Peter Boehringer, July 3, 2019, European Central Bank

Peter Boehringer

Christine Lagarde as European Central Bank President

AfD Kompakt, July 3, 2019

[Peter Boehringer is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the southern German state of Bavaria. He is a businessman, investor and author and is currently chairman of the Bundestag budget committee.]

Following the haggling, unworthy of a democracy, of Merkel, Macron and the others in the Brussels bazaar, there now happens to chosen as EZB president the woman who ten years ago subordinated the rule of law maintaining the euro and who in 2010 quite openly renounced this. Remember: in 2010 Christine Lagarde said, “We must break the treaty to save the euro”.

Thus, in regards aspects of stability and the state of law, shall the goat be made the gardener. It is foreseeable that Lagarde will continue and enhance the already almost limitless money printing of Herr Draghi (“Whatever it costs”); if necessary, also openly contrary to law and treaty. Today it already appears clear that Lagarde will not only continue the EZB’s absurd negative interest rate policy but also at the next opportunity will again take up the EZB’s (in our opinion) illegal and inflationary bond purchasing program – to the burden of the little people of Germany.

Tino Chrupalla, June 28, 2019, Re-Introduction of Meister Requirement

Tino Chrupalla

Re-Introduction of Meister Requirement

German Bundestag, June 28, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/108, pp. 13473-13474

[Tino Chrupalla is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the eastern German state of Saxony. He is a business owner and Meister painter. He here introduces an AfD draft law to restore the Meister requirement for the skilled trades in Germany. Former Commissioner for Refugees, Immigration and Integration Aydan Özoğuz, a member of the SPD, in 2017 publicly stated that, besides the German language, she was unable to identify or define a German culture.]

Right honorable Herr President. Honorable members. Dear Handwerker [tradesmen, mechanics].

I am glad that today we again discuss Handwerk. The AfD’s draft legislation looks forward to the re-introduction of the Meister requirement for all trades and the repeal of the 2004 Handwerk supplementary law. In committee we have heard that the abolition of the admission requirement was the break with a proven tradition.

Herr Schwannecke even spoke of a bond that would here be broken, in truth a bond that guaranteed that knowledge would be tested and re-transmitted through the centuries, whereby the Meister felt themselves obliged to train the young comrades of the next generation, a bond that was the guarantee for quality, performance and reproduction. This bond would be broken as the experts quite rightly stated. We have also heard that it consequently comes to massive repudiations in the Handwerk.

Many Handwerker see that exactly so in other respects. At the beginning of June there was at the Economics Ministry a hearing of business representatives. It was confirmed that there are massive flawed developments. Of 32 trades represented there, 29 supported the demand to re-introduce the Meister requirement. They based that on the securing of quality, skills and training and the protection of consumers and cultural values. That you hear not so gladly, apparently we have no proper culture besides our language. In any other country would such a statement be a life-long disqualification for all public office. But in the BRD [Federal Republic of Germany] it is otherwise. You have been very lucky there, Frau Özoğuz.

            Ulli Nissen (SPD): He still cannot pronounce that!

It is however in my view on a more important point (which in these debates is much too seldom considered), that the Handwerk is very tightly interwoven with our cultural values.

In regards just culture and language: at least still allow us our ideas which have been established for centuries. Why should the Meister now be re-designated as “Bachelor professional”? When apparently our language is our only cultural value, then at least still allow this.

            Martin Rabanus (SPD): Oh, man!

            Helin Evrim Sommer (Linke): I’m about to cry!

Last Wednesday’s committee hearing besides took place at the suggestion of the AfD. The colleagues of the other parties meanwhile were also very eager to inform themselves of Handwerk. That is an interesting development when one considers that there was not a single syllable’s mention of Handwerk in the 2018 yearly economic report. One can see how great the Minister for the Economy’s interest in Handwerk is: Herr Minister Altmeier today yet again shines in absentia!

For 15 years you have ignored the troubles of the Handwerker and now you conduct yourselves as if you had always been the spokesmen for Handwerk in the Bundestag. That is really ridiculous. The return of the Meister requirement in recent years was always sold to us as unrealistic. It would arouse the appearance that the EU legislation stood in the way; it was anyway Europa-unfriendly to have one’s own training system.

That was however decisively refuted on Wednesday. The experts message was clear: in terms of constitutional and EU law, the re-introduction is generally not a problem. Securing quality and consumer protection are of legitimate public purpose in EU legislation. We thus now have it in black and white in this opinion of Dr. Burgi of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, Munich. He has herein emphasized that from the juridical standpoint, it is relatively uncomplicated to undertake the alteration of the law.

            Gabriele Katzmarek (SPD): Each can always read that as he will.

I will now go no further into the motions of the other delegations. You yourselves can imagine what I think of the motion of the Greens. The Greens want to create – quote – “For Handwerk additional economic opportunites by means of the energy transformation” [Energiewende].

I genuinely ask myself, what shall that mean? A new packaging ordinance or a new industrial waste ordinance? Yet it is certainly the EEG [Renewable Energy Law] that happens to additionally burden the Handwerk, in contrast to big industry which is largely excused from these orders; and for that are you, along with others, responsible.

I therefore demand that you as quickly as possible convert our draft law and repeal this serious breach of tradition. The hearing on Wednesday in any case confirms: there are no reasonable grounds to wait yet longer.

In conclusion, I am in favor of passing on to the following generations authentic values [echte Werte] and not just limits [Grenzwerte].

Many thanks.

[Translated by Todd Martin]

Götz Frömming, June 27, 2019, Vocational Training

Götz Frömming

Vocational Training

German Bundestag, June 27, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/107, pp. 13130-13131

[Götz Frömming is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from Berlin. He is a teacher and has worked a number of years in secondary schools in Berlin and Baden-Württemberg, including the Schul Schloss Salem. He here responds to a government proposal to reform vocational training law. IG Metall and the GEW are German labor unions. Anja Karliczek is German Minister for Education and Research and is a member of the CDU.]

Right honorable Frau Minister Karliczek, I do not know whether you have recently employed a Handwerker [tradesman, mechanic]. If so, you presumably waited a considerable length of time for him. According to a business cycle report issued by the central union of German trades, it takes on average ten weeks before the Handwerker arrives. Especially lengthy is the waiting time in the construction industry. There you must wait up to 14 weeks. We thus urgently require more Handwerker. Yet many training positions remain unfilled. Instead, we produce legions of college drop-outs. Almost every third student prematurely terminates his studies and leaves the university without a degree. The economic costs are immense. We need more prepared Meister and fewer failed Master.

It is therefore profoundly welcome that the federal government and specifically the federal education minister have announced a prioritization of vocational training [berufliche Ausbildung]. The title of the federal government’s present draft law promises us a “modernization and strengthening of vocational training”. The actual regulatory subject is the vocational training law, the legal basis for dual vocational training. It has already been plainly stated that this can be regarded as a quite important and proven legal instrument for the securing of our economic welfare.

However, each intervention in this proven system must be well founded. I wish to go into two especially noteworthy alterations which naturally you have very positively presented but with which we have some problems. The first is the introduction of a minimum allowance for trainees that at first instance sounds terrific. Initially in the first year of training, this shall be 515 euros and shall be gradually raised over the next three years to 620 euros and shall be further increased; it has been plainly stated by you. In the motions of the Linke and Greens this is naturally called too little. That is to be expected.

            Birke Bull-Bischoff (Linke): It is indeed too little!

We will be able to discuss your motion more fully in committee.

Now, one could think that it is very nice of the federal government to give more money to the trainees. Only, the thing has a catch: it is not in fact the money of the federal government which shall be disposed of but the money of the firms which the government disposes of in its management of tax funds. It is not surprising that from the side of the employers – you have presented even this as otherwise – a massive criticism of this regulation was exerted. Thus, for example, Roland Ermer, president of the Saxon Handwerker conference spoke of a leveraging of wage-scale autonomy. Especially in eastern Germany can a rigid arrangement lead to the smaller firms no longer being able to perform additional training. That would be of devastating effect. We can all one another hope that it does not come to that.

Yet the employees also have in terms of their interests a problem with a minimum allowance. They fear a deterioration in some branches. According to present administrative determination [Rechtsprechung], trainees at firms in the metal and electrical industries not adhering to wage scales are in the first training year at 800 euros.

            Yasmin Fahimi (SPD): That remains so.

As a result of an allowance, it could here come to a reduction as per a flexibility clause.

            Yasmin Fahimi (SPD): A fully false example!

Thus the foreseen new regulation for a minimum training allowance is for Hans-Jürgen Urban, managing board member of IG Metall, as he himself has stated, a scandal. Even the GEW concedes that the planned minimal allowance benefits only a very small portion of trainees. The majority of our firms for long have paid more. For once we should acknowledge that and not place industry under general suspicion.

            Yasmin Fahimi (SPD): No one has done that besides yourselves.

In brief, the minimum allowance is not unproblematic and not because, parallel to weakening pay scale arrangements, it shall be further possible – and it now in fact is coming – to increase but also to reduce. That you can look up: Drucksache 19/10815, Seite 42f. That a minimal allowance can be exceeded, I understand. But why should an undercutting be permitted?

…

Also in regard the second point which I wish to address, you have instead of simplifying the thing instituted complications and created parallel structures. There shall be three new completion designations: certified occupational specialist, bachelor professional, master professional. Ladies and gentlemen, that not only sounds but also is presumptuous and silly. Yet at the same time you do not wish to do away with the guaranteed Meister designation. The customer thus has the choice of whether he wants to have the kaput sink repaired by a Handwerkmeister or bachelor professional. I ask myself whether there will be a price differential when the academic repair service takes an order.

Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): I ask myself whether it interests the customer when the sink functions again.

I wish in closing to address one serious point. W presently have over 2 million young adults without vocational training who hereto simply fall through the grating, and there will be ever more. Among them there are besides especially many people of immigrant background. We must urgently take care that those who remain here will be introduced to the vocational training system, if only so that they do not become a long term burden on the general population. Unfortunately, the federal government’s draft law deals too briefly with this situation. You have an eye for the universities – the new titles betray that – and want a kind of pseudo-academicization of vocational training. That is superfluous; that, we do not need.

In place of this, put our motion, “Strengthen Vocational Training – No One Left Behind”. Through the introduction of definable training sections, we want to give a lift to these people who often have no or a very poor school certification.

Right honorable ladies and gentlemen, in this matter, I think back to a man who happened to be named Willi. He was a municipal worker in the village where I grew up. He could perform only the simplest tasks, but he was respected by all and he belonged there; since his work, when considered correctly, was exactly as important as the work of the Bürgermeister in this village.

I thank you.

            René Röspel (SPD): Are you now for or against the minimum training allowance?

[Translated by Todd Martin]