Alexander Gauland, July 1, 2020, Second German Presidency of EU Council

Alexander Gauland

Second German Presidency of EU Council

German Bundestag, July 1, 2020, Plenarprotokoll 19/169, pp. 21055-21056

[Alexander Gauland is honorary national chairman of the Alternative für Deutschland and a chairman of the AfD delegation in the Bundestag. Heiko Maas (SPD) is the German Foreign Minister. Article 125 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union states in part: “A Member State shall not be liable for or assume the commitments of central governments, regional, local or other public authorities, other bodies governed by public law, or public undertakings of another Member State, without prejudice to mutual financial guarantees for the joint execution of a specific project.”]

 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Children in the Grundschule mathematics classes learn how to find their way around ranges of numbers which become ever greater – first from 1 to 10, then to 100, then to 1,000, etc. Later, people then learn what the truly big range numbers are and who it is that puts them in motion – astrophysicists and EU financial politicians.    

Since there was a European Union, the relation of Germans to billions has indeed become intimate. As a rule, these billions flow to a country which ostensibly must be rescued. Each day is greeted not by marmots but by billions in the newspaper and or on the TV news. Somewhere in Germany they must grow, these billions.

Frau von der Leyen was no slouch and at the end of last year even brought the trillion into play.   That is 1,000 billion euros – only thus for an understanding of the range of numbers: A one with twelve zeros. So much will the EU expend up to 2050 to transform Europe into the Earth’s first climate-neutral continent. That also states the motto of the German presidency of the council.

As is known, ladies and gentlemen, something came in between: A virus out of Asia frustrated these pious plans. The Fridays-for-Future teenagers could experience what an authentic crisis is like and had to go into lock down. And now we hear on the news of three-figure billion amounts to counter the secondary effects of the Corona lock down, which together could come near to the sum which Frau von der Leyen wanted to expend on restraining the world scourge of carbon dioxide.

Instead of a CO₂-neutral economy, the money will thus now flow into overcoming the consequences of Corona. We have only one, anxious question for the Federal government and the EU leadership: Was that then, or do you still want to make a payment of 1 trillion for Greta’s fairy tale world?

The Corona crisis has literally shown the Brussels bureaucracy its borders. Herr Minister – I am of a quite different opinion than you – it has shown how little the EU is in the way of solving the problems of the European citizens. When it gets serious, people draw back into their national confines, and it will continue to be so.

The fixation of the EU Commission and the Federal government on the various green illusions and the fundamental reconstruction of economy and society are just as false as the tendency to shift ever more competences to the European level.

Amidst the daily reports of Corona and the emerging reconstruction of Europe, one news item, for example, has been nearly submerged. The Italians, without the EZB’s feedings, would be bankrupt. According to a Reuters report, in April and May the EZB took up nearly all of Italy’s new debt. Moreover, no one in the capital market was ready to purchase Italian national notes on a large scale. This factual state financing by the central bank [Notenpresse] is not only a violation of all European treaties, but it irrefutably leads to inflation.

            Franziska Brantner (Greens): Deflation!

We similarly experience that Germany’s yearly contribution to the EU budget shall increase around 42 percent in the coming years. Ladies and gentlemen, it must be said ever anew: This EU was founded under the proviso that no country is liable for the debts of another.

Alexander Lambsdorff (FDP): False! There must be liability! It is quite otherwise, Herr Gauland! Old legends here!

            Franziska Brantner (Greens): Herr Gauland, you know better!

            Christian Petry (SPSD): Always these falsehoods here!

The Italians clearly have a higher per capita wealth than Germany. Germany is in no way rich, as is always asserted by interested parties, but it is capable. I have no idea

            Gunther Krichbaum (CDU/CSU) That is true!

            Alexander Lambsdorff (FDP): That is right!

how the Federal government will explain to the Germans that they should now rescue the Italians who are clearly better off.

Instead, ladies and gentlemen, it is rather time to give up illusions and leave the Italians and the  Greeks to a currency of their own

            Alexander Lambsdorff (FDP): Oh, Gott!

which is to be supported by an economic and social policy for which Rome and Athens are responsible; or which is simply to be weakened, according to the circumstances.

Ladies and gentlemen, this EU is in flames, and indeed not only financially. Herr Macron declared in February that he wanted to reconquer those territories of the Republic lost to Islamic separatists.

           

Franziska Brantner (Greens): That was not the formulation! Herr Gauland, 

you cite falsely! That you are not ashamed to cite falsely! That is really 

unbelievable! One false statement after another!

In these lost territories of the Republic, a white person today better not let himself be seen, much less a Jew and no woman who thinks she herself can decide her personal appearance. That pertains precisely to the eastern Europeans, upon whom our EU centralists wish to impose obligatory migrant quotas – Herr Maas has again done that. He who has not first lost something, need not reconquer it, and it will remain so for the eastern Europeans.  

We are certainly not as far gone as France, but we are on the way. On May 22, the police praesidium in Duisburg received a letter, in which it is said, I cite with the permission of the President –

…Duisburg-Maxloh is our part of the city…We forbid all unbelievers to set foot in our part of the city…All police, journalists and other unbelievers, we will drive out with armed force or kill…Allahu akbar…

The Party and Event Scene in Stuttgart, wondrously quick forgotten by the media, at which Boris Palmer had recognized so many immigrants, has opened an additional view into a future which has little to do with that golden future being extolled in the EU’s glossy brochures or as it has been again extolled by the Herr Minister. There, ladies and gentlemen, are to be found no such disillusioning facts. The European nations will have to solve most problems in their own front yard. Brussels will not do it for them. Otherwise, the second German presidency of the EU Council could be the last.

I am grateful.

[Translated by Todd Martin]

           

           

Armin-Paulus Hampel, June 18, 2020, Nuclear Weapons

Armin-Paulus Hampel

Nuclear Weapons

German Bundestag, June 18, 2020, Plenarprotokoll 19/166, pp. 20771-20772

[Armin-Paulus Hampel is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the western German state of Lower Saxony. He is the AfD’s foreign policy spokesman in the Bundestag and here responds to motions from the Linke and Green parties concerning nuclear weapons.]

Many thanks. Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. We have no visitors. Dear viewers, if you are still at the screens at home.

Much, dear Herr Löbel, – where is he sitting? – of what you have said is indeed correct. It is agreed that we Germans have a great interest in the continuation of this treaty. We have an interest in the retention of INF regulations and that we have no new intermediate-range missiles in Europe. Only, what is sad is – you can describe that in all the particulars, regardless of from which delegation –: In Washington, ladies and gentlemen, it is of interest to kein Schwein.

What is in fact sad is: Whether a sack of rice turns over in China or is discussed in the Bundestag is no longer of interest in Washington, and that did not start with Donald Trump, but I refer to the fact that it was already a demand of the Obama administration that the German defense proportion be cranked up to 2 percent. And the Democrats in Congress have voted to cover Germany with sanctions on account of Nord Stream 2. Why all that? Because since the Trump presidency, there is no longer a dialogue between the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany. Because we are developing a willingness to draw red lines with American presidents.

A German Federal president ignores the U.S. president during his visit in the U.S.A., a former foreign minister calls him a preacher of hate during an election campaign, and Frau Merkel renounces the recent G7 because it is suspected – or hoped – that eventually in the autumn the man could no longer be president. That is the present – what is called “policy”? – non-policy. In the foreign affairs committee we questioned the state minister. If such a situation, as it now is, had existed in earlier times, then any German foreign minister would have immediately flown to Washington: The chancellor he would have taken with him or turned around, and the problem would have been discussed with the American friends as long as until it was off the table. Today, kein Schwein any longer travels to Washington. First, we are not welcome; second, we are drawing red lines;

            Jürgen Hardt (CDU/CSU): Corona!     

and third, there was not once in the questions to the Federal government a travel date from Herr Maas or Frau Merkel. That is unbelievable in today’s German-American situation.  

            Heike Hänsel (Linke): You can depart!

I can say one thing to you: To the question, Why then does not Frau Merkel travel?, it was put out that Corona travel conditions could make problems. So absurd is the discussion in the foreign affairs committee.

Back to the theme.

            Heike Hänsel (Linke): Yes, to the theme!

For us, a further extension of the treaty is interesting, important and good. But we must well prepare ourselves to again conduct a dialogue with the Americans, and that in fact on a basis of Realpolitik and not on a basis of trauma à la Merkel and Maas. You must live with the president that you have in Washington, and not dream of someone who perhaps in the autumn may not be there. World affairs go on.

We are thus in favor of seeking an understanding with Russia – I have often said it – so that the INF treaty may perhaps continue on the basis of a common European regulation.  

            Heike Hänsel (Linke): The colleague has said the opposite. What does the 

           AfD want?

In regards the START treaty, there remains nothing for you to do other than to travel to Washington. Only, I figure it is to be doubted whether today that exalted height is still a possibility. Again: The German lament, and your lament, Frau colleague, is of present interest to kein Schwein. That is the sad reality.

I thank you, ladies and gentlemen.

[Translated by Todd Martin]

Lothar Maier, July 1, 2020, Consumer Protection Collection Law

Lothar Maier

Consumer Protection Collection Law

German Bundestag, July 1, 2020, Plenarprotokoll 19/169, p. 21101

[Lothar Maier is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the western German state of Baden-Württemberg. He is an economist and for three decades taught consumer policy at the School for Applied Sciences in Hamburg. He here responds to a draft law proposed by the  government.]

Right honorable Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

The “Improvement of Consumer Protection Collection Law” overlaps the draft law but I fear it is only a half-hearted improvement. It was also a difficult birth. Frau Lambrecht, your predecessor in office almost two and a half years ago announced such a draft law. That you have now presented it deserves acknowledgment. Yet I fear you have remained at the half-way mark.

As to the fee rate, it must be said: Clearly, it is a step forward that small claims – demands up to 50 euros –in the future have only a maximum right of collection at a fee of 30 euros. That, concerning cases of demands below 500 euros, it is somewhat higher yet still below the previous value, is also clearly a step forward; yet it is a gradual progress. The whole problem, in my eyes, is not yet solved – nor actually are many of the inconveniences which we find in this branch and of which you have briefly spoken.  

The legal technicalities assessment for which you have voted, we hold to be false. It will equate the fees demanded by the collection worker, who for the most part are scarcely educated people, with those of an attorney-at-law. The attorney should after all undertake a legal examination which the semi-skilled [angelernte] collection worker cannot and indeed should not undertake. This equality of treatment appears to us to be not in order.

And in closing: This draft law does not assure a reduction in the number of collection proceedings. According to statements of the collection industry, there was in the previous year a total of 23 million warnings sent out by the collection agencies. It is agreed that, due to the consequences of the Corona situation, the number of these cases could increase from 23 to 25, 28, perhaps even 30 million. That is a magnitude of scale which properly can no longer be justified. Real relief would apparently only be possible if you had followed our draft law, which was unfortunately rejected in this house and which for small claims completely did away with the right of collection in cases up to the second warning. It should have also prevented the presentation of further accounting costs in addition to the collection fees. The collection industry is exceedingly creative in finding such evidence of costs for data acquisition, credit verification, telephone collection, etc., which can drive the costs considerably above the level provided for in the law for the claims of the collection industry.

I say yet again: I fear you have remained at the half-way mark. If you could at least, Frau Minister, rouse yourself and in regards the small claims, that is, up to 50 or to 100 euros, strike out the right of collection, then you might have our support. Though not yet.

Thanks.

[Translated by Todd Martin]