Jochen Haug, September 10, 2020, Election Law

German Bundestag, September 10, 2020, Plenarprotokoll 19/173, pp. 21775-21776.

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

One remark beforehand, Herr Frieser. I am now really a bit astonished: You here claim nothing  is to be delegated to the Federal Interior Ministry and the fundamental of separation of  powers is guaranteed. It is certainly precisely the problem here that that is in no way the case; but I will go into that presently in my speech.  

Ladies and gentlemen, democracy lives by presence, by assembly at the same time, same place, be it in an assembly of citizens, be it an assembly of members in the parliament or in a party assembly. Common affairs will here be deliberated and decided. Consequently, the Federal election law prescribes that candidates for election to the Bundestag must be decided on in assemblies. In consequence of the Corona crisis, the coalition delegations now present a draft law which will create the possibility of a deviation from this.

What exactly is in the draft law? The Federal Interior Ministry, in case of natural catastrophe or a similar event – we all know that Corona is meant –, shall be empowered by legally ordered regulation to name candidates for election without meetings of assemblies. The prerequisite shall be the statement of the German Bundestag’s election verification committee that the holding of assemblies is wholly or partially impossible.

Now, to the making of emergency regulations in a crisis, there is clearly nothing to be objected to. But what you here today put forward is unconstitutional.

According to the established jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court, the parliamentary law-giver itself must come to all essential decisions. It may not leave it to other legislators or to the executive. The delegation of essential decisions would be similar to an act of self-disempowerment.

A new regulation of the election law, more precisely stated: The presentation of candidates – and here it is about a new regulation – is a prime example of the identity of the aspects of fundamental law and democracy. It is an operation at the heart of democracy. For it, the parliamentary law-giver itself must answer. In no case may it leave free law-making to the executive. Thus a regulation by means of prescriptive authorization, as foreseen here by you, is already fundamentally excluded.

Once admitted, a regulation by means of prescriptive law would here be permissible. Then, according to Article 80 of the Basic Law, the content, purpose and scale of the given authorization must be determined. That is totally lacking here. The text of the law itself reveals not one word of which way the required nominations assemblies shall be replaced. Merely in one brief paragraph of the initial portion are the alternatives vaguely indicated, such as a nomination of candidates by written or electronic processes, followed by a mailed ballot. There is not a word concerning the practicality of similar things. This obviously cannot satisfy the determination principle.

One must consider what remains: You here wish to introduce the possibility of weakening the democratic rules of play, built up over decades, and then you do not even approximately state in the text of the law how you put forward a nominations procedure without an attended event [Präsenzveranstaltung]. That is grotesque.

What finally remains to be said? The presented draft law, in one of the most sensitive areas of democracy, contains a quasi full empowerment of the Federal Interior Ministry. It offends against the fundamental of separation of powers and the principle of democracy.

We reject it self-evidently.

Thank you.

 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Franciska Gminder, September 10, 2020, Family Tax Relief

German Bundestag, September 10, 2020, Plenarprotokoll 19/173, pp. 21703-21705

Right honorable Herr President. The Frau Minister is unfortunately no longer present. Ladies and gentlemen.

Today we deliberate on the so-called Second Family Relief Bill. It concerns the increase of the child subsidy [Kindergeld] and the child allowance [Kinderfreibeträge] on January 1, 2021. As a reminder: Article 6 of the our Basic Law states: “Marriage and family are under the particular protection of the state order.” The family, consisting of father, mother and children, is the nucleus of our state.

            Dagmar Ziegler (SPD): That is likely your interpretation.

            Matthias Birkwald (Linke): That’s not in there.

Unfortunately for years a weakening of this article and change in the sense of family have been taking place in Germany.  

            Michael Schrodi (SPD): Speak on the bill.

There was then certainly no other sense of family. We agree to the planned increase of 15 euros per month in the child subsidy, yet hold this to be next to nothing in regards the problems which today confront a family with children. In the text of the bill, I discern no real reduction of the cold progression. A possible increase in the minimum livelihood for tax-obligated persons and their children was in fact mentioned, yet a yearly income of approximately 56,000 euros is still hit with the top tax rate of 42 percent. Why has this amount not been increased? For years, unchanged – a scandal!

Which measures can actually promote families? To overcome the demographic catastrophe, the family must win back its economic integrity. And a sole earner should be able to care for a family with multiple children with his income. On that account, there is pressure in many cases to give up even the smallest children, virtually after birth, to the day-care nursery. The overwhelming majority of mothers want to care for their children themselves at home until the age of three.

            Steffi Lemke (Greens): Rubbish!

This is regrettably very often prevented on financial grounds. Calculations show that in general the cost of a day-care or kindergarten place is about 1,100 euros per month.

            Dagmar Ziegler (SPD): That is money well invested!

That would be money well invested with the mother who herself cares for her child at home.

            Steffi Lemke (Greens): Have even once heard of men who care for the children?

From its founding, the AfD has been committed to the introduction of a family splitting instead of a marriage splitting. According to the contract of generations, today’s adults care for the contribution payers of tomorrow. Unfortunately, the number of the childless grows.

Could you allow me to speak? That would be very nice.

            Katrin Werner (Linke): Nein, such idiocy does not go at anytime!

Moreover, ask yourselves whether you –

            Vice-president Hans-Peter Friedrich: Dear colleagues, please allow Frau Gminder to speak.

Unfortunately, the number of the childless grows amongst the college-educated and this weakens the future prospects. The contribution apportionment for sickness, pension and care insurance should lead to a direct relief of families with children; since these contribute disproportionately to the insuring of the childless. For ten years, a parents’ suit has been before the Federal Social Court in Kassel. In this context, I recall a statement of Professor Jürgen Borchardt, social judge in Darmstadt; I hope it is known to you.

            Wolfgang Strengmann-Kuhn (Greens): Yet it would be very annoying if you quote it.

Domestic care-giving performed by the family for the children and for aged parents deserves as family work recognition and protection. An optional debit for the basic security or for home ownership may contribute especially to old-age security. Here, the eastern and Baltic countries are at the top with a rate of 78 to 96 percent. Germany, with about 51.5 percent is next to last in the order of things, with Switzerland, even worse, at 42 percent.

One means of promoting home ownership was the own house subsidy [Eigenheimzulage] which was unfortunately abolished in the year 2006. §27b UstG [Umsatzgesetz, turnover tax] also falls under tempus passat. Introduced in 2018, the Baukindergeld proposed by the KfW was a decision in the right direction.

            Vice-president Hans-Peter Friedrich: Frau colleague, please come to an end.

            Michael Schrodi (SPD): Come to the topic!

It can however cause no surprise. We demand the straight reduction of the real property sales tax for families with children purchasing real estate for their own use. With three children, it should be completely omitted. Also, low-interest credit for this purpose would be worthy of consideration.

            Vice-president Hans-Peter Friedrich: Frau colleague, please come to the end – last sentence.

The interruption was not counted, or?

            Vice-president Hans-Peter Friedrich: The time is run out.

Please?

            Vice-president Hans-Peter Friedrich: The time is now run out. You had four minutes.

But if I an always being interrupted. Thus, I want a moderated value added tax on goods and services  for children's needs and a reduction of the tax component of electricity costs for all participants.

            Vice-president Hans-Peter Friedrich: So, Frau colleague, now enough.

There is still much to done to help do right by our families.

Petra Sitte (Linke): You have only won the speaking time because the president is gracious to older people!

 

[trans: tem]

           

 

 

 

Johannes Huber, September 10, 2020, Petitions Committee

German Bundestag, September 10, 2020, Plenarprotokoll 19/173, pp. 21624-21625.

Right honorable Herr President. Dear fellow citizens.

Article 17 of the Basic Law [Grundgesetz] gives everyone the right to apply with written petitions or complaints to the German Bundestag. Since the AfD entered the German Bundestag in 2017, the previous, continual decline of petitions in this sovereign house has been turned around.

The AfD’s contribution, among others, is to have re-animated a high opinion of democracy and brought people back into the political discourse who previously felt themselves no longer represented.

            Timon Gremmels (SPD): You have to an extent abused the committee.

The petitions portal is by far the German Bundestag’s most successful internet offering. 40 percent more citizens have registered at the platform compared with last year and, in addition, 45 percent more co-signers have taken up public petitions. Unfortunately, this is presently the only opportunity, besides non-official petitions and direct questions to the members, for a citizen to directly co-operate in national policy during the legislative period. For this reason, we wish to further construct direct democracy at last in our country.

I very heartily greet the co-workers of the committee staff.

            Timon Gremmels (SPD): Who were publicly attacked by you!

Each petition, as you well know, is assigned to one of three sections and so about a third of all citizen requests could be settled in the early stages of the parliamentary process by means of non-bureaucratic assistance. A big thank you to the diligent co-workers!

I may likewise announce a success concerning the publicity of the petitions. You recall the UN migration pact, in regards which a petition was first publicized due to the perseverence of the AfD.

            Timon Gremmels (SPD): That’s not true!

And we prevented the application of the term “Censor Committee”, Herr Gremmels. Today I can say – so much may be allowed – that by our repeated intervention, substantially more are being publicized than earlier.

            Timon Gremmels (SPD): That is false!

While there is a political arbitrariness as to which citizens requests will be publicized, the door remains open.

            Timon Gremmels (SPD): False!

We therefore wish to further re-work the guidelines for public petitions and firmly and compulsorily establish them in the Bundestag’s orders of business. You could vote for that.

Dear fellow citizens, last year the prize for the ministry with the greatest performance deficit went to the Interior Ministry. First of all were the letters aimed against the draft law concerning firearms put forward by the Federal government. Thanks to over 50,000 co-signers, there was in January 2020 a public hearing with the petitioners.

Despite the lockdowns this year, there will probably be 15 public hearings in 2020; in December of this year, on the convening of an experts’ committee, including proponents and critics, on the national Corona virus lockdowns. So you see: While the Federal government allows, with Christian Drosten and Lothar Wieler, only two so-called experts, the Petitions Committee, thanks to the citizens, is already a step ahead.

While Bundestag President Dr. Schäuble just yesterday at the submission of the Petitions Report reiterated that he certainly did not want popular referendums at the Federal level, many citizens, undeterred, see that otherwise and therefore submit petitions. Even though the coalition contract has the goal of an experts’ committee, the CDU, CSU and SPD, up to today, have not once managed to designate the criteria according to which the experts will be invited. Thus I must say, after three years, the Grand Coalition here has done absolutely nothing, quite possibly because it wants to do nothing.

And then when the Petitions Committee, together with a majority of the entire Bundestag, decides to take into consideration a citizens request, motor vehicles and alarm defense were two cases in the reported year, then the government does not feel itself bound by the majority decision and simply rejects these citizen proposals for improvement.   

That fits the picture; since for three years we of the AfD have been able to observe how the legislative branch, the Bundestag, is only made use of by the Federal government to rubber stamp laws

            Timon Gremmels (SPD): Rubbish!

which have been written not the the constitutional law-giver but actually by the Federal government itself.  

            Timon Gremmels (SPD): That is absurd! Produce the evidence!

We of the AfD, on the other hand, have a completely different understanding of democracy: The citizen proposes, the Bundestag decides and the government implements – so it goes. Instead, important decisions were often already reached previously in the back rooms. We know that, and not just since the “Philipp Amthor” affair or the lobby activities of an Angela Merkel in the Wirecard affair.

My written inquiry concerning non-governmental organizations, like those located in Berlin, yielded, according to the George Soros financed Council on Foreign Relations’s own statement

            Konstantin Kuhle (FDP): Unbelievable!

            Timon Gremmels (SPD): First clear up your contribution affairs!

that, quote: “Understandings derived from these contacts in preparatory discussion flow into political decisions and government actions.”

Michael Grosse-Böhmer (CDU/CSU): Concern yourself with the contributions to Frau Weidel and Herr Meuthen! You have enough to do there!

Members of this think tank – you also – are, besides government officials like State Secretary Niels Annan of the SPD, the meanwhile combative candidate for the CDU party chairmanship Norbert Röttgen and leading powers of the ostensibly democratic parties, like Franciska Brantner of the Greens and Alexander Graf Lambsdorff of the FDP.

            Konstantin Kuhle (FDP): Good man!

            Jan Korte (Linke): You are controlled from Switzerland! The Fifth Column!

These obvious entanglements, Herr Korte, confirm the suppositions of many citizens that the self-described democratic parties, the “better democrats”, in this country love parliament best and gainsay the citizens in the back rooms.  

For this reason, what we need is a lobby register, one worthy of the name, and such a motion the AfD will introduce into the Bundestag tomorrow.

            Michael Grosse-Böhmer (CDU/CSU): Yet tomorrow!

To be continued.

[trans: tem]