Gerold Otten, May 7, 2020, Healthcare and Nuclear Weapons

Gerold Otten

Healthcare and Nuclear Weapons

German Bundestag, May 7, 2020, Plenarprotokoll 19/158, pp. 19667-19668

[Gerold Otten is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from Bavaria. He is an aerospace industries sales manager and has a number of years’ experience as a Bundeswehr pilot, experience which includes flying the Tornado fighter-bomber. He here responds to motions by the Linke party calling for a shift of government spending from nuclear weapons to healthcare.]

The Federal government for some time has not questioned the nuclear participation. It is a concept within NATO’s deterrence policy. It is basically defensive and includes four essential elements. First, it makes clear that the will and wealth of the USA, with its nuclear weapons, is to stand up for those NATO members which are not nuclear powers. Second, it entitles participants to consultation on the commitment of nuclear weapons and the participating states declare themselves – third – ready to deploy [vorzuhalten] the corresponding delivery system [Trägersystem]. Fourth, the states oblige themselves to the stationing of atomic weapons on their state territory.

In a peace-loving society like ours, there is not much political profit in this theme. However, that a political question is not popular has for long not meant that it need not be answered. And it is most closely bound up with the delivery system, which in Germany is the Tornado fighter aircraft. The question of a successor has been an open question for years. Now, the Defense Minister quietly and lightly lets fall a procurement decision for 93 Eurofighters and 45 American F-18s. How nice for her defense zone project in northern Syria that this also occurs without consultation with coalition partners and without previously informing the Bundestag. That might be taken for daring, but for me that is dilettantism.

The decision was also the occasion for the present motions of the Linke. It basically means the end of Germany’s nuclear participation.

            Tobias Pflüger (Linke): Well discerned!

Those bringing the motions base this demand upon allegedly striking deficits in the healthcare infrastructure of Germany, Europe and the world. And since the Linke do not wish to incur the suspicion of acting nationally, the freely resourced tax money shall not only benefit the German healthcare system but that of the entire world.

            Sevim Dağdelen (Linke): No, the WHO!

The Linke plead that, as we have just heard from Herr Gysi, with a motion from the year 2010 of the Union, FDP and SDP. They assert that at that time the Bundestag decided on a withdrawal of atomic weapons – only, that is fake news, Herr Gysi.

Impressed by Obama’s declaration of wanting to commit himself to a world free of atomic weapons, the Bundestag then demanded that the Federal government undertake all efforts for the withdrawal of atomic weapons from Germany and that the world be made free of nuclear weapons.

            Gregor Gysi (Linke): Yes, just so!

On this question, the AfD has a clear position: We are in favor of nuclear disarmament and – I say this here quite clearly – that includes the withdrawal of U.S. atomic weapons from Germany.

Can one thus vote for the transparent motions of the Linke? Quite clearly not. For the AfD wishes that the states of the world resolve their conflicts peacefully. The condition of a peaceful world will occur when all states abandon a violent enforcement of their demands and instead go the way of exchange of interests and mutual advantage. Yet the world is far away from this desirable condition and I fear will never attain it. Politics must again re-orient itself to what is politically sensible and feasible, thus to how the world is and not to however one may happily desire it to be. We therefore represent the way of Realpolitik and not that of alien utopias.

A one-sided renunciation of the nuclear participation would not in the least improve the present security situation of Germany and the world; the opposite would be the case. NATO would then not only be brain-dead, as per President Macron’s opinion, it would actually stand at death’s door. In our view, an atomic disarmament is only possible if all nuclear powers agree to a gradual reduction of their nuclear weapons arsenals. To persuade the nuclear powers of this goal was the intent of the Bundestag’s resolutions, and nothing other. This goal today is of even greater priority, and certainly before the background of the giving of notice of the INF treaty. The AfD will pursue this goal at all times and with all power. The utopias of the Linke we decisively reject.

I thank you for your attention.

[Translated by Todd Martin]  

Albrecht Glaser, May 7, 2020, European Central Bank Loan Purchases

Albrecht Glaser

European Central Bank Loan Purchases

German Bundestag, May 7, 2020, Plenarprotokoll 19/158, pp. 19611-19612

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

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Respectable citizens have undertaken real responsibility. Out of concern for our state, they have taken pains to defend on constitutional grounds this country’s democracy against the EU’s accumulation of competences. Do not confuse the independence of the ECB [European Central Bank] with the over-stepping of its legal treaty mandates. This distinction is decisive and it is here being obtrusively jumbled up [penetrant durcheinanderworfen].

After five years’ proceedings and the commitment of much money and time, the petitioners have obtained a decision from the Federal Constitutional Court which now is causing excitement. In previous interpretation and analysis of the decision, a colleague of the Greens from this house urged a court reprimand and in addition conducted an unmitigated personal attack upon the president of the Court.

            Carsten Schneider (SPD-Erfurt): My goodness!

Basically, it concerns a state loan purchase program of the ECB system with an already disposed volume of around 3 trillion euros, and it concerns the intention to take upon the books of the central banking system, with foreseeable, fatal consequences, additional debts of European states of unlimited term and size. The liability issue is completely ignored; no one can answer it, anyone who understands a bit of it knows that it is immense.

The Court holds that the Federal government and the Bundestag have violated the rights of the complainants under Article 38, paragraph 1, line 1, in conjunction with Article 20, paragraphs 1 and 2, in conjunction with Article 79 of the Basic Law [Grundgesetz] – that is not a small detail.

The Federal government and the Bundestag, instead of taking the lead, had neglected to call the ECB to account for the lack of a suitable proportionality test for the implementation of the purchase program. The considerations of the ECJ [European Court of Justice] of the proportionality of the ECB’s proceedings were not comprehensible and anyway presented in this case an over-stepping of the competence of the ECJ. Even courts can over-step their competences.

The Constitutional Court, right honorable ladies and gentlemen, having an oversight role to inquire into substantiated complaints, as it is said, of the over-stepping of competences by EU organs, in this case had to diverge from the viewpoint of the ECJ.

The guardian of the treaty is this Constitutional Court; it has done this, its duty. This was and is urgently necessary; since the ECJ has never been the guardian of subsidiarity and the principles of conferred powers [Einzelmächtigung]. It has already for many years, without any legal basis, adjudicated the EU treaties, and has ruled that the legislative authority [Rechsetzung] of the EU basically displaces national law, especially national constitutional law. You should re-assess the value of the Basic Law, the jubilee of which has been recently celebrated, ladies and gentlemen; this Basic Law is moribund.

According to the Federal Constitutional Court, the rights of the complainants were violated because the self-proclaimed sovereign rights of the EU organs must submit to the constitutionally defended right to democracy of every citizen of this country. Thus, the constitutional complaints were essentially confirmed, all procedural costs to be refunded to the lead complainants. The [EU] Commission declares with sovereign authority – without itself being a state – that EU law breaks national law. The decision will therefore be precisely tested. Der Finger steht.

This power politics viewpoint is also just now being expressed by Jean Claude Juncker. Who would have thought it? Bruno Le Maire and Giuseppe Conte see their interests as highly indebted countries endangered. They now see the neutrality endangered by the Federal Constitutional Court, which only admonished the observance of the EU treaty competences; the Constitutional Court does nothing other – power politics versus law. We indeed are experiencing a European Politics Live.

The finance ministers and euromaniacs of all colors distort the decision of the Constitutional Court, asserting that it acknowledged – that it in fact again amplified – that the ECB had in principal the right to purchase state loans. That is nevertheless not the case. The Federal Constitutional Court rather more expounded on the administration of the criteria which the ECJ itself set out for loan acquisition which, not violating the ban on state financing, meet with important consideration – to cite verbatim. On the question of state loans, the Federal Constitutional Court sees itself in principal bound by the interpretation of the ECJ, and not because it may itself have been persuaded.

That is a regrettable declaration of submission by the Federal Constitutional Court which shows

            Vice President Wolfgang Kubicki: Herr colleague, you must come to 

             a conclusion.

that in the EU treaties there is no instrument to prevent a systematic, steady expansion of competences in this union of states, ladies and gentlemen, and that is the actual problem. Therefore, this problem which we have before us will become further knotted and the EU will run further into heavy seas.

            Vice President Wolfgang Kubicki: Herr colleague.

Many thanks.

[Translated by Todd Martin]

           

Joana Cotar, May 7, 2020, Basic Rights in the Corona Crisis

Joana Cotar

Basic Rights in the Corona Crisis

German Bundestag, May 7, 2020, Plenarprotokoll 19/158, pp. 19561-19562

[Joana Cotar is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the western German state of Hessen. A communications manager, she is the AfD’s spokesman for digital policy in the Bundestag. She here introduces two AfD motions (Drucksache 19/18976, 18977) concerning basic rights in the Corona crisis. Jens Spahn (CDU/CSU) is the German Minister for Health.]

Right honorable Frau President. Worthy colleagues.

How is an amount of trust squandered in the briefest time? The government in recent weeks has impressively demonstrated that to us. I am speaking of the Corona app. What chaos, what a communications disaster, what absurd and dangerous planning, ladies and gentlemen.

            Ulli Nissen (SPD): You are the ultimate in absurdity.

Initially, Jens Spahn wanted to allow the evaluation of location data for the control of Covid-19; an absolutely disproportionate incursion upon the basic right to information self-determination, as well as being technologically senseless. The outcry was sufficiently great that he had to withdraw the plan. Now it shall be directed to apps. To a tracing app is suddenly associated the data contribution app of the RKI [Robert Koch Institute]. Soon there shall be – besides others – a quarantine logbook app. An immunity certification app is also being discussed. The government is evidently happy to make use of this crisis so as to see how far it can go before the citizens have finally had enough. These assaults upon the rights of freedom may not be otherwise described.

Initially, the government added the tracing app to the central service approach. Thereupon 300 scientists from renowned universities warned of a possibly unprecedented surveillance. Despite that, the Federal government adhered to the central approach. The Big Brother idea was plainly too attractive. Once athwart the tech giants Google and Apple, the government had to give up the plan.

Thus it shall now be aimed at the decentralized approach. Exactly how, we do not know. We could ascertain in the Digital Agenda committee that there is no schedule, no budget, no one is responsible. The data defense is not yet defined and the technical problems quite certainly not. There has been not the slightest personal conversation with Apple, thus with those responsible for whether this app can function at all. There is no exit plan. And most important of all: There is not the slightest planning by the government to defend those not using the app from social discrimination. This app must, if it comes to that, be absolutely transparent and voluntary, and it must not come to pass that one can no longer simply set foot in the supermarket or can no longer go to work if one does not use the app. That it does not go that far, lies within your responsibility, dear government. Do your job!

At the moment, you are doing the exact opposite. From the CSU ranks comes the proposal to link the use of the app to the basic rights.

            Stefan Müller (CDU/CSU –Erlangen): What rubbish! Where did you get 

            that nonsense?

What an absurdly dangerous thought! Just like the idea of coaxing the people with tax reductions. Basic rights are not for sale, dear colleagues.

An app is not a cure-all. It replaces no hygiene measures. Not once has it been shown to be of general epidemiological significance. Singapore, long considered a model, is experiencing a horrific second wave – despite the app. Yet that is the government’s Brave New World; we shall simply accustom ourselves to the surveillance. And if not enough citizens participate, then after the freedom comes the compulsion – and it is to be by social exclusion. The city and local councils are already requiring extensive access to practically stored data. The police are fine with that. Look at Baden-Württemberg.

The AfD consistently rejects these incursions upon civil rights. When in doubt, freedom! The AfD therefore demands that the government stop the app planning. Come about and concentrate yourself on what may really help. Let us find a way to normality without spying, without surrender of civil rights, but with a healthy, human understanding.

[Translated by Todd Martin]