Alexander Gauland, November 18, 2020, Corona Preventative Measures

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/191, pp. 24050-24052.

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Trust is one of society’s most important resources. As is known, it can be lost. When people no longer trust one another, the will to cooperate stops and strife begins. When a portion of the people do not trust the government, a fissure is formed in the social structure. When the government, and the media close to the government,

            Saskia Esken (SPD): “Close to the government” – what do you mean by that?

stigmatize and denigrate or, indeed with the Constitution Defense, threaten this portion of the people instead of speaking with them, this fissure becomes deeper and the mistrust becomes greater. And, ladies and gentlemen, when members are thrown to the ground by the police, then it may be asked: Where have we actually arrived at in this country?

In a state of law, basic trust is institutionally secured by means of the basic rights, ladies and gentlemen. Heribert Prantl, bei Gott no friend of the AfD – the chief commentator of the “Suddeustche Zeitung” – has in that regard written or spoken words worthy of note – I cite with permission of the President: Basic rights [Grundrechte] are called basic rights because they form the basis of our lives. Basic rights are specifically for times of emergency.If they are thrown away in times of crisis or emergency,

            Michael Grosse-Böhmer (CDU/CSU): They will not be!

then they are worth nothing, then they can be forgotten.

– Heribert Prantl, not Alexander Gauland!

The Federal government’s infection prevention law is the greatest restriction of the basic rights in the history of the Federal Republic. If we continue Herr Prantl’s thought process, it means: We can forget the basic rights. The mistrust, ladies and gentlemen, will explode.

            Hermann Gröhe (CDU/CSU): You are sowing it!

You see that in the streets, you see that in the aggression which you everywhere feel.

Britta Haßelman (Greens): Yes, I have certainly seen all of you out there! What hypocrisy!

And you see it in many towns, and today also in front of the Bundestag.These people step forward for their basic rights and must not be put under observation by the Constitution Defense!

 Many citizens have existential concerns and questions.

             Manuela Rottmann (Greens): To that, you still have no answer!

 They want not only to know how to continue with their businesses, local concerns and cultural places,

            Hermann Gröhe (CDU/CSU): What do you know of culture?

but, in regards the setting aside of the basic rights, they fear for their freedom. Corona app, pursuit of contacts, digital health controls, indirect immunization obligation: All of these are symptoms of an approaching smart health dictatorship. People ask themselves, for example, whether they will have disadvantages if they do not immunize or do not wish to be registered.

           Britta Haßelman (Greens): What is “indirect immunization obligation”supposed                    to mean?

Then comes there a day no longer in restaurants, or at sports, or in foreign countries? Who asks something similar, as you know, is designated a conspiracy theorist.Yet in China that sort of total surveillance is already a fact and we want to go not one step along that way!

The “FAZ”, by which one will not walk too closely, in case one be spoken of as “close to the government”,

            Carsten Schneider (SPD): Na ja!

twittered: The high #Corona-numbers in many Western countries raise the disturbing question of whether open societies are less suited to react to global threats than authoritarian systems.

Does anyone there wish to take the hint? Representatives of the faculty of public law at the Ruhr-Universität, Bochum, expounded before the Bundestag’s health committee in an experts statement – cite:

The planned §28a IfSG [infection prevention law] does not satisfy the prerequisites of parliamentary reserve and the specificity principle.The formulation permits no consideration at all of interests affected in their basic rights to be recognized, but openly wishes to one-sidedly legitimize the previous procedures during the Corona epidemic.

 Thus the experts in the health committee.

“No consideration at all”, thus the matter stands. Since what is it other than immoderate and unbalanced when the inviolability of a dwelling is placed at disposal, when the Chancellor in all seriousness declares, Children should be allowed to meet only one friend?

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Unbelievable!

Have we then the plague in the land, Frau Chancellor?

Ladies and gentlemen, what is a pandemic of national scope? Who defines that today prescribes the state of exception. Apparently Herr Drosten is the present German sovereign and the arguments of other virologists and epidemiologists which express themselves against the lockdown will be wiped away, somewhat like the paper of Herr Streeck and the National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians which numerous doctors associations have also signed. The signers demand a unified, nationwide warning system, which a glance at the present situation permits one to recognize to be at hand at the federal as well as the local levels. It puts a command in place of a ban, self-responsibility in place of tutelage. It pleads for the promotion of hygiene concepts in place of closings, as well as for the protection of groups at risk by means of special preventative measures. We support such reasonable ideas, just as we set ourselves against those emergency measures ruinous to the economy and people’s relations.

We must yet live with the virus for many months and the citizens know that. Most are dealing quite reasonably with the situation, just as restaurateurs, theater people and concert organizers are dealing quite reasonably with the situation: They have registered visitors, they have limited their capacity, they have developed hygiene concepts, and for that they have expended money from declining incomes. That, despite this, they are closed is unbearable and it amounts to dictatorship.    

I have in this place already said – and I will not weary of repeating it – : The sovereign of this country is the German people represented by this parliament. Only this parliament can decide on the restrictions of basic rights and, after in fact weighing all arguments, on a precisely limited time. Not once have you laid that down: A precisely limited time.  

Ladies and gentlemen, that the government presents faits accomplis to the members elected by the people contradicts the spirit of democracy and of the Basic Law. On that account alone, we reject this law – and not, Herr Buschmann, because we do not want this parliament, because we do not want democracy, but because we are obviously the only democratic delegation in this country!

I am grateful. Hopefully, others have learned something.

            (The members of the AfD rise.)

Michael Grosse-Böhmer (CDU/CSU): Just what might you do if a really good speech were delivered?

           Tino Chrupalla (AfD): You still have not had a good one!

 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jörg Meuthen, November 17, 2020, Poland and Hungary

AfD Kompakt, November 17, 2020

It is no doubt curious when German interests, calculated in regards the EU budget, are represented from Warsaw and Budapest and not from Berlin. But exactly that is certainly the case. Since, by means of the veto of Poland and Hungary of the EU’s multi-year financial framework and of the so-called Corona assistance, a further plundering of Germany will meanwhile be prevented. Germany, as the largest net payer, would once again receive little reciprocal benefit.  

It is worthy of remark that Poland and Hungary would count as the net profiters of the 1.8 trillion euro heavy package, yet block it. They do not want payments of EU money to be tied to adherence to legal standards. Since they quite precisely know that the EU defines these legal standards very selectively and in the sense of their leftist-globalist agenda…This hypocrisy and attempted extortion is rejected in Warsaw and Budapest. Not all and each are for sale.

We hope that Poland and Hungary now remain steadfast. For with the complete package of the multi-year framework, with its borrowing, control of capital and mechanisms of the state of law, the EU would go an additional, large step in the direction of statehood. We categorically reject that.

 

[trans: tem]     

 

Christoph Maier, November 12, 2020, Constitution Defense

Bavarian Landtag, Protokoll 18/60, pp. 50-52.

On February 26, 2019, the Administrative Court in Karlsruhe declared it illegal to declare the principal opposition party in the German Bundestag, namely, the Alternative für Deutschland, to be a so-called test case for the Constitution Defense. This decision showed the considerable danger for the equal opportunity of parties, for democracy and thereby for the free, democratic basic order, that proceeds from political abuse of the Constitution Defense. The Constitution Defense was instrumentalized in the Federal Republic of Germany to silence all citizens and organizations who say no to illegal mass immigration, no to Afro-oriental settlement, no to multiculturalism, no to Islamism, and thereby a conclusive no to the downfall of the European West.

The illegal conduct of the Constitution Defense officials and countless additional violations of the Constitution – I refer in this place to the illegal flooding of Germany with ostensible asylum-seekers since 2015 – of which the Söder-Merkel rule is clearly revealed to be one: The Constitution must primarily be defended against those who have used their political power to oppress the opposition and thereby ultimately to the harm of Germany. Finally, with the Interior Ministry’s Bavarian Constitution Defense information for the first half of 2019, and with the Constitution Defense report for 2019, portions of the opposition party “Alternative für Deutschland” were proscribed. They shall now even be spied upon and infiltrated with secret service means. Observers already speak of the Constitution Defense undertaking recruitment efforts among simple members. From the texts of AfD politicians were derived absurd theses and interpretations which must serve for an ostensible hostility to the Constitution. For example, a speech by Björn Höcke was cited, in which he spoke of a “Schleusenzeit” and demanded a “Selbstbefreundung”. The Bavarian State Office for the Defense of the Constitution from that proceeds to the terms “Selbstbefreundung” and “Schleusenzeit” functioned in a new right context as euphemisms or figures for extremist aims and strategic concepts. – Ladies and gentlemen, what we read here is no Constitution Defense report, this is embarrassing and unworthy of a Bavarian official. We find additional evidence of the Constitution Defense’s abuse in the Constitution Defense report for the year 2019 which in its printed edition is no longer in circulation. The reason is quite simple: The Constitution Defense report is false and so may no longer be published. The 2019 Constitution Defense report mentioned specifically the Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle Ingolstadt, named in brief ZFI. This has made it its duty to survey historical research firmly on a basis of scholarly truth-finding and independently of the political Zeitgeist. To the state government, that apparently is not right. Yet I ask: Which  historical truths do you fear, if you must to such an extent observe and restrict scholarly freedom? The ZFI appeared before the Administrative Court and was not only right but there also came into its own. The Court held in its decision that the research office was unjustly designated as extreme right. The corresponding passage in the Constitution Defense report must be blacked out. Which effect the illegal mention had is also here indicated. Scarcely had the the Constitution Defense asserted that the ZFI was extremist, than the city of Ingolstadt revoked its lease with the association and forbade its use of local communal premises. Something like this, right honorable ladies and gentlemen, ought not to be in state of law.

Ladies and gentlemen, the evident abuse of the Constitution Defense makes it imperative to engage in considerations so that the authority and its tendentious Constitution Defense report can be reformed.

A first step now is our draft law. We today thereby demand not the abolition of the Constitution Defense as such, because the authentic enemies of our German states must indeed be fought most intensely. For the interventions of the officials and for mention in the so-called Constitution Defense report, we nevertheless wish to lay down comprehensible standards in the Bavarian Constitution Defense law. We therein demand the following changes: First. The state office to take notice of whether the equal opportunity of political parties in this state was impaired. Second. That the state office analyze the legal reasoning of the Bavarian Administrative Court in decisions in which the illegality of their own official conduct has been established. Third. We want the standard of an observation to be made objectively comprehensible by means of a legal definition in terms of the free, democratic basic order. Fourth. Should an official in fact come to the conclusion that an observation is justified, the affected person or organization is to be afforded a statement [Stellungnahme]. This corresponds to the realization of a claim to a legal hearing and for administrative procedure in a state of law should not be placed in question. Ladies and gentlemen, how often already has the law been broken by Bavaria’s political secret service? Junge Freiheit, Republikaner, Zeitgeschichtliche Forschungsstelle and many more were already victims of this practice in Bavaria. The politically abused Constitution Defense is in urgent need of reform. This draft is a first step. Bavaria is not a police state, but a Free State.

            First Vice-president Karl Freller: Please observe your time.

Bavaria has mature citizens who require no political care and feeding. In the further course of deliberations, it will now be shown whether the governing majority and the other opposition parties here in the state are ready to take seriously democracy and the state of law.

 

[trans: tem]

 

Roland Hartwig, November 6, 2020, Open Skies Treaty

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/190, p. 24017.

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

This will obviously be a debate in which all delegations place national interests over party politics; since we are all of us agreed that the Open Skies Treaty must be preserved, and in May have affirmed precisely that in a common letter to the American House of Representatives. The objections brought forward by the Americans do not nearly justify the renunciation of the treaty. The problems can be removed. Allow me to illustrate that by the example of Königsberg referred to in your motion.

The basis for the Russian limitation of distance flown to 500 kilometers for observation flights over Königsberg was an observation of the territory via Poland in the year 2014 – in conformity with the treaty, yet excessive. Observation flights over Königsberg however continue to be possible. In that there are also distance limitations over Denmark and Germany, we could meet the Russians half-way and codify that in the treaty for Königsberg.

Before we lose ourselves in the details of the workings of the treaty, we should ask ourselves why this treaty is at all needed. The answers are: It is an important component of the European arms control architecture which moreover in recent years has been seriously damaged and the treaty thereby helps us to form trust between the peoples of Europe.

Let us in that regard look at the practice of recent years. Almost all observation flights take place over Europe, only a few over the U.S.A. Why then must we Europeans so attentively observe and precisely track one another on account of troop movements in Germany and where the Russians station their rockets? That is ultimately only because the artificial division of the European continent still persists. Trenches and barbwire in eastern Ukraine are today signs of this division which we long since believed to be overcome. I may yet once more call to mind: At the end of the Cold War, Mikhail Gorbachev spoke of a “common house of Europe”. François Mitterand saw the end of the Cold War as the possibility for Europe to return to its own history and to its own geography, just as one returns home.

In the Charter of Paris in 1990, we commonly set for ourselves the goal to create a Europe that to be united is to be free and secure. After three lost decades, we must confirm that we today are unfortunately far removed from that, even further than at the fall of the Wall.

Do you still remember the positive prevailing mood of that time? Let us please still consider how we can form our common European territory so that treaties like that of the Open Skies soon become unnecessary. Can we not, for example, within the OSCE work towards the preparation of a treaty on security in Europe with Russia?

Should we not take up elements of the idea developed in 2003 at the EU-Russia summit in Saint Petersburg of the four common areas with Russia which, besides economy, research, culture and education, also foresaw a cooperation in the field of external security? Can we not enable a yearly debate on the state of security policy in the Federal Republic of Germany so as to develop concepts for the European space?

Ladies and gentlemen, there exists a stronger and further growing need for a global security architecture for the 21^st Century. We should therefore in common with other states work towards the launching of a process to renew the entire architecture of global security and to guarantee security for all states, not just the NATO states and the nuclear powers. I have the hope that with today’s constructive debate we will go a small but important step in the right direction.

Many thanks.

 

 

[trans: tem]   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Markus Frohnmaier, November 5, 2020, State Insolvency Procedure

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/189, pp. 23839-23840.

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

218 billion euros of new indebtedness, 600,000 workplaces destroyed, three Moslem terror attacks in four weeks in Europe: It could be thought we have enough problems of our own on our doorstep. Yet what do the Greens again lay before us today? They want to relieve the debts of half the world.

A payments postponement was already in April decided on for 73 states. That is not enough for them. The Greens now want to let it really rip. They now wish to introduce an insolvency procedure for constrained states which are in debt to us. The Greens’ focus is once again antideutsch: Antideutsch because they do not concern themselves with our innkeepers and restaurateurs, antideutsch because they do not trouble themselves over the single mothers in part-time employment, and antideutsch because they dismiss our farmers.

Instead, the Greens now concentrate on extorting debt reductions for corrupt dictators and African family clans. They will even again revile the position of the AfD as social populism. Yet thereby is one thing clear: To trouble oneself for one’s own people is not social populism; that is our obligation, for which we were elected. There is therefore on our parliament “To the German People” and not “To the Global South”.

Germany itself has a national debt of over 2 trillion euros. The specter of bankruptcy circles over us and you seriously wish to relieve the debts of other countries.

            Uwe Kekeritz (Greens): He who has understood nothing at all!

That must be paid by our children. Even if you could do that, it would really not be purposeful.

Why then are many African states indebted? Clearly not because we have forced them to borrow money. The debt spiral in developing countries has structural origins: Dependence on raw material exports, no legal security, poor government leadership, corruption and violence. Under such conditions, certainly no creation of value can take place. 

Besides, in these countries there has been in the past relief of debts multiple times. First in the year 2005, there was a debt reduction in the sum of 55 billion U.S. dollars. And did that help? Naturally not. If a debtor knows that every ten years the bank relieves the debts, why should he then exert himself to bring his house into order? You cement irresponsibility and plainly not the often affirmed self-responsibility.

In the Greens’ motion, it is particularly perfidious that they wish to indemnify European creditors by means of the ESM [European Stability Mechanism]. If the Africans do not pay, it thus means that the green debt reduction will be financed with the money of the German taxpayer.

           Uwe Kekeritz (Greens): Nonsense!

Who actually profits from your antideutsch policy? China. I am glad that the Union is teachable; since not once have I heard this argument from the Union in committee; it only comes from us, you can look that up. China is one of the largest creditors of the global south. China will under no circumstances agree to a debt reduction.

Thus when the Greens pull on the spender pants, German and European creditors will make amends for their antideutsch policy. The Chinese on the other hand will smile and cash in. Why actually do the Greens learn nothing from China? Have the Greens not paid attention in their Maoist K-groups? China does not hate the Chinese. China does not squander the money of its own citizens. China advocates national interests. We can learn from that, ladies and gentlemen. 

 

 

[trans: tem]