Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts

Monday, January 29, 2024

Rüdiger Lucassen, January 19, 2024, Populism and Cruise Missiles

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/148, pp. 18939-18940. 

Frau President. Frau Defense Commissioner. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The CDU/CSU this week carves out motions in which it demands, free of charge, “more weapons for the Ukraine”: Day before yesterday Taurus cruise missiles, today one million artillery shells. What comes next? Atomic weapons?

             Marcus Faber (FDP): That is just rubbish!

Some of my colleagues name this CDU/CSU motion “populistic”. I find this not apt. The populist listens to what the people want and then implements it. Basically, the populist, as a politician, is an authentic employee of the people. 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): O Gott!

Yet what the CDU here demands, the majority of Germans do not want. 

            Henning Otte (CDU/CSU): And you are a pacifist?

I know: Direct democracy is to the super democrats of this house a horror. But imagine for once a referendum as in Switzerland, and indeed on the question: Should Germany deliver to the Ukraine cruise missiles and one million artillery shells? My prognosis: You would receive not ten percent for this nonsense. 

Nein, ladies and gentlemen of the Union, with this motion, you do not want to make foreign policy – you want only to irritate the government. 

            Markus Grübel (CDU/CSU): Nein, we represent German interests!

And that as opposition is of course your good right, and it, ja, also works out well. For almost two years, the FDP’s lead candidate for the European Parliament, Frau Strack-Zimmermann, passes by no microphone without demanding more weapons for the Ukraine. Yet the day before yesterday she needed to submit to party discipline and vote against the delivery of Taurus cruise missiles. It is plainly so with the FDP’s convictions: At four percent in the polls and in a government which at anytime can fly apart, for a Strack-Zimmermann also is the shirt closer than the trousers. 

Politically, the CDU/CSU motion put forward is for two reasons nonsense. In the motion text is quite correctly stated the Bundeswehr’s stock of munitions is at a dangerously low level. Yet then the CDU demands under point 2, “to comply with…the Ukrainian request…for munitions… of all calibres…from the Bundeswehr’s stock to the greatest extent possible.” Here, colleague Otte apparently does not know his own motion. The CDU thus knows that the Bundeswehr is not defense-capable – yet despite this, it wants to further disarm. That surely has features of treason [Das hat schon Züge von Landesverrat]. 

            Henning Otte (CDU/CSU): You just had to say that!

And second: The war for the Ukraine will not be decided on the battlefield. Everyone knows that. It would meanwhile thus be a German responsibility to start a diplomatic great offensive from the Bundestag, 

            Sara Nanni (Greens): Oh ja!

instead of here calculating munitions needs. Were you statesmen, you would, immediately and with regard to the impending U.S. elections, begin such diplomacy and not waste additional time with such senseless motions. 

Many thanks. 

            Joe Weingarten (SPD): That is again the speech of the Russian press office! 

            Götz Frömming (AfD, turned to the CDU/CSU): Show window motions! 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

Wednesday, January 10, 2024

Maximilian Krah, December 13, 2023, Multipolarity

AfD Kompakt, December 13, 2023. 

The world increasingly changes and das ist gut so. It is unfortunate that EU elites do not understand this. They are suspended in forms of thought from the Cold War and evidently continue to stubbornly proceed from an intensification [Zuspitzung] between the U.S.A. and China. Yet the world is larger! Many growing nations gaining strength, like Brazil, Russia, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Korea, yet also Japan, are a great opportunity for Germany, since this multipolarity leads to a balancing equilibrium between the states. This in turn restricts the abuse of power by a single one, reduces the danger of arbitrary military intervention and reduces tensions and conflicts between states on the basis of the multiplicity of actors. Multipolarity leads to competition and innovation through rivalry [Konkurrenz]. Multipolarity promotes economic flexibility through a changing geo-political circumstance and thus can lead to prosperity and peace. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

Tuesday, December 26, 2023

Tino Chrupalla, December 13, 2023, Economy and War

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/143, pp. 18091-18093. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

            It needs be well stated following the government declaration of Chancellor Olaf Scholz and  after Herr  Merz’s speech, that they have argued completely past the primary cares and problems of one’s own country. Frau Haßelmann, your speech was a pure war speech, nothing other. That has really shaken me.  

            It thus need not be wondered that ever more citizens look at the Federal government with concern and really with a lack of understanding. If one peeks at the half-time of this Federal government of which it needs be truly said: This country has never been so run down since the Second World War. Within a few months, the economic nation of Germany has been decisively changed by this Federal government: Inflation, a shrinking economy, rising insolvencies. And, as a crown, the Federal Constitutional Court declares your special debts budget unconstitutional. Your conclusions from that – we have today already again heard it: You do not allow yourselves to be diverted, and run exactly so as ever, with the KTF and eyes open into the dead end. – Thus appears this government’s present policy.

 

From the SPD we hear at the party day: Social spending certainly belongs to the SPD’s DNA, social spending which is meanwhile most deeply unsozial because it no more cushions the emergencies of individuals but presents in the form of Bürgergeldes [citizens’ wage] a kind of basic income. This is tied neither to conditions, 

            Christian Petry (SPD): Nonsense! 

nor is partially worse paid work motivated and generally something done for the social state. You see, valued colleagues: This policy continues to create one-sided dependencies and plainly no innovations.  

            Christian Petry (SPD): No idea!

Herr Chancellor, we know you are not a man of many words. You will perhaps go into the history of the Federal Republic as the eternally silent Chancellor. 

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): Olaf, the Forgetful! 

For you, not only the information for the Warburg Bank has gone missing; there is also no idea in your cabinet – none which we notice – of what you actually want to make of Germany. In that regard, we have again today heard nothing. The entire world you want to save and the climate, too. Yet these cannot be the only goals of a German Federal government. 

The citizens of this country need to stand quite high on the agenda for you. In your election campaign, your yourself ever again spoke of “respect”. Where remains the respect for those in this country who are economically active, for the Mittelstand, for the trades, for industry? Instead, you artificially restrict the energy supply. You disconnect intact nuclear power plants, permitting, with the attacks on Nord Stream, that our critical infrastructure be destroyed, and stop the import of Russian gas. 

The Economy Minister conducts his green economic war within Germany and in the entire world. These also he will not win. He so far fails with that, as the economic sanctions against Russia indicate. These have for a consequence – we certainly see it presently – that the Russian economy grows and ours shrinks. That is presently the situation. 

Today, almost every second large business considers emigration from Germany, and every third already sits on packed bags. In that regard, no words from you, Herr Chancellor. And with the rising CO2 prices which you today have announced, you make Germany as a business venue even more unattractive. Industry associations warn of a de-industrialization. The Alternative für Deutschland had done that already for years. For that, we were accused of conspiracy theories; that was then your assertion. The CO2 duty – Frau Haßelmann has just said it, subventions were cut – will not then rise around 30 euros per ton, but around 45 euros. Thereby will the inflation be further heated up next year, and this business venue be further ruined. That is your policy, and that we will prevent. That, I can promise you. 

Ladies and gentlemen, Germany finally needs a prosperity policy in the citizens’ interest. There is therefore finally required an audit. Unnecessary spending needs to give way, and to that belongs the entire theme complex of Ukraine. What I have heard here today really leaves me to an extent stunned. Presently there is six billion euros yearly of Bürgergeld for 700,000 Ukrainians. To the year 2027 shall be expended an additional 17 billion euros for weapons deliveries and five billion euros for the reconstruction. And that – we have heard today what you want to arrange at the European Council – also includes the planned entry of the Ukraine in the EU. This will cost 130 billion euros; the Institute for the German Economy has calculated that. As primary financier, we will of course again need to finance that. 

These expenditures should now before all be defrayed from the regular budget. And here is seen how this Ukraine emergency situation, which you today in principle have announced for next year, shall be planned in the future: By overtaking future, eventual payments lapses of other countries   this you have already today said. Here is seen that we ever more become a war party. We really cannot allow that we continue to impose ourselves in the Ukraine and make ourselves, as single payer and a war party, co-responsible for misery and suffering in the region. 

We presently see – let us peek at the U.S.A.: The U.S. Republicans in the Senate block a package in the billions for the Ukraine and for Israel, because the U.S. citizens plainly do not want to spend more money for foreign wars. The German citizens also no more want that. We need no invented enemy images and firewalls. We finally need – it is what the economy also demands – reasonable parameters so that the remaining businesses continue to produce here. Grasp tax reductions as investments! Businesses and end consumers could figure on a relief of seven billion euros were you, for example, to take back the increase of the [trucking] fee. So as to justify your own budget, you continue to invent additional possible emergency situations. For the hospitality industry, the emergency situation ends in January of next year, and the complete value-added tax will again be due. We say: Seven percent needs to be retained, because otherwise the 19 percent will also apply for meals in day-cares and schools and here also prices for families will further rise. 

Valued Federal government, you all flit through the political everyday. You have no concepts, no goals. Yet with your chair circle policy, you have meanwhile again made hyper-morality and black-white thinking socially acceptable [fähig]. You promise everything to everyone, and of that can thus passably hold to nothing. And therefore, dear colleagues, it lies at hand: This Ampel – so long as it should exist – stands permanently in the red and thus at a standstill. Germany requires change. Germany requires the Alternative. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Tuesday, December 5, 2023

Albrecht Glaser, November 10, 2023, Global Minimum Tax

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/135, p. 17103. 

Hearty thanks, Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The progressive coalition discovers a new tax and the CDU naturally joins in. It is to be granted – and therefore also praised – that after lengthy negotiations an agreement has been reached, and also an international law treaty is tucked behind. To the extent one now tries to lead the work to an end. The new tax law has over a hundred paragraphs and a complexity which is as high as our presently existing income tax law. There is however one other thing which stands beside. The experts see it also. The talk is of the greatest tax project in decades. It is for the representatives of German industry and trades a fully new tax law. A citation from the hearings: The tax consulting profession speaks of a “lack of embedding in the German tax system” and of legal insecurities resulting therefrom.   

Besides a minimum tax declaration at the local finance office and a minimum tax report at the Federal Central Office for Taxes, the affected businesses need to develop and operate their own controlling system so as to account for, control and evaluate the tax burdens and effective taxes of all domestic and foreign subsidiaries on the basis of local accounting guidelines, the international IFRS [International Financial Reporting Standards] regulations and the respective national tax guidelines. Moreover, the goal of a higher tax intake – which is now relativized; it was however always a quite important goal – is not achieved. 

            Deborah Düring (Greens): It is certainly not about a higher tax intake!

For that, there is a study of the ifo Institute which demonstrates that nothing in that regard is forthcoming. It is therefore shifted to the aspect of an improvement of competitiveness. 

The bureaucracy in Germany further increases, despite affirmations otherwise by the entire great coalition in this house. Between July 2021 and 2022, the current bureaucracy expenditure was increased by means of a new law from 6.7 billion euros to a total 17.4 billion euros; ergo, around 11 billion euros, as stated by the national norms control council; that is thus not some number from some journalist. The FDP member Herbrand expressly complained of this phenomenon in a guest contribution in the Wirtschafts Woche in these days where he speaks of a fulfillment expenditure of 44 billion euros which still needs to be added to this latest engrossment of bureaucracy.   

            Maximilian Mordhorst (FDP): He is right!

The initiative for a worldwide minimum tax proceeds from the OECD, a union of 38 developed countries which feel themselves obligated to the market economy. There emerges the question whether the U.S.A. or China – this has been indicated, it is much more dramatic than was indicated – thus seriously introduces the minimum tax, as would have gladly Germany the model boy or the EU. 

            Maximilian Mordhorst (FDP): That is the look in the crystal ball!

Add to this that some states even today are considering defensive measures. Thus the Americans will make tax credits. These tax credits will not lead to that they will be accounted for the minimum tax, but that is a trick so as to relativize the effects in a petty cash fund. It will come, as at the Paris climate agreement, to where only Europeans are obligated to something; others however wait awhile, and think of optimizing their individual national interests. 

Right honorable ladies and gentlemen, you are today driving this country against the wall; there, holiday speeches are of little use. If we do not solve the problems of the high taxation of businesses at over 30 percent, of bearable energy costs, the education failures in primary schools to the creation of hazelnut subjects in the universities, the fading work ethic and the lack of identification with the German virtues, a sustained improvement of the situation in Germany will not enter into it. It requires a change of times, ladies and gentlemen, but a right one. 

Hearty thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Monday, July 17, 2023

Joachim Wundruk, July 6, 2023, NATO

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/115, pp. 14195-14196. 

Her President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The CDU delegation 

            Johann David Wadephul (CDU/CSU): CDU/CSU!

thus wants the upcoming NATO summit to lead to success. A laudable intention, if it would then serve the interests of Germany and the German citizens. 

The Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany in Article 24, paragraph 2, specifies that the Bund may arrange for the guaranty of peace in a system of mutual, collective security and can willingly agree to restrictions of its sovereign rights. A look at the AfD’s program of principles shows that we also regard Germany’s membership in NATO as a central element of our security strategy. 

We nevertheless understand NATO as a purely defensive alliance in regards the alliance territories according to the NATO treaty and basically reject interventions outside these territories. The recent experiences with foreign missions should here be a strong warning for us. Alliance solidarity alone cannot replace vital national interest for a mission of armed forces outside the treaty territories. We therefore also reject the globalization of NATO in the direction of the Indo-Pacific, especially the meddling in Chinese affairs regarding Taiwan. 

            Wolfgang Hellmich (SPD): Where does it meddle there? 

The Federal government should instead strengthen its diplomatic efforts for a peaceful solution of the Taiwan question. 

We support the endeavor for a fair burden-sharing in NATO 

            Ulrich Lechte (FDP): Against freedom and democracy obviously!

and thereby also the so-called two percent goal. The strengthening of the European pillar of NATO is in the German interest so as to strengthen the weight and say of Europeans and also that of Germany vis-à-vis the dominant leading power, the U.S.A. Nevertheless, these additional fiscal means need in fact to be invested in armament and the Bundeswehr’s sustainable capability. It unfortunately is a fact that in the last 15 months the already reduced mission readiness of the German armed forces, as a result of donations to the Ukraine, has still further worsened. This is unacceptable.   

We welcome the membership of Finland and also soon that of Sweden in NATO because this will increase Germany’s security. On that account, we reject the acceptance of the Ukraine into NATO because that would mean not more security but less security. 

We also welcome that the NATO-Russia basic document of 1997 will not be seen as obsolete, despite the Russian aggression. In can in the long-term form a nexus for a new security structure which needs to be based on the principle of common security in Europe. Yet foremost must be sought practical ways for a rapid ending of the Russian war of aggression against the Ukraine. For that are to be used, in my opinion, NATO’s communication channels to Russia, as they were maintained for the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. 

We are critical in regards the announced long-term stationing of a German brigade of approximately 4,000 soldiers in Lithuania; colleague Wadephul has more precisely expressed that. This decision was certainly knit together quicktime with a hot needle. The question presents itself, At whose pressure was this done? From our viewpoint, the existing rotation solution for deterrence is fully sufficient. 

On the whole, we reject the motion put forward by the Union on account of the offensive character of the overall approach for NATO, although we thoroughly share in some of the points in regards the strengthening of the Bundeswehr. NATO needs to again concentrate itself on the its core duty according to the NATO  treaty: On the defense of the alliance territories. 

I thank you for your attention. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

Tuesday, June 20, 2023

Alexander Gauland, June 16, 2023, European Defense Architecture

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/110, p. 13436.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

From Germany should never again a war proceed: This is the lesson of our history. With the power politics as seen in Yugoslavia and in the German weapons deliveries to the Ukraine, this objective was and is nevertheless irreconcilable.

Over eastern Germany presently take place the largest NATO air maneuvers since 1945, a calculated affront and an edifying example. Defense against air attacks on Rostock is practiced  only a few minutes flight distant from the Baltic Sea where the explosion of the Nord Stream pipelines could have been prevented. Instead of that, many here applauded.

This leads us directly to the security architecture of our country and of Europe. We are tightly bound as a part of the NATO American interests policy, many times a little too tightly. Since 1990, over 250 military operations have been conducted with U.S. participation. From others is it gathered to designate this as “war”.

The migration flows from the Near East and North Africa are proximately connected with the U.S. interventions. Failures in Afghanistan, in Iraq and Libya, as well as the financing of color revolutions in Russia’s vicinity, make the U.S.A. a not always unproblematic partner.

For us it is in any case time to reconsider alternatives in Europe, not unconditionally in the EU but in a Europe of sovereign nations as we imagine it, as our party has imagined it: Initially in parallel to NATO, later, if possible, as a sovereign defense architecture which comes to its own decisions, yet – and this is the problem – also can and must carry through.

            Alexander Lambsdorff (FDP): Just like before 1945! It certainly worked out                            super!

The Minsk agreement certainly was good: It could have been and needed to be carried through,

            Henning Otte (CDU/CSU): That should have been said to Putin!

even if the U.S.A.’s diverging geopolitical interests, as surely in regards the eastern expansion of NATO, do not unconditionally agree with an all-European security interest.

            Ulrich Lechte (FDP): You now become not even mediocre, Herr Gauland!

Ladies and gentlemen, a contribution to the security of Germany is first for once the definition of German interests to be secured in each instance. A rules-based, values-driven foreign policy is plainly too little for that, plainly an ideologically-driven phrase, like so much of what you put out as policy.

I am grateful.

 

[trans: tem]

 

Monday, May 15, 2023

Tino Chrupalla, May 10, 2023, German De-industrialization and the U.S.A.

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/102, pp. 12290-12291.

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

Robert Habeck has made the Economy Ministry into the Nepotism Economy Ministry: State secretaries are married to, related to, or are the in-laws of experts, an entire family clan; the spouse wants to procure a job for the best man, etc., etc. These hagglings occur at the Bundestag and have nothing but nothing to do with the civil service ethic which distinguishes our country. It destroys trust in politics and befits a Green transformation agenda. Herr Habeck, you have today spoken in committee of compliance, yet of ethics you apparently have never heard anything. In politics, it is about values like trust and credibility, which you have damaged beyond measure.

The Union now wants to draw consequences from the family entanglements. They want to set up an investigating committee. Which we will exactly so demand. If the Union should place this demand before us, we will thence of course support it. Nevertheless, this committee is allowed to uncover not only the Graichen clan’s family entanglements. Namely, it is about the central question: Will the energy transition [Energiewende], which destroys our prosperity, be directed by foreign power and capital interests?

            Michael Kruse (FDP): This the righteous ask!

Are the Greens fulfilling the sell-out of our country in foreign interests? Precisely that is the crux of the matter. Precisely that is brought home by last week’s revelations.

You here in your speeches, and those of the CDU, have only scratched the surface. My colleague Beatrix von Storch has in this place designated the Greens as the political arm of these global financial interests. She has thereby laid the finger in the wound. That was bitterly necessary; since the Greens quite openly feed our country to the oligarchs.

That would be, for example, Hal Harvey, by the Zeit named as “the world’s most powerful Green”.

            Markus Humpfer (SPD): Who then yesterday was with Putin?

He finances Green institutions and foundations and co-founded the Agora Energiewende. Patrick Graichen was chief lobbyist there before Robert Habeck named him State Secretary. Agora besides already in 2021 demanded the ban on oil and gas heating. The study’s author, Christian Maaß – on that, here it is about quite other persons – is meanwhile also State Secretary for Habeck.

            Felix Banaszak (Green): Nein! Read the organization chart!

Agora Energiewende already last year announced the breakthrough for the heating pump. Thus it needs be asked: Is that clairvoyance or is that manipulation?

Those suffering from this lobby swamp are the simple German citizens, those of the Mittelstand, tradesmen, industrial workers. They need to tear out flooring and exchange heaters. Every second household is presently heated with natural gas, every fourth with oil. For a heating pump, the citizens need to pay up to 25,000 euros for those using air, and up to 40,000 euros for those using ground warmth, in addition to 10,000 euros for floorboard heating – an all, 75 billion euros. Roofs and facades need to be insulated. Every tradesman knows this. I say to you where that leads to: For thousands and thousands, directly to old age poverty. That is what your name, Herr Habeck, stands for.

Do not forget. The Green energy transition is closely connected with the economic war against Russia. Already in 2016, Habeck announced he will stop gas imports from Russia because we are an energy transition country. Was the Ukraine war thus only an occasion, but not the reason, for the end of Nord Stream?

Katharina Dröge (Greens): You have gotten deeply lost in conspiracy theories! That is  really sad!

An additional oligarch with BlackRock, Larry Fink, is allowed to coordinate the reconstruction of the Ukraine. The more kaputt it is, the higher the investments. With Friedrich Merz, ja, sits a leader of the opposition in this house who has been for years active as a top lobbyist for BlackRock. I ask the CDU: Do you not lie in bed with these same investors as do the Greens? Who shall be, ja, your next coalition partners? Since January, Elga Bartsch works as leader in the policy department of Habeck’s Ministry. She is something like the brain of the BMWK [Federal Ministry for Economy and Climate]. Frau Bartsch was previously research leader at BlackRock in London.  

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): That’s a coincidence!

And the investigating committee needs to pursue these network threads. Does the Ministry itself here coordinate the sell-out of our economy?

Then a criticism to the German media: To research precisely this, – my esteemed colleague Alice Weidel already said it yesterday – to pursue its entirety, and to drain this entire swamp would be the duty of the German media, and not to fight the opposition.

The heating branch of the German family business Viessmann is to be sold for 12 billion euros to the U.S. concern Carrier Global. The U.S.A. profits from forced heat pumping which U.S.-financed lobbyists have previously planned. Precisely this policy is not in the citizens’ interest. The heating ban therefore needs to be withdrawn. And, Herr Habeck, you need to be exchanged. It would be more convenient to exchange you than millions of heaters in Germany.

This monstrous situation – last sentence, Frau President – needs to be clarified. Then will be shown who really profits from the de-industrialization of Germany.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]