising to us. The first of all Ampel budget, that is of 2021-2022, was declared unconstitutional and, what is more, null. I refer to our resolution motion of that time, Drucksache 20/488, and the 60 billion euro additional debt put through by you in 2022 in a 2021 supplementary budget law. There, we foretold not only the decision, but almost exactly the three-part grounds of Karlsruhe, 

            Beatrix von Storch (AfD): Here, here!

not because we had had a crystal ball or excellent jurists, but because the legal situation was then already fully clear. We formulated in a motion then, word for word, the law “trespasses in direct, obvious ways against central, constitutionally anchored fundamentals of the budget law”. 

            Beatrix von Storch (AfD): Oh!

One thus actually can only declare with frank intent that the Ampel government, practically with its first act in office, simply and completely disregarded provisions of the Basic Law. 

The Ampel in 2022 wanted to unconditionally take up the 60 billion euros in a still possible 2021 supplementary credit, even though the year 2021 was already past and even though the expenditures based on a CO₂ ideology had not the least causal relation with Corona. 

It further is very positive that with the decision will now finally be brought to an end an accounting system of debts in special funds outside the debt brake, recognized by us as unconstitutional since its introduction. Herr Post, it is far beyond the 60 billion euros. 

The Finance Minister also now apparently acknowledges this. Yesterday evening, Herr Lindner said in the Budget Committee that the decision re-evaluates state practice. Well, actually not, Herr Lindner. It puts back on a legal footing the illegal state practice exercised by all of you of the old parties, inclusive of the CDU, since 2021. 

Read without reserve here the entire decision. The trick, used by all of you, of the multi-year formation of reserves for use at the pump after the official end of an emergency situation was in retrospect generally unconstitutional, thereby among others the 170 billion euros in credit-financed reserve supply for the WSF [Economic Stability Fund] in fiscal year 2022, and also besides the 26 billion euro formation of reserves in the EKF by the CDU-led government in a 2020 supplementary budget. 

            Beatrix von Storch (AfD): Oops!

Allow me to cite the strong words of a colleague directed then on July 2, 2020 to Finance Minister Scholz: 

“Today you present a second supplementary budget…it violates the Basic Law…the second supplementary budget encroaches upon essential constitutional principles like per annum…truth and clarity…I do not understand why one can make a career in the SPD in Germany only if one presents unconstitutional budgets…” 

He further said: 

I do not understand “why the CDU/CSU Bundestag delegation here becomes the assistants aide of a possible breach of the constitution. I hold that to be a gigantic failure, Herr Rehberg.” 

In parentheses: CDU. End citation. 

That was then exactly so represented by me and in the AfD motions. The citation however stems from today’s FDP delegation chief, Christian Dürr. It’s nice that you have found us! Unfortunately, the FDP in the Ampel immediately forgot its knowledge of that time, Herr Dürr. 

            Beatrix von Storch (AfD): Really quite embarrassing!

The 2024 budget put forward, due to the accounting practice used therein, will from the day of its issuance be constitutionally assailable. I thus ask you all: How long shall continue the abuse of such special funds with booked credits, not legal as measured by Article 115 of the Basic Law? How long do you want to drag this out? Already, it runs for years. 

In the climate and transformation fund, the decision – which is legally uncontested – mathematically and legally leads to that for your most important shadow budget the money will run out already in 2024. My delegation for certain, honestly said, does not find that so tragic, since it deals with almost only ideologically-based misappropriations. Following this decision, the currently presented Ampel budget cannot however now be passed as put forward. 

We demand, as already for long, the almost complete cancellation of all KTF [climate and transformation fund] titles, and we demand a new edition of the 2024 budget process under an accounting for the special funds credits and within the debt brake. 

In a government focused on Germany, no taxes for years would need be increased and – without failed euro rescue, Corona, energy and social ideologies – also no illegal debts be made. Finally make non-ideological policy conforming to the law for the national welfare of Germany! 

Hearty thanks. 

            Gabriele Katzmarek (SPD): Congratulations on your ideological speech!                                Mein Gott! 

 

[trans: tem]

Peter Boehringer, September 22, 2023, EU Finance

AfD Kompakt, September 22, 2023. 

The EU parliamentarians have ever more obviously lost every contact to the situation in their homelands. Already, the Commission’s demand for an increase of the multi-year financing is completely overdrawn and inappropriate. The financing is fixed at seven years, for which the present budget, with over 1.8 trillion euros, is more than sufficiently provided. Nothing which is planned in Brussels might not be financed from this budget. If additional needs arise, the EU plainly must save in other places. 

That the EU Parliament now readies itself to simply raise the contribution named by the Commission without a conclusive needs analysis verifies the aloofness of the Brussels elites who, solely and alone, draw to themselves yet ever more resources so as to build up their power and to further pursue their ideological goals in the areas of climate and migration. The AfD has good reasons for wanting to end the pseudo-democratic behavior in Brussels and Strasbourg. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

Peter Boehringer, August 29, 2023, De-industrialization

AfD Kompakt, August 29, 2023. 

The wave of insolvency which presently rolls through Germany does not fall from Heaven and it is not a purely market event, but the result of an utterly failed policy. It thus borders on whitewashing when some economics experts now speak of an “overdue market settlement” in regards to the “lack of ability to compete of numerous firms”. Since this ability to compete was systematically destroyed by the policy by means of half-witted energy and tax policy, by means of deranged Corona preventive measures, by means of over-regulation and planned economy subventions. Who should believe that presently in Germany new businesses are being formed which replace the defunct firms? The fact is that we in Germany thus need to do everything to stop the advancing de-industrialization, for the Mittelstand’s economic substance will not return once it has been squandered. The political substance needed here is nevertheless found only with the AfD, since the AfD alone is in the position to introduce the political turnaround which is required for the revival of Germany as a business venue. The solution does not lie in support and stabilization measures and not in costly implantations of chip factories out of tax revenues, but in a profound alteration of the general conditions. Only under this prerequisite will there at all again be in the future investing in Germany worthy of the name. 

 

[trans: tem]

Peter Boehringer, August 1, 2023, Constitution Defense

AfD Kompakt, August 1, 2023. 

It is not yet four weeks that we of the AfD national committee needed to warn the President of the BfV [Federal Office for the Defense of the Constitution] of fully unfair election recommendations, neither appropriate nor permitted to his office. At the beginning of July, he already publicly insinuated, “Not alone to the Constitution Defense” does it “belong to reduce the polling results of the AfD”; and “I believe this is a circumstance [of the AfD] which German voters should also have in the back of the mind.” 

And the present, renewed, over-reaching, false statements, in no way substantiated by Haldenwang during the current nominations convention for the European election, are by us in no case acceptable. Haldenwang, with his babble of “extreme right conspiracy theories”, wants to have direct influence, quasi “live”, in an important intra-party process, and again express a warning to citizens against an AfD election. That is plainly not permitted according to Art 21(1) GG [Basic Law], Art 11 EMRK [European Convention on Human Rights] and §16(1) BverfSchG [Federal Constitution Defense Law]. 

That the German government attempts to manipulate, well beforehand, elections in Europe by means of its government defense authorities, is obviously unworthy of a democratic state of law. Haldenwang attempts to one-sidedly influence the sovereigns’ voting behavior. That a Geheimdienst [intelligence service] of this type meddles in the democratic determination process, would seem to be unique among democracies – and is of course illegal. Already in 1977, the Federal Constitutional Court quite unmistakably forbade precisely such conduct (BVerfG, Urt. V. 2.3.1977, Az 2 BvE 1/76). And also the founding legislation, BVerfSchG §16(1), quite clearly ordered: “The BfV is not to be an institution of political formation”. Neither the giving of election recommendations nor commentaries on current democratic processes is a duty of the Geheimdienstes. 

The accusations again raised by Haldenwang concerning so-called “extremist right conspiracy theories”  were already a part of the charges against the AfD of the Constitution Defense report of 2022. The President of the BfV was expressly questioned on this in the Interior Committee of the German Bundestag. And to repeated questions there, Haldenwang could neither explain what his legal definition of a “conspiracy narrative” generally is, nor which such narratives are then generally incompatible with the Constitution. Just as little could he explain which of these narratives are judicable or pose a danger to the FDGO [free, democratic basic order]; no more, permitted expressions of opinion… The long since confirmed suspicion that the BfV is operating primarily a partisan political defamation campaign opposed to the AfD has thereby become a certainty. Its President is not in a position to substantiate, genuinely fact-oriented, objectively comprehensible, his serious accusations. On account of the evidently purely political motivations of the Constitution Defense’s entire work against the AfD, “inter alia Faeser”, in our opinion all categorization and observation measures of the AfD are to be halted. 

 

[trans: tem]

Peter Boehringer, June 21, 2023, Debt Brake

AfD Kompakt, June 21, 2023.

The proceeding in Karlsruhe for the 2021 second supplementary budget is of utmost importance for the future of the debt brake. The Constitutional Court has in hand the presumably last chance to save the debt brake, after this in the last years was systematically circumvented. Especially the trick of parking credit authorizations in reserve in whichever special fund presents a striking violation against the per annum principle and leads to that the debt brake idles throughout the year. The Court is requested to end this practice. The Federal government at this point in time should not budget this 60 billion.

And if the AfD delegation does substantially support the Union’s complaint for the 2021 second supplementary budget, the degree of hypocrisy which the Union manifests in this connection is not to be overlooked. The formation of credit-financed reserves and the alienation of Corona emergency funds obviously violate fundamental, normative fiscal principles, yet the Union-led coalition took in hand exactly these same maneuvers for the 2020 second supplementary budget as well as in the 2021 budget. At that time, the AfD delegation, as the only delegation, attempted to stop these proceedings by means of a normative control procedure (Drucksachen 19/22926, 19/26549). At the time, no Member of the other delegations wanted to join in these motions. It remains to hope that the Union’s intercession for the debt brake also still has standing if it ever again should arrive at responsibility for the government.  

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

Peter Boehringer, October 21, 2022, Shadow Budget and Energy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/64, pp. 7272-7273.

The government today still says nothing in the last reading of its draft law of how the planned economy, guaranteed to be highly bureaucratic and never to be legally implemented gas price caps should be installed. Who receives money? Which prices prices will be where capped? How will the operative be implemented? All of this in the first months will be regulated by decree. The draft law put forward is simply not ready for a decision.

A test question for you all, whether you have even read the laughably brief business plan contained in a law for the 200 billion euro fund: How much money does it foresee for the announced December payments? Now, I say to you: Here is exactly zero euros. The same for the gas price brake, the electricity price brake and additional support measures: Not a euro. Frau Esdar, one cannot block what is in fact not in the business plan. That simply does not work. There is nothing here to block. We have nothing, in any case not for 2022. And yet the Bundestag shall today agree that 200 billion euros in new debts shall be stowed in reserves in a purposeless, moreover completely undefined shadow budget. It would be absurd to bestow upon the government such a blank check.

The only correct way for such a law would be a 2022 supplementary budget for the really quite small sum which, as the planned December energy payment, will in fact be payed out to people and businesses. The Finance Minister – not present – nevertheless wants to put more than 20 times that in the 2022 budget, which then brings his twelve month balance of new indebtedness to a round 500 billion euros. And the Federal Audit Authority, as exactly for years the AfD, has stated: The accounting trick of the accumulation of reserves is very likely unconstitutional. – We say: It is unconstitutional.

The 200 billion euros is not required for 2022.Your appropriation today in the WSF [economic stabilization fund] serves only to get around the debt brake which at present is by luck still set aside. What at all is that? On this point also, the Union is dishonest; since the Grand Coalition still lead by the Union in 2021 found an additional trick whereby credits only in the year making the credit will accounted for in the debt brake, which in the Corona time was practically set aside and today still is. Luckily these tricks are now finally in Karlsruhe. Return to the law. That goes for all.

Our motion [Drucksache 20/4094] to be voted on today gives to you the opportunity for a careful budgeting of the required monies. Simply vote for it! Then the people and businesses who suffer under the present false policy can be assisted. For a merely symptomatic alleviation with tax money of the world’s dumbest energy policy, the shadow sums are much too high. Required is the causal aversion [ursächliche Abwenden] from the existentially dangerous energy emergency. We say this for months; even before the Ukraine war we have said this. In regards energy themes, finally listen to the rational voice of the AfD.

Hearty thanks.

            Otto Fricke (FDP): I find speeches with lace finish always good!

 

 

[trans: tem]