Jörn König, February 21, 2019, Tax Evasion

Jörn König

Tax Evasion

German Bundestag, February 21, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/83, pp. 9826-9827

[Jörn König is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the western German state of Lower Saxony. He is an electrical engineer. Ursula von der Leyen is the present Defense Minister.]

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable colleagues.

This is a well-meaning motion by the Linke. We all want to prevent tax evasion. But it is naïve to believe that tax evasion can be thwarted with this motion. While there is plenty of analysis by the Linke and the Marxists, the proposed solutions nevertheless for the most part are not useful.

            Fabio De Masi (Linke): For you, most of both is bad!

Anja Hajduk (Bündnis90/Grünen): We could witness that live and in color here in the vicinity of the Reichstag for 40 years!

Please do not begin yet again with your anti-economic paranoia and your fundamental distrust of business. It would be transparent to assess and confirm where the millions and billions of your party assets have disappeared to.

Matthias W. Birkwald (Linke): Ach, stop, enough with the baloney, colleague! All is long since clarified, long since!

In the motion you require transparency for civil society – a trendy jargon term. There is only one society, and citizens in uniform is indeed what you have never been part of. At the latest, since Ursula von der Leyen, the idea has become completely senseless.

            Metin Hakverdi (SPD): That would be a speech appropriate for the record!

The Linke with their motion want to give preference to – I cite:

The granting to representatives of interests a clear insight into the economics of a business

That, ladies and gentlemen, borders on economic espionage. With that, you save not one cent of tax revenue. You rather drive out the German Mittelstand.

            Lothar Binding (SPD, Heidelberg): You know what you are talking about!

According to a study by the Otto Brenner foundation of April 2018, some multinational concerns like Amazon maintain subsidiaries in tax havens [Steueroasen].

            Fabio De Masi (Line): My name is Bond, James Bond.

The Ireland and Luxemburg of the exemplary Europeans Asselborn and Juncker here conduct tax dumping of the most pernicious sort. The Frankfürter Rundschau reported with reference to this study that Amazon in 2016 had paid substantially less than the 20% taxes due in Germany. For other book merchants in comparison the tax rate was up to 37%. That is truly not an established definition of justice but is obviously unjust in regards the German Mittelstand.

That is also seen in the present insolvency of the large book merchant KNV. The business requirement is clear: proceeds must be taxed where transacted. Despite everything, that is discussed for 16 years in the EU in the so-called “Country-by-Country Reporting”. Besides, there is a small error in your motion: there is mention of “County Reporting”, that is, reports to be delivered by each Landkreis. But you are not to be credited for this requirement.

Concerning guideline 2011/16/EU, which was mentioned in the motion, until two years ago there was not one sanction according to the guideline for violation of the duty to report. This was introduced with the following words:

When a member state asserts that another member state over a long period of time has indifferently neglected to routinely make available state specific reports, it should apply to said member state to consult.

How is it so nicely put in the bad job references? “He has steadily applied himself.”

That is a toothless EU tiger hissing and throwing cotton balls. And then the EU is perplexed that Luxemburg does nothing to prevent tax dumping. Why? “Exempt, illegal -  all the same” is the motto of this EU tax haven. This so-called partner pursues egoistic national interests. Luxemburg, with a per capita gross domestic product double in comparison to that of Germany,is actually a wealthy country. Wealthy at the cost of the neighbor – that we have certainly learned. It is also thereby truly clear why the EU is so deeply stuck in crisis.

Back to good intentions. In this matter are required proposals to the federal government and to the EU much more precise than those put forward in this motion. Uniform tax rates would be an example of progress. We are in favor of sending the motion to the finance committee. There, the justifiable intentions can be re-worked into something sensible. The AfD rejects the motion in its present form.

Besides, I am of the opinion that Frau Merkel on account of her knife deaths [wegen ihrer Messertoten] must resign as Chancellor.

Many thanks for your attention.

[Translated by Todd Martin]

Albrecht Glaser, February 21, 2019, Brexit

Albrecht Glaser

Brexit Legislation

German Bundestag, February 21, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/83, pp. 9785-9786 

[Albrecht Glaser is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the central German state of Hessen. He has a number of years of experience as a public administrator and elected official and is currently a member of the Bundestag finance committee.] 

Herr President. Honored ladies and gentlemen. Honored fellow citizens - those who are still there – a hearty welcome. 

On March 29, 2019, at 11 PM, the British exit from the EU will take effect. This step was desired by a narrow majority of the British electorate on June 23, 2016. Whether or not it will result in a treaty, we do not know – apparently not. 

In 1973 the United Kingdom joined the EWG [European Economic Community]. In 1975 this decision of the British government was also agreed to by a wide majority in a popular referendum. In the 70s and 80s a preponderance of trades union members and officials demanded England’s exit from the EWG. Since the 90s, an exit has been demanded by an Independence party founded for this purpose as well as by several conservative politicians. The question “National State or Union of States with Discernible Development into a Super-State” has thus been put to this country for decades and, with great import for world history, will now be answered in favor of a far-reaching national sovereignty.

Considered by the world norm, the Kingdom returns to normality. Other than Europe, on no other continent is there a process of de-nationalization and with it the de-democratization in favor of supra-national quasi-states. From China, Japan and Russia, across Africa to South America, is it nowhere discernible that such a development is appearing, although one could most nearly propose something of such a fantasy in South America due to language and cultural affinities. 

Generally in the world, there have continually been military conflicts between states, especially between neighbors. Nowhere in the world is the Über-state seen as a problem solver for peace, democracy and human rights. Europeans should reflectively concur on that. 

As is well known, the grumbling of the people is to be heard in Europe. Its denunciation as nationalism and provincialism will be properly taken as the arrogance of the economic and political elite. How one is to best build a secure as possible world is an open question. Europe thereby does not become the orientation standard for the rest of the world – and with its decreasing population, the steady regression of its portion of the world economic performance, and its military agony – from year to year always less so.  

Today we are to dispose of two drafts of exit accompaniment laws which should shield citizens and businesses from Brexit. We regard these from the financial perspective as being reasonable; they ought to be fashioned with the discretion as would have been necessary in earlier negotiations. 

In regards finance, ten laws in eleven articles will be altered, from income tax law to pension fund supervisory regulation, of which each of you has heard. The government with its draft has corrected much and, nevertheless, forgotten much. It would have been more fair to conduct a public hearing of experts and, in our view, more surprising were the numerous suggestions also actually converted into substance. 

To the original 20 specific alterations of law are now a further 11 to be added. They refer to inheritance and gift tax, the real estate earning tax, the payments service supervisory law and the securities transaction law. We see a difficult detail work which is nevertheless of great importance for the real life of citizens and businesses. To represent that – as has been suggested – I can cite: 

Due to Brexit’s legal requirements, a dwelling in England requiring repair must not be disposed of. Building savings banks must leave their invested capital in England. Damage clauses in insurance policies with English businesses shall, for an interim period, be able to continue in effect. The British business form of Limited Company in Germany can be converted into a business of German legal form without having to reveal silent reserves. An exemptions clause for family businesses in Germany which have a British share of assets and much else are further subjects of these regulations. 

Together with this legislation, the federal government contemplates the introduction of a special notice of affairs for financial institution risk carriers; there have been discussions thereon. It seems plausible and meets with our agreement. 

The consultation process – I want to expressly emphasize this – in the finance committee, as well as the news conferences, are conducted factually and seriously. 

            Fritz Güntzler (CDU/CSU): As always!

Accordingly, the results are good and the entire legislative proposal meets with our approval… We will reject the motions of the FDP and the Linke. 

Otherwise, it is as I have reported and I have reported throughout with great calm and joy. 

Hearty thanks.

[Translated by Todd Martin]

Rüdiger Lucassen, February 21, 2019, Arms Exports

Rüdiger Lucassen

Arms Exports

German Bundestag, February 21, 2019, Plenarprotokoll, 19/83, pp. 9710-9711

[Rüdiger Lucassen is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the western German state of Nordrhein-Westphalen. He is a retired army colonel and here responds to a Green Party motion on arms exports.]

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

Secret agreements, to and fro. It is in the style of this government not to bring controversial issues before the public. The voters’ angst is great. Yet when it is about armaments cooperation between Germany and France, the question of export regulation sits like an elephant in the room. 

Who has the say when jointly developed tanks and combat jets are to be sold? So much was clear from the beginning: no weapons in war zones. To this German principle, however, France does not conform. So it is with the blind surrender of national sovereignty. As whenever one is no longer master in one’s own house. 

With the issue of arms exports, the EU fetishists of the left-wing camp are now in a pickle. There, one must now ponder: less nationality means more German weapons abroad. A difficult decision, ladies and gentlemen. Not so for the AfD. We accept that a domestic defense industry requires a certain portion of exports in order to survive. The Bundeswehr can no longer itself account for a sufficient quantity of armaments to be able to pay for development and production. Germany must also sell. 

The actual problem with this often affirmed Franco-German armaments cooperation is the surrender of key national technologies and nuclear capability to the benefit of France.

We see here that the treaty signed by the federal government with our neighbor is without exception to the disadvantage of our own defense technology industry, which is in all things of the Mittelstand, and thereby to the disadvantage of national security precautions. That doesn’t go with the AfD. 

It is true that Germany cannot sustain a purely national armaments program. Germany alone, for example, will no more be able to build sixth generation combat jets. Even in cooperation with France and Spain, we will no longer be able to keep pace in such technology. Primarily, Europe lacks the know-how, and secondly, the development is simply not affordable. The relevant treaty, signed last summer by the Defense Minister and her French colleague, is not worth the paper it is written on. Yet even this eye-wash has security policy consequences for Germany. Just a few weeks after signing this agreement, France warned the federal government that Germany should not replace its old Tornado combat jets with American F-35s – the best solution for the next thirty years, as former Inspector of the Luftwaffe Karl Müllner had repeatedly stated, but for his expertise was sent into early retirement by the Defense Minister. Should Germany nevertheless purchase the F-35, France will immediately terminate the common cooperation. 

            Karsten Hilse (AfD): Super! 

In a normal relationship, that is called something like extortion. But so it goes with the blind surrender of national sovereignty: one is no longer master in one’s own house.

For the Left-Green camp it is naturally not about home industry or defense capability. They would as soon give up all that today as tomorrow. It now dawns on them that, in the end, the French have sold weapons to any regime in the world that is sufficiently solvent. In France there is no export ban to Saudi Arabia on account of the murder of a journalist. On this account the hyper-moralists of this house now find themselves in a dilemma. That is the reason for this present session. 

Perhaps I can counsel them as how to free themselves of this awkward situation. Perhaps the problem of arms exports is only a question of framing. How about “The Good Arms Export Law”? 

The SPD definitely supports you there. 

Thank you.

[Translated by Todd Martin]

Beatrix von Storch, February 14, 2019, Asylum Policy

Beatrix von Storch

Asylum Policy

German Bundestag, February 14, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/80, pp. 9352-9353

 

 

[Beatrix von Storch is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from Berlin.
She is a lawyer and here responds to a recent proposal by CDU chairman Annegret
Kramp-Karrenbauer for a series of CDU workshop discussions concerning the
 government’s asylum and immigration policies.]

Right honorable Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

When catastrophe is at hand, then there is ultimately no one who wants it. Thus it is with Merkel’s asylum disaster. 

With the workshop discussions, the Union now attempts to draw a safe distance between itself and the Chancellor; an arm’s length, one might think. In the autumn of 2015, it was still “We can do it!” and Merkel was celebrated as Mother Teresa. Any who opposed was a populist or much worse. Now, with the Social Democrats, it is no longer “Refugees Welcome” but that the autumn of 2015 does not bear repeating. Dear Social Democrats of the CDU, I congratulate you on the belated insight. 

            Marian Wendt (CDU/CSU): Learning curve! 

You are where we already were in the autumn of 2015. 

That you also now at least verbally acknowledge a willingness to re-work the scandal in the confines of your reduced possibilities is, I might say, progress. However, this re-work naturally belongs not in the workshop of a party but rather here in the Bundestag.

Before you all lies our motion to set up an committee of inquiry. We have invited all delegations to conduct informational hearings. Should you want to factually and fundamentally re-work, then you can readily do so. 

We must re-work the past, and we must now solve the enormous problems produced by Merkel and her asylum policy. Before the election, the Chancellor announced a national deportation effort. After the election, there was Minister Seehofer with his master plan for migration. The consequences? None. 

We have nevertheless noted with interest the CDU proposal, the present Kramp-Karrenbauer workshop. The third trap. Since announcements cost nothing, there is now a whole series of them: Asylum procedures and rejections at the EU external border, national border control – and without consultation with the EU – 

            Armin-Paulus Hampel (AfD): Ultima ratio! 

- withdrawal of right of asylum for false statements, mandatory age verification by medical tests for alleged minors. 

Dear colleagues of the Union, that is excellent. That comes namely from us. That is AfD pure. 

            (CDU/CSU): What you wanted was firearms on the border! 

That comes from you only passing late. Obviously, you spent the years of the welcome culture on the far side of the moon. But we say to you, A hearty welcome back to Earth! 

We wish now to know from you which consequences does this have for the practical workings of the federal government? 

            Armin-Paulus Hampel (AfD): None! 

Any bets? None. There are two reasons why this will have no consequences. First, Angela Merkel. Merkel is not gone. She continues to direct the policy guidelines and she has no thought of altering her direction. And second: Your coalition partner, the SPD, and your desired coalition partner, the Greens, will never go along. 

Dear colleagues of the SPD and the Greens, use this session and tell the colleagues of the Union what you make of the workshop proposals. And then lastly inform the voters. 

Dear colleagues of the Union, here in this place sits your dilemma. It is not about this Chancellor and it is not about your coalition partner. For a change of asylum policy and for a solution to the fateful question of our nation, of our culture and of all Europe, there is a majority only from the right of center. One sees this in Austria. One sees this in Denmark. And in Germany, there is a right of center majority only with the AfD. 

For so long as you fail to place yourself in this reality, all your announcements will remain nothing but hot air.

 

Many thanks.

 

 

 [Translated by Todd Martin]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Joana Cotar, February 21, 2019, Digitalisation Policy

Joana Cotar

Digitalisation Policy

German Bundestag, February 21, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/83, p. 9633

 

[Joana Cotar is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the central German state of Hessen. She is a communications manager and since 2016 has been the AfD’s social media manager. She here responds to a government paper on digitalisation policy.] 

Right honorable Herr President. Worthy colleagues. 

Digitalisation formation, Arbeit 4.0, Gigabit Society, Big Data, Disruption – buzz words which must not fail to be somewhere in any Bundestag speech. You mean to say: We have understood. The government concerns itself with itself. 

The speeches sound good, the promises are big. Yet the reality unfortunately appears otherwise. The important defining themes of digitalisation are actually not taken seriously by this government. That is quite clear in this transformation paper. It is mere piecework, not a coordinated strategy and is symptomatic of the government’s digital policy.  

In Germany there is no digitalisation ministry in which all the threads run together; each cooks his own soup. There is a digital state ministry without its own budget; a section for digital policy in the Chancellor’s office; a digital cabinet and a digital council. In all ministries there are countless consultants, sections, projects, commissions and agents which concern themselves with digitalisation. All want to join in the conversation and none supervises. And that is exactly the principal reason why all the pretty promises in digitalisation matters, which we have heard for years, have not been fulfilled. Declarations on any of the principal matters, ladies and gentlemen on the government bench, actually appear otherwise.

An example. Year after year, the government promised us high-speed internet for all. In 2009 Angela Merkel promised “broadband coverage for all by 2010”; in 2010 was that promise again converted. The Chancellor then promised that by 2014 75 percent of all households should have “at a minimum, 50 megabits” at their disposal. Soon she admitted that nothing would come even of that. Then a new promise: By 2025 at the latest, Germany with gigabit internet would have the best digital infrastructure in the world. And now we know that not even that this goal will be reached. A declaration of bankruptcy, dear government. 

In international comparison of internet speed, Germany is in 25^th place, behind countries like Roumania and Latvia. For mobile phone, it appears not much better; that every citizen knows who has despaired of conducting a long-distance telephone call while on the road.  

One of the most important themes of the present time: Cyber security. Without cyber security, this beautiful new world is worth nothing. Wishing to strengthen cyber security, the government yet again creates an agency; we certainly have too few of those. At the same time, the government not only fails to close known security gaps in its products, but rather uses them, indeed knowing what kind of damage can be effected by such exploitations. Backdoors in soft- and hardware will not be rejected. The surveillance must ultimately become comprehensive. With your permission, security does not thusly increase; you thusly drive the theme of cyber security to the wall, ladies and gentlemen. 

When I then read that the paper also addresses the internet and wants to strengthen media competence, then I propose that we begin both here in the Bundestag and at the EU level. He who in all seriousness wishes to destroy the freedom of the internet with the introduction of upload filters, wishing to introduce censorship in the grand manner, because he does not understand that algorithms have been completely unsuitable for the identification of violations of creators’ rights, then in digital matters he should simply hold his tongue, dear colleagues of the Union and SPD. 

In the coalition contract you have rejected upload filters as being disproportionate and have fallen down at the EU level, agreeing to the application of exactly these same filters. A petition with almost 5 million signatures did not interest you. Complaining e-mails from young people were ignored and, ja, more than that, these people were selectively denigrated as bots or as a mob. Shame on you, ladies and gentlemen. Shame on you to the ends of the Earth [in Grund und Boden]. 

Your coalition contract is not worth the paper it is written on and this vision-less transformation “strategy” for digitalisation is unfortunately nothing other than lots of words, scattered individual measures with little behind it. You do not thusly bring Germany to the forefront and the citizens are yet again left with the trouble.

 

[Translated by Todd Martin]

 

 

 

 

Rüdiger Lucassen, February 14, 2019, National Security Debate

Rüdiger Lucassen

National Security Debate

German Bundestag, February 14, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/80, pp. 9378-9380

[Rüdiger Lucassen is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the western German state of Nordrhein-Westphalen. He is a retired army colonel and here introduces an AfD motion calling for an annual defense and security issues debate in the Bundestag.] 

Herr President. Right honorable colleagues. 

The AfD motion under consideration requires what is self-evident. We want to debate here in the Bundestag questions of German security and defense policy.

Ladies and gentlemen, since the end of the Cold War, German security policy has lacked a compass. The government in the last three decades has not succeeded in sufficiently defining Germany’s interests in the world, due principally to the censure of Germany’s historical mortgage: the Second World War and the Holocaust. This censure however has degenerated into a lame excuse behind which the government hides itself, taking refuge in the useless generalities of a so-called peace policy. But this peace policy is in truth no policy. It is only a vulgar kind of pacifism according to which it is, in the end, the same whether people die or not; the main thing being that the political managers feel pure. Yet that is an illusion. The German refusals are guilty, guilty by inaction. Abroad, the German excuses are long since no more accepted.   

            Alexander S. Neu (Linke): It must come from the Greens, the motion! 

When the German past is not mis-used as an excuse, then the government takes refuge in an imaginary European interest. Such a thing exists neither in France nor Great Britain nor Italy. 

            Franziska Brantner (Bündnis90/Grünen): You are obviously quite suspicious.

It exists nowhere. Yet the government uses this illusion so that it need not deliver. The favorite phrase of the foreign minister is: That must be concluded at the European level.

            Peter Beyer (CDU/CSU): You know nothing of what that is! 

Its synonym is: For a long time now, nothing happens and Germany has no position. That must change.

German security policy belongs here in plenary session for two reasons: one is that security policy decisions in the last consequence are always decisions of life and death – not of the life and death of the decision-makers, but of the young men and women doing their duty in the armed forces. A parliament which refuses to debate why its soldiers give their lives is a disgrace. 

            Henning Otte (CDU/CSU): What? That is shamelessness!

The second reason has less to do with decency than with management security. 

Franziska Brantner (Bündnis90/Grünen): So many lies! That is not possible in one speech.  Nonsense!

Here, the righteous rage. 

Only when the strategic performance of German security and defense policy is defined can the operational routine of the government and parliament succeed. Since the government has never proceeded on this basis, all subordinate decisions poke about in a fog.  

Some examples. Since the government has never defined what Germany’s interests in northern Africa are, to this day no adequate strategy can be put forward for the Bundeswehr’s mission in Mali. Because the government does not want to say that it is the German interest to cut off the flight routes in the sub-Sahara, the Bundeswehr cannot be given a robust mandate to combat the smuggling gangs [Schleuserbanden]. The result: neither the people nor the troops actually know why the Bundeswehr is in Mali. Such a mission is senseless. 

Next example. Because the federal government evaluates the conflict in Syria according to domestic political flirtations, it has contributed nothing to ending the terrible war. To the contrary. For years, the federal government gave out the slogan, “Assad must go!” That was it, without stating an alternative, without proper engagement, without a plan. That is not a foreign policy, that is opinion politics; in other words, ideology.

It might have been appropriate to clearly state Germany’s interest in stability in the region and thereby arrange matters, since without stability there can be no peace. Only thus functions Realpolitik and thus only can German diplomats and soldiers clearly orient themselves. The mere wish for the possible disappearance of a dictator, without saying what comes after, is unworthy of Europe’s strongest nation. 

A final example. The German military technology industry. What is Germany’s strategic goal? We do not know. Which key technologies do we want to keep purely national?

            Markus Grübel (CDU/CSU): There is a pretty graphic at the BMVg! 

Which export quota do we require to attain that? Which foreign and security policy interests does Germany pursue with arms exports and which conditions do we tie to these exports? These are all questions which are never debated in this parliament and therefore never conclusively settled. 

            Henning Otte (CDU/CSU): Haven’t you listened to anything? 

Out of this lack of openness and democratic debate culture arises management insecurity. Out of this management insecurity arises German unreliability. Ladies and gentlemen, it does not suffice to point the moralist’s finger at the USA. Unreliability in alliance issues is a German invention. 

To what purpose are maintained the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Germany? That is in and of itself a simple question. Since 1990 has it no longer been sufficiently answered. The armed forces should defend us and our interests to the point of employment of force in an emergency. The British defense minister said exactly that on Monday in a speech to the Royal United Services Institute, an independent think tank for defense and security. The British have something there. And the British have something else: a broad public debate. Since when is there that in Germany? 

Germany today is no longer capable of defense, neither national defense nor in alliance. For that fact alone, should calm no longer be permissible in the Bundestag. You keep quiet as if you had nothing to do with this unsustainable situation. That is not acceptable. The parliament should compel you to declare yourselves. 

Germany must define its security policy interests. A condition precedent is dispute thereon in the  highest constitutional branch. Then must society thereon dispute. Dispute belongs to democracy. 

Tomorrow the security conference begins in Munich. Germany is host… 

Germany should however also be a participant. That presupposes the definition of one’s own security policy position. There is only one place to do that: that is in the German Bundestag. Thanks.




[Translated by Todd Martin]