Jörg Meuthen, May 27, 2020, EU Reconstruction Funds

Jörg Meuthen

EU Reconstruction Funds

EU Parliament, Brussels, May 27, 2020, P9 CRE-PROV (2020) 05-27 (1-022-0000)

[Jörg Meuthen is a national chairman of the Alternative für Deutschland and he 

leads the AfD’s delegation in the European Parliament where the AfD is part of the 

Identity and Democracy party.]

Herr President. Frau Commission President.

Chancellor Merkel’s promise was unmistakable: There will be neither euro bonds nor Corona bonds. Now? Now you assent to a so-called Reconstruction Fund with a volume of 500 billion euros; the super-sized, initially on credit, then to be tax-refinanced, gift watering can for the European Commission, without present basis in the law, since the EU on good grounds for long has been denied doing its own borrowing – which however in the general nonsense of these days appears to bother no one anymore.

And now you come, Frau Commission President, in here today and make demands. This complete madness was for you insufficient; you now want a scoop more of 250 billion euros to dispose of. That is, I say it quite clearly, complete madness. The price to be paid by the citizens of the [European] Union for this madness will be gigantic.

You throw the money about – not yours, but that of the taxpayer – simply as if there was no tomorrow. What you are doing is entirely irresponsible. It is a knowledge-free, voodoo economics with which you here are oppressing the citizens. It is monetary as well as fiscal hara-kiri.

Yet most men do not understand that because they are plagued with quite different concerns and because they are not accustomed to think in the categories of such large numbers. You make use of that with your absurd designs which you so hypocritically and falsely commend. There will be a wicked awakening.

I implore the governments of Austria, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden to reject this madness.   

[Translated by Todd Martin]

Peter Boehringer, May 28, 2020, EU Reconstruction Funds

Peter Boehringer

EU Reconstruction Funds

German Bundestag, May 28, 2020, Plenarprotokoll 19/163, pp. 20309-20310

[Peter Boehringer is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from Bavaria. He is currently chairman of the Bundestag budget committee.]

Herr President. Honored colleagues.

Let us attempt, after this staccato of planned-economy, EU-speak, to yet again dip into reality and the state of law.

            Falko Mohrs (SPD): For that, we need however another speaker, and not you!

Macron wants to become more powerful. For that, he needs the EU and a Paymaster Germany. It is absurd that we here today in any way discuss the Merkel/Macron proposal, since, according to Article 311 AEUV, a credit financing of expenditures is forbidden to the EU – period! At this point, this debate could and must come to an end!

As a non-state, the EU demonstrably has no taxation or indebtedness right of its own; the EU as  a union of states lives exclusively on the budget allotments of the member states. Borrowing by the EU cannot be simply re-defined by a conjuring trick into a new form of resources, as is evidently being planned here.

Older colleagues might now object: But we did that already in 1975. Yes, there was then in fact a crisis instrument by the name of the Community Loan Mechanism – Gemeinschaftsanleihen der EWG – by means which was in fact paid out over 20 years a few billions to the then, as now, usual bankrupts: Italy, France, Greece. “Balance of payments aid” as it was then euphemistically called, when Rome and Paris yet again made the beggars’ pilgrimage to Brussels to receive some millions.

It was simply dumb that this option terminated in 1999. With the euro monetary union, the no-bailout clause of Masstricht entered into effect; today, Article 125 AEUV, with constitutional authority; it is so now.

            Alexander Lambsdorff (FDP): You still do not understand it!

Balance of payments aid to the benefit of EU member states, financed by EU credit, was then explicitly forbidden.

            Alexander Lambsdorff (FDP): No!

And it is, ja, quite logical: What shall then happen with the planned EU loans if some Italian at sometime is bankrupt or unwilling to pay? Shall the EU, itself incapable of amortization, apply for insolvency, because the Italian cannot make his amortization payment? No, naturally would Germany pay the Italian portion. The government’s assertion of a partial indebtedness liability is pure theory.

That is euro bonds through the back door; or is it the front door? Did not Frau Merkel say in 2012: “No euro bonds, as long as I live”?

The proposal is a nightmare, not only in legal terms but also in regards the budget. The reconstruction funds will be a new shadow budget in no man’s land, for which however Germany will be fully liable. You can say partially liable – anyway, we are liable.

Statistically, the initial 500, since yesterday now already 750 billion euros, will be credited to no one, neither to the EU nor Germany, although the billions of credit will, ja, actually be taken up. Angela and Ursula in Wonderland! The 750 billion euros will be poured out over the beloved for all possible Green/left ideological projects – which will occur with security – yet naturally first after the withdrawal of such usual sums as the billions for administrative costs and corruption seepage.

In such a circumstance, budget clarity and national budget law are only a distant memory. A reference to a formal participation by the Bundestag as per the so-called limited individual authorization [Einzelermächtigung] is of no help; we have already plainly heard that. With an indebtedness of 750 billion euros, with payments to 2058, certainly nothing is anymore limited, neither in quantity nor in time.

            Franziska Brantner (Greens): We have named the payments exactly!

The budget law, as the Bundestag’s prerogative and perhaps the last bastion of German sovereignty, is anchored in Article 110 of the Basic Law [Grundgesetz]. The Merkel/Macron proposal disposes of that. A limited individual authorization of 750 billion euros is a bad joke and like a dam breaking. Once this dam is broken, then will Brussels ever again receive giant limited individual sums, to the burden of German solvency, and grandiosely distribute it in southern Europe and France. Be it in the realm of trillions, that is for Herr Jung, who follows the Jung Doctrine, still a limited individual authorization. That is absurd.

Ladies and gentlemen, only states are allowed to raise taxes, only states can incur debts, because only states can also again pay them back out of future tax revenues. The EU is however, according to the highest legal pronouncement, not a state – still not. According to the Lisbon decision of the Constitutional Court in 2009, it can never become one without a referendum on the surrender of German statehood. For years and decades, this referendum is however withheld from the Germans.

The presented proposal presumes [präjudiziert] the highly illegal situation of an EU state, for which there would never be a democratic majority in Germany.

            Franziska Brantner (Greens): Certainly not agreed.

With this proposal, Merkel and Macron clearly depart from the grounds of the free, democratic fundamental order. 

It is the duty of this Bundestag to stop the march, in full frustration of the law, to the benefit of an illegal, federal EUropa state. We ought not again leave that to the Constitutional Court.

Hearty thanks.

[Translated by Todd Martin]

           

Ulrike Schielke-Ziesing, May 15, 2020, Basic Pension

Ulrike Schielke-Ziesing

Basic Pension

German Bundestag, May 15, 2020, Plenarprotokoll 19/161, pp. 20032-20033

[Ulrike Schielke-Ziesing is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the eastern German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. She is a pensions administrator and a member of the Bundestag social security committee. Hubertus Heil (SPD) is German Minister for Labor and Social Affairs. Olaf Scholz (SPD) is German Minister for Finance.]

Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Right honorable Frau President. Honorable citizens.

We members have long waited for this moment. We today actually debate the draft law on the basic pension [Grundrente]. For 14 months, very much energy was invested in the application of the Grundrente, and at least as much energy so as to finally convince the coalition partners. In the bill it is stated that the Grundrente honors a life’s work and shall guard against old age poverty.

At this point, it is fitting to ask why the insured, who have worked for at least 33 years and paid into the Pension Insurance, in the end receive so low a pension, which now must be funded. How did it come to such a state?

Decisive for the terribly low pensions are the reforms of recent years; for example, the introduction in 1998 of demographic factors and, before all, the Schröder-Riester reform of 2001. It may also be remembered that it was first with an SPD government that the low wage sector could be so expanded. The coalition partners have been responsible for the low pensions and now congratulate themselves for pitching a little on account of the Grundrente to the contributors. Way to go!

For months experts, from the Bertelsmann Foundation to the employers’ associations, from the German Pension Insurance to the OECD, have referred to serious defects. The Grundrente is not precisely oriented. It is socially unjust, much too expensive and thereby largely ineffective. Everyone knows that those especially directed to aid seldom attain the prescribed insurance years. The Grundrente is constitutionally suspect on account of its neglect of principles of equality. Besides that, the equivalence principle is not followed.

            Matthias W. Birkwald (Linke): Yes, and ?

How do you explain, Herr Heil, that the insured who pay the same contribution do not receive the same benefit from the Pension Insurance? Herr Heil, you are thereby creating new injustices in the insurance community.

Matthias W. Birkwald (Linke): Which have long been in the pension law. No one has ever denied that.

For the Pension Insurance, the Grundrente in terms of organization is not convertible within the time frame; for the Finance officials’ income inquiry, the required IT system is lacking. Millions of documents must examined by hand. The Pension Insurance requires approximately 3,400 additional employees to manage the examination of current pensions. For the current operation, especially on account of the regulated income testing, 1,600 employees must be shifted to the Grundrente. From where will these be taken? The Pension Insurance has already indicated it will not be able to convert to the Grundrente by the beginning of January 1, 2021 – and that was before Corona.

To directly aid the really poor pensioners, an allowance resolution [Freibetragslösung] for the pension with a charge on the old age basic security is the better assessment.

            Matthias W. Birkwald (Linke): But not yesterday’s thin thing, please!

Since February 2019, there has been before you our motion for conversion which we here yesterday in plenary session definitely moved. The conversion cost would be far less and the usage the same or even greater than with the Grundrente.

            Matthias W. Birkwald (Linke): No. Definitely not!

Further, this option would conform to the constitution and preserve the equivalence principle of the statutory Pension Insurance.

            Kerstin Tack (SPD): That is the hope principle! The coalition’s draft law is 

            much better!

Herr Minister Heil, it is exceedingly praiseworthy that you have partially taken up our proposal in your draft law.

            Hermann Gröhe (CDU/CSU): Painful!

Unfortunately, you reduce the range of the qualified by defining the admittance prerequisite as 35 insured years. All other pensioners, including pensioners incapable of earnings, again fall through the cracks, and that is not right.

We come to the costs of the Grundrente. As one presently reads, there will be no second or third reading of the Grundrente if the financing is not enacted, and that is appropriate. The financial requirement will amount to about 1.3 billion euros in the year 2021. It is positive that it will be clearly legislated that the cost will not be borne by the insurance community but shall be paid out of the tax revenues. Yet from where does this tax revenue come? Already before Corona, the finances stood on shaky ground. Minister Scholz wanted a financial transactions tax, the other EU countries not.

What does it look like now in the Corona crisis? To cushion the economic and social consequences of the crisis, we in the parliament have decided on a supplementary budget to the sum of around 156 billion euros. The Federal Institute for Labor, with its reserves, will not suffice. It is clear that an additional supplementary budget is coming. The income of the states in the next years will amount to far less than planned. The tax revenues of the Federal government will be lacking in this year alone a sum of around 40 billion euros.

And the pension, sickness and care insurance income will fall off, which then must be covered by the Federal government.

            Beate Müller-Gemmeke (Greens): What’s that mean now?

How, please, shall the Grundrente then be financed? Despite it all, Herr Heil, you are determined to put through this Grundrente. It may then be asked here, why do you thusly set your priorities?

            Dagmar Ziegler (SPD): We have done more!

Can it have something to do with the Federal elections taking place next year and the pensioners being a not to be underestimated group of voters?

            Kerstin Tack (SDP): It does not get more banal! Just a bit of this is about 

            the people!

To disperse election gifts shortly before an election, certainly all Labor Ministers do that. In this case, however, it will be a giant disillusionment for the voters if they are unable to actually note Grundrente in the purse.

Yesterday, Minister Scholz announced the largest tax deficit of all time. The total tax deficit to 2024 will amount to an inconceivable 315.9 billion euros, of which that of the Federal government will be around 171 billion euros. Nevertheless, Scholz says not a single project will be trimmed. Where the taxpayers’ union advises the examination of all government expenditures, Minister Scholz says, quote, “We can continue to do what we have undertaken.” Naturally, he thereby refers to the Grundrente. It is really just inconceivable how budget policy is being made here

            Kai Whittaker (CDU/CSU): Does that mean that you do not want to 

            do anything?

Beate Müller-Gemmeke (Greens): Why did you bring the motion yesterday, if you actually wanted to do nothing? Not the least empathy!

and how far from one another are pretense and reality.

With the SPD, nothing can be done [sind Hopfen und Malz verloren]. I want here however to appeal to the reason of the CDU/CSU members. Stop this nonsensical Grundrente! Do not allow a further, second reading here in the Bundestag.

Many thanks.

            Dagmar Ziegler (SPD): That really was nothing!

            Ulli Nissen (SPD): How I look forward to Hermann Gröhe!

[Translated by Todd Martin]