Peter Felser, June 28, 2024, Farm Policy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/179, pp. 23306-23307. 

Right honorable Frau President. Herr Minister. Ladies and gentlemen. Dear guests. 

With the massive elimination of half a billion euros per year for farm diesel, the Ampel unleashed the greatest farmers protests ever since the Peasants Wars of the 16^th Century in Germany. 

            Karmaba Diaby (SPD):  Mein Gott! 

Maximilian Mordhorst (FDP): I would say, since 2019! Yet each has his version of history!

Because you wanted to remove pressure, you promised the German agriculture: At latest by the summer pause, there shall be more planning security, there shall be more relief. You wanted to thereby compensate for the tax hike on farm diesel. 

Since then however, as good as nothing has happened. Quite the opposite: You meanwhile have burdened the agriculture with even more bureaucracy; for example, with the obligatory material flow balance [Stoffstrombilanz] for fertilizer. And then we need learn on Tuesday from the farm press that the Ampel has now put forward a so-called farm package. At lightning speed, this shall now be bludgeoned through the German Bundestag. In three days, on Monday, we shall hear the experts – if they come in at all. Two days later, it shall be in committee and then next Friday, presumably in the last minutes before the summer pause, it shall be decided. 

I truly ask myself: Have you then learned simply nothing from the chaos in regards the heating law? The Federal Constitutional Court expressly wrote to you in the album: You need to give parliament sufficient time so that we can thoroughly occupy ourselves with legal initiatives. Of that, there can be no talk here. Dear colleagues, allow me in this place to clearly emphasize: It thus definitely does not go. That is a trivialization of parliament. If you can’t do it professionally, then at least leave out these conjuring tricks. That is unheard of. 

And what is in the farm package – as opposed to what you now have spoken of? As expected, it falls completely short of the promises of January. You appear to have understood not at all the seriousness of the situation  in agriculture. Where is the reliable financing for animal husbandry? Where are the measures for affordable land prices? Where are the measures for affordable working capital? Where is the tax moratorium? This, what you propose to us here, is nothing more than a farm small parcel. This does not nearly compensate the massive costs of the tax hike on farm diesel. The president of the German farmers union therefore rightly accuses you of a loss of reality. 

Dear colleagues, I say to you what would be the most effective relief measure for the German agriculture: 

            Maximilian Mordhorst (FDP): Bad results for the AfD!

The immediate resignation of the Ampel government. Finally make free the way to new elections! 

I thank you.

[trans: tem]

Peter Felser, December 15, 2022, Origin Labeling

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/76, pp. 9041-9042.

Right honorable Frau President. Herr Minister. Dear colleagues. Dear farmers.

That the animal husbandry labeling planned by you would be counter-productive for all participants, my colleague Protschka has already stated. You rightly receive criticism from all sides of the branch.  I cite, with permission of the President, the association of the meat industry: The law will contribute nothing to the reconstruction of animal husbandry but to the deconstruction of the supply security of German production and also presumably to the deconstruction of the already achieved progress in animal husbandry. – All here present need to give consideration to that. We simply cannot permit that in the present crisis, dear colleagues.

What on the other hand would be a strong support for the branch and all participants, and which is already long overdue, is the obligatory origin labeling [Herkunftskennzeichung] of all foodstuffs. We have repeatedly demanded it and today renew this demand with our motion [Drucksache 20/4889].

The reality however so appears that German agriculture finds itself in a hard displacement competition. Against foreign dumping of foodstuffs, the home farmers effectively have scarcely a chance. Environmental and animal protection play scarcely any role in foreign production. That is also in truth known to everyone here.

A transparent labeling of origin could nevertheless decisively change that. It cannot be, dear colleagues, that there are foodstuffs which contain additives from Poland, from China, from Brazil, which the consumer however simply does not see in a food market. What then is it for a label when thereon is: “Honey from EU and non-EU Countries”? Hello? From non-EU countries? Thus from all the world, from every planet? That is not consumer information, that is a spoof of the consumer, nothing else.

In my Allgäu, Allgäu milk is marketed which in part does not come from Allgäu. Where it says Allgäu milk, in the future it needs therein be Allgäu milk, dear colleagues. Period! All else would be deception of the consumer.

With origin labeling, domestic agricultural products would be visible at a glance to everyone. Producers and consumers could thus themselves decide for home products and thereby for very high animal protection and environmental standards. From all relevant surveys we know that, out there, this is explicitly desired by the consumers.

That this important decision is ever again postponed is irresponsible. Austria, France and Sweden have here already successfully gone ahead. There is thus no substantial or factual reason why we here could not also immediately introduce this in Germany. With our motion, we give to you the opportunity to finally introduce exactly this origin labeling for us in Germany.

Many thanks and a blessed Christmas.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Felser, September 11, 2020, Artificial Intelligence

German Bundestag, September 11, 2020, Plenarprotokoll 19/174, pp. 21897-21898.

Many thanks, Herr President. – Dear colleagues. Dear guests.

What actually is in this White Book KI [Künstliche Intelligenz] of the EU? Artificial Intelligence shall promote the values of the EU, shall implement freedom and human rights around the world. Artificial Intelligence shall advance the Green Deal, impel climate protection, enhance Germany’s competitivity. Artificial Intelligence shall conjure up a citizen-friendly administration, maximize all economic and social well-being and naturally prevent discrimination.

Ladies and gentlemen, with this, you are world champions in the abstractions of naïve, feel-good prose. You thereby wish only to veil an inherent ineffectiveness and lack of deliberation in regards these important topics. For KI, the greatest hindrance – as we have certainly heard here – is the people’s lack of trust. We hear ever again exactly that in the inquiry committee “Artificial Intelligence”. Ja, dear colleagues of the Federal government, then for once speak clearly with the citizens. Stop with the unspeakable buzz. Tell people, clearly and substantively, where lie the advantages of an installation of KI systems and where lie the disadvantages of an installation of KI systems. With such an open discussion, you would build trust in this country.

You want a “world-wide pioneering role for the EU in KI systems” – world-wide. Europe, by fundamental research into the practical application of “globally successful business models” shall assume a “leadership position” – leadership position. Hopefully, nobody in China or the U.S.A. is reading this White Book. What then do you wish to do for this leadership position? Provide skilled personnel and, before all, you wish to regulate. Ladies and gentlemen, we do not thereby overhaul the deficit.

Europe has no hardware production worthy of the name. Except for one German firm, we have no significant software manufacturer; you know that. We in Germany and Europe also have no platforms. Non-European players dominate in all three areas. Yet here lie the principal problems which we must address. You can have as many skilled personnel, standards and rules as you wish: If you have no data platforms, build no mainframe computer, do not program the software and do not yourself manage the networks, then your standards are a waste. That sadly I must say, dear colleagues.

An example of an utterly naïve digital prestige project – backed by you in the motion – : Gaia-X. Gaia-X as a European cloud infrastructure shall be an alternative to the offerings of the great market masters in the U.S.A. and China – sounds good for once. But why in all the world should small and mid-sized firms store their data in the Gaia infrastructure? What is the unique feature? You say: European standards as a unique feature. Yet the big American and Chinese firms are already here. They offer European data storage on their cloud servers. They have long since recognized the demand for European standards. As a a businessman in the IT area, I decide according to performance, speed, availability, security and price, as to which cloud servers I ultimately hand over my data. I am sure that many firms in Germany will act  exactly the same. And even you, dear colleagues of the Greens, host your national site on Google.

The problem lies elsewhere. Gaia-X stands for digital sovereignty, you say. Yet even that is false. We have no digital sovereignty. From where comes the hardware for these servers and routers which you wish to construct? From where comes the network technology? In each case, not from Europe; keyword: “Huawei”.

For months already, I have in this place spoken of Europe’s scandalous dependence in the areas of data storage, hardware and software. We must solve that before we push any other projects.

I am grateful.

 

[trans: tem]

Peter Felser, December 20, 2019, Artificial Intelligence

Peter Felser

Artificial Intelligence

German Bundestag, December 20, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/138, p. 17240

[Peter Felser is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from Bavaria. He is an IT businessman.]

Right honorable Herr President. Dear colleagues.

I wish to use the present opportunity to address some self-evident postulates of KI [artificial intelligence] use, for which neither strategy papers nor experts discussions are needed and which will make clear where the problem lies, in Germany and in Europe.

First: Society. There is not one European firm among the top ten hardware manufacturers. Among the top ten internet firms, there is found not one from Europe. And among the top ten software makers is only one European firm: The well known firm of SAP in Walldorf. Our future mobile telephone indeed will be Chinese. That is the situation. Dear government, how will you then retain control of our citizens data, concerning which we are speaking of today?

Generalleutnant Leinhos, Inspector of the Bundeswehr command for cyber and information space, has often warned of the digital defense situation and the consequences for our society. Of the particularly influential application areas of artificial intelligence – of which we have already heard today – data security is the most important basic principle; for example, for health care, or for de-bureaucratization or for slimming down the officialdom. For that, we require promptly dedicated European data rooms.

Second: Citizens’ rights. In regards the possible processing of data by the administration, it must be guaranteed that neither officials nor firms be able to benefit from the data collected to the  disadvantage of the citizen. We want no Chinese or American situation, dear colleagues. A policy must not be allowed which so optimizes insurance contributions, credit terms or access to medical care that individuals or entire groups are systematically disadvantaged. For that, our democracy requires control bodies, citizen participation at all levels and a commitment to transparency.

Third: Education. Solid, fundamental KI research and a widely presented application training are prerequisites of a socially useful and, before all, socially acceptable use of artificial intelligence. We need a central KI campus and a research center for new technologies.

Here, also, the government has shown itself to be a master of advertising. With their strategy, they want to hire 100 KI professors. So far, they have added two. Dear colleagues, two KI professors! According to the Fraunhofer Institute, Germany lacks 85,000 with academic credentials in the areas of data analysis and big data. With hand-wringing will be sought more than 10,000 IT experts with knowledge of advanced analytics and data science. How in the next years will these deficits be filled? Improve, finally, the research conditions. When there is a lack of money, terminate the gender professors! That is still perhaps possible…It must happen, ja.

Fourth: KMU [small and mid-sized businesses], Mittelstand. Should we grant unrestricted access to European markets of the future to the great data gatherers like Google, Amazon or Tencent, then there will remain of the German Mittelstand only a vague memory. Data availability is the all-limiting factor; you know that. For the small and mid-sized firms, it is much more difficult to train their own algorithms when the training data is potentially to be stored by Google, AWS, or Citrix. It is a platitude of the digital business: He always profits who has the greater amount of data at his disposal. I very much doubt that he will later become the carpenter from Kempton or the machine builder from Göppingen.

The policy must create the framework for a European open data solution. I want our children to be able to buy a hand-carved Christmas manger from the Erzgebirge and not just the artificial product of a 3-D printer in Shenzhen. I wish you Merry Christmas.

Thank you kindly.

[Translated by Todd Martin]

  

Peter Felser, February 9, 2019, Nord Stream 2

Peter Felser

Nord Stream 2

February 9, 2019

[Peter Felser is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member form the southern German state of Bavaria. He is an information technology businessman and sits on the Bundestag’s food and agriculture committee. ]  

… A German-French friendship treaty was recently staged with great pathos by Merkel and Macron and already one of the partners, France, assists American economic policy against the befriended Germany. Macron has with Brussels recently negotiated for the French energy sector the first exception regulations to the EU gas guidelines. He is now blocking the diversification of the European energy supply to the benefit of American and French energy concerns. With that is it quite clear how fragile and to whose detriment is the design of the “German-French Partnership”, the “Spirit of Aachen”.  

A diversified energy supply is in the German interest. Germany is not the self-service store of our American friends. The discreetly silent acceptance of U.S. ambassador to Berlin [Richard] Grenell’s blatant threats is unworthy of a sovereign nation. The presently negotiated compromise cannot remove disappointment over disunity in the EU and the federal government’s susceptibility to extortion.  

The financing of Polish and Ukrainian transit tariffs moreover burdens the German taxpayer and increases energy costs for the citizen. A promotion of independence in the energy sector would directly relieve those of low income.

[Translated by Todd Martin]