Kay Gottschalk, December 16, 2020, Annual Tax Law

 German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/201, pp. 25263-25265.

Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

That sure was great cinema, Herr Binding. You had spoken little of tax law. I can also understand why, in that regard, you must be blushing in the face. I will similarly go into that. You said, yes: Those who receive state aid shall gladly pay more taxes. That particularly concerns the employees; that I will similarly make plain in regards the theme of the progression proviso. That was clearly a K.O. count for the SPD.

But before I come to terms with the draft law, I might want to for once express my fundamental  criticism in the direction of the coalition: It is really going too far to present to us, five days before the Finance Committee’s concluding session, 42 re-prints of the coalition delegations

            Fritz Güntzler (CDU/CSU): We are fluent!

which shall partially amend highly complex matters of fact.

I do not consider that to be to the point and I also consider that to be bad dealing with the opposition and wish for a better treatment in the future. That really has something of ESM light, ladies and gentlemen.

Constructive work also naturally presupposes that the opposition can adequately come to terms with the intentions and alterations of your laws. That was for us – apart from the fact that that occurred in a budget week – really going too far. So again: I here wish for a more reasonable treatment in the future.

That we have so little time, only half an hour, for debate on the annual tax law with so many extensive amendments, – that also is a point of criticism, if it is considered on what points we here often speak for hours – I find that in this place to be somewhat inappropriate.

But now I really do come in this brief time to the amendments. There are a couple of good motions from the AfD. Dear employees, prick up the ears so that at the Bundestag election you really know who is concerned for your interests.  

            Heike Brehmer (CDU/CSU): Oye!

            Alexander Ulrich (Linke): Oye!

I may for once name your draft law, very catchy, a “Corona Tax Case Law”. Why is that so in regards this draft law, ladies and gentlemen? What is interesting is what unfortunately is not in this draft law. The Soli remains at the top. Let us look for once at what that now comes to for us in the way of the costs of Corona.  

I come to the AfD”s motion [Drucksache 19/25304] and before all to the theme of the progression proviso. You have plainly and clearly said, Herr Binding: He who receives help shall quietly pay. – That pertains especially to more than 4 million employees. Ladies and gentlemen, you of course know all that: The part-time employment funding is indeed tax-free; yet plainly not entirely. It is subject to the so-called progression proviso.

I can cite the DGB [German Trades Union Confederation] – which might be known to the SPD – :

            It is incomprehensible why the coalition in this situation leaves standing in the rain millions of employees who are receiving part-time employment funds. He who, with the part-time employment funds, has to submit to considerable income loss, should not also have to struggle with additional tax payments.

No less than Stefan Körzell says this, a board member of the DGB.

Ladies and gentlemen of the sovereign house, we, the AfD, have brought in a corresponding resolution motion so as to solve this problem for over 4 million part-time workers in Germany for the years 2020 and 2021. What do we want to change? First. We do not want the part-time employment funds for these years to be subject to the progression proviso. According to the income tax law, there are then of course supplementary payments to be reckoned with. I could now rejoice; for these will of course likely come into the hands of the people in August, shortly before the Bundestag election. Second: For the purpose of a simultaneous deconstruction of bureaucracy. And now in the Finance offices the champagne corks must be popping; since, beginning at 410 euros of part-time employments funds, income tax declarations are required. Long live this government’s bureaucracy, ladies and gentlemen.

A further fantastic motion of my delegation has been entered. All of you here speak of a Digitalization 4.0. The FDP is the service opposition for that. The CDU says: “We must bring forward the digitalization”, and you bring forward a lot of money. In the time of Corona, all speak of the home office. Only, what you all here are planning, Herr Binding – on which account you have likely spoken not so directly –  those are alms. 5 euros per day, a maximum of 600 euros, is what you want to grant to the people out there, who now sit in a home office, and then against the whole even reckon up the advertising costs.

Ladies and gentlemen, be guided here by the AfD’s motion [Drucksache 19/23725] in which is stated: Allow us to re-construct the situation which we had at the beginning of the 2000’s. A glance backwards often helps. Away with core theory and other things by which each man at home works or has a workroom and can counter-balance the real costs.That would be sozial, that would be fair, and that would also convey a digital future in so far as accounting is concerned, ladies and gentlemen.

            Vice-president Hans-Peter Friedrich: Done?

I come to a conclusion.

            Vice-president Hans-Peter Friedrich: You are already at a conclusion

It is a somewhat middling draft law of this government, because many good amendments are also in there.

            Vice-president Hans-Peter Friedrich: Herr Gottschalk!

On that account, we will abstain.

Many thanks.

 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gerold Otten, December 17, 2020, Armed Drones

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/202, pp. 25458-25459.

Herr President. Right honorable colleagues.

We have certainly heard an emotional speech. In the past months and years in many forums, the necessity of armed drones was discussed. The conclusion was represented, as has been heard, by a hearing in the Bundestag.

A few days ago however, the SPD notices that the previous debate might be too much confined to the protection of our soldiers. The war in Bergkarabach however now shows that armed drones are able to be used as offensive weapons, according to colleague Heinrich of the SPD.

Ladies and gentlemen, what you there deliver up, that is the SPD’s security policy declaration of poverty. You could exactly so reject tanks, corvettes and combat aircraft; since these also are offensive weapons, if you so desire.

For all that, this acknowledgment includes two remarkable aspects:

First. The Union now completely stumbles over its argument that this weapons system served only the protection of our soldiers on a mission.

            Tobias Pflüger (Linke): Yes, that is the fairytale that they tell the entire time!

Second. The SPD leadership here reveals a frightening degree of ignorance. Or is it cold, political calculation? I know not which is more worthy of scorn.

            Siemtje Möller (SPD): The AfD!

A year ago already in this place I predicted in theory what has occurred in Bergkarabach. Armed drones are effective means for the reconnaissance, surveillance and combating of opposition forces.The Azerbaijanis owe their victory to the ability to identify and precisely attack enemy positions and war equipment, even better than artillery or combat aircraft are able, provided a real air defense is lacking.  

I thus summed this up at that time – and it still goes for today – : Protection for our soldiers results solely by means of a reconnaissance and operations potential on the battlefield. And for that are armed drones naturally the suitable means of air war.

Yet all that shows: In the SPD delegation, there is not only a lack of expertise but every relation to reality has been lost, and that in the party which, with Helmut Schmidt or Georg Leber, presented renowned defense ministers to this country. Shame on you!

The SPD’s contortions can only be designated as schizophrenic. The day before yesterday, you declare yourselves against an arming of drones. Yesterday in the defense committee, you vote against a similar motion of the Linke party. This is surely a security policy wrong-way drive you are on here. Please explain that for once to our soldiers who you with your votes casually send on dangerous foreign missions to Afghanistan or Mali, those to whom you then however deny, according to partisan calculation, the means of defense against enemy attack.  

            Tobias Pflüger (Linke): It is not for that reason! But he does not understand that!

Ladies and gentlemen, the procurement of armed drones is a highly charged social topic. This alone clearly contradicts the thesis of a deficient public debate. The fact is: For more than a decade there has been a widespread campaign against armed drones driven forward by leftists and Greens and their comrades in conviction at the levers of publicized opinion.

The Union and the FDP knew already for more than ten years what is necessary; yet there governs here in the self-described political middle the fear, the fear of no longer being electable by a portion of a society mis-informed by the media and instrumentalized by party politics. For that reason was this decision postponed for more than a decade.

Now into the SPD again breaks the left lane. Mützenich’s and Borjans’s great fear is of being punished by the leftist voter clientele should a procurement of drones be agreed to. It is similarly so with the Greens: They also are victims of their own leftist and unworldly propaganda. And of much amusement, ladies and gentlemen of the Union, with your coming coalition partners.

How does it actually feel to have your heart’s defense project sunk by the SPD? And that, before all, against the background of you having fulfilled the SPD’s every wish in this legislative period, right up to the basic pension.

            Mechthild Rawert (SPD): Unfortunately not.

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Right up to self-abnegation.

Yet all that occurred to the chagrin of the Bundeswehr, its soldiers and the security of our country.

While many of our allied armed forces now operate these weapons systems, the Bundeswehr is now on the way to become a third-class army: Technically obsolete, materially looted, with a hollowed out personnel,

            Henning Otte (CDU/CSU): Yet you now again speak poorly of the Bundeswehr!

without ability to fight, not in a position to defend our home country. For that are you co-responsible.

            Henning Otte (CDU/CSU): You speak poorly of the Bundeswehr!

We therefore demand of the SPD to return to the course of Realpolitik, a course which a Helmut Schmidt would have sailed.

I thank you for your attention.

            Götz Frömming (AfD): A very good speech!

 

 

[trans: tem]

           

 

 

 

Uwe Schulz, December 17, 2020, 5 G Technology

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/202, pp. 24565-24566.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Christmas mood in parliament. – The construction of the 5 G network in Germany progresses so slowly – and that is also good. My delegation regards a 5 G German Bundestag as an important future technology for town and country. We of the AfD have also always called in this place for security of rights and planning, whether or not it is about permission to deliver 5 G network components of Far Eastern firms close to the state. The Federal government has here the opportunity to create clarity in the present draft of the IT security law. It unfortunately again re-prints for itself one solution – yet that is only on the margin; of that, we may speak next year. Today it is about 5 G, although in another connection.

Dear colleagues, 5 G is a revolution for mobile data transfer. Yet many fellow citizens have reservations. The fear of radiation in regards mobile telephones is certainly great. The discussion began already in the mid-90s concerning earlier generations of mobile phones. Countless citizens initiatives had been promoted to prevent antenna installations. The courts today still have much to do in that regard.

Yet with 5 G the conflicts take on substantially new dimensions. Many experts, doctors and scientific organizations meanwhile demand clarification of the eventual dangers and they ask how the effects of electro-magnetic radiation are to be evaluated. Also, the scientific service of the European Parliament – it is there also – calls for comprehensive researches into the real or supposed danger of 5 G.

The bandwidth reserved for 5 G is especially large and not always serious. The considerations range from scientifically based arguments to lists of alleged occurences. There is talk of birds falling from the sky on account of 5 G radiation, and of dying trees. There were sworn testimonies of 5 G apocalypses; 5 G was designated as a radiation weapon and as an instrument of genocide. On the other side are interest groups which banish any negative 5 G effect directly into the realm of fairytales.

On the whole, the fronts between the two camps have hardened. The discussion concerning 5 G puts into the shadows the reservations which we already heard concerning 3 G and 4 G. Yet the fact is: There is no acknowledged evidence that 5 G harms the well-being of man, animal and nature. The fact however is: There are no independent studies which prove the harmlessness of 5 G

            Falko Mohrs (SPD): Rubbish!

and, before all, there are no studies which have focused on a long-term view.

All of us must be aware: 5 G technology can become the digital nerve center of our economy and infrastructure. Yet it is logical that the enormous potential of innovation will then first expand when 5 G is received and accepted by the citizens. And how is acceptance produced? By creating clarity and removing fear from the people.

            Falko Mohrs (SPD): That is ja your strength!

We therefore require a study, independent of business interests, which will provide us with an as great as possible transparency into the perhaps still present tricks and health hazards.

The study’s results and derivations, ladies and gentlemen, must be understandable for a wide public. Since very many citizens from all areas of society really do want to understand what it is about here. It will only so succeed by taking the wind out of the sails of frivolous, self-named “experts”. And should it be laid out at the end of the day that real medical problems can be associated with the employment of 5 G, then the Federal government similarly has a basis of argumentation for the required decisions and steps.   

Ladies and gentlemen, it is for us here in the German Bundestag to create clarity for our citizens. We must dissolve the reciprocal suspicions that exist between 5 G proponents and 5 G opponents. If we really want to bring forward the digitalization, we need secure data highways which will also be used and accepted. And we must guarantee that the 5 G infrastructure can grow uninterruptedly, in all cases in our country, without providing fodder for opinions, lawyers and courts.

I request that you support our motion [Drucksache 19/25308] and thereby demonstrate that you really do take seriously the needs of the people and at the same time show that the German Bundestag does not stand in the way of construction of the digital infrastructure.

May it be a beautiful Christmas festival for you. Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]