Joachim Paul, February 25, 2021, Research and Development

AfD Kompakt, February 25, 2021

The year’s estimate delivers a determination of status which must raise serious concerns. The Corona crisis has in fact driven forward radical new technologies, yet which in Sleeping Beauty Germany – land of mobile phone dead zones, the copper cable and rattling fax machines – are a cold surprise.

Especially is Germany’s digital competitiveness in play. That out of a generally well installed research landscape, with a close network of establishments, proceed too few products “Made in Germany”, in the last consequence threatens thousands of on-site workplaces.

It is understandable that the businesses in times of Corona shun risks and refrain from investments – nevertheless, a change of mentality must in the mid-term result in more digital awareness and more readiness for risk. I thereby recall that many world-standard, successful products were prepared by means of German research or had been introduced for the first time in the German market. The subsequent commercialization nevertheless occurred in foreign countries. Social networks, for example: The successful German platforms “Wer kennt wen” and “StudiVZ” do not take the victory lap, but Facebook – a tech giant – today sets the pace; because firms are still too much analog-oriented and risk adverse and then do not catch sight of the market opportunities.

In regards the research budgets of China with 450 billion and the U.S.A. with 500 billion, and the fact that the Federal Republic expends only 3 percent of the BIP [gross domestic product] for research, Israel and Korea 5 and 4 percent respectively, a much stronger financial engagement must in the future follow – especially in regards well compatible, recruited personnel. The money must also flow to positions which offer long-term perspectives; thereby will be guaranteed that the state of science and research will be attended to long-term and passed on.  

Despite the primacy of market economy principles, the role of the state in regards the activities of innovation must in fact be newly defined – the founding of the “Agency for Springboard Innovations” in 2019 in Leipzig is therein to be welcomed as a first step. Considering the economic faults resulting from the Corona crisis, a debate on a stronger and more focused state engagement must follow.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

Roman Reusch, February 26, 2021, Direct Democracy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/213, pp. 26826-26827.

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Since the introduction of our Basic Law, our political system has taken on a development for which the Italians have a very pertinent designation, a pun: “Partitocrazia”. Which is translated: The rule of the parties. Which rests on three pillars.

First pillar: The limitation of powers, which we have laid down in the Basic Law. It is the principal duty of the government coalitions, come what may, to defend the government with tooth and nail. Parliamentary control therefore rests on the much too narrow shoulders of the opposition.

            Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): You are a bit clueless there!

Second pillar: The self-disempowerment of the parliament, conveyed by party and delegation discipline, which to oppose can have possibly unpleasant consequences for one’s subsequent career- and life-planning, and on which account, when in doubt, one prefers to walk softly.

Third pillar: The wretched business of the party book which has proliferated in all state organizations and today nor more stops short of the lower ranks. And this naturally serves the overcoming of competences and the separation of authorities [Gewalten] in the sense of the exercise of power [Macht].

This has led to a concentration of power in the hands of a few leading functionaries, which the renowned mothers and fathers of our constitution at Herrenchiemsee reliably wanted to prevent. A correction is required; an opposing power is to be built which in a democracy only the people, the sovereign, can present.

With our draft law [Drucksache 19/26906], we want to give to the people the means to exercise this power which it should have. The core of our draft is that the expressed will of the people must be the highest law.

            Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): In the Basic Law, “elections” are for that!

In regards instruments, we refer to proven procedures from the Swiss federal constitution.

            Anna Christmann (Greens): Not at all agreed!

For one, the obligatory referendum; for another, the facultative referendum. Obligatory, thus binding, popular votes are to be held for changes to the constitution, for changes to the people’s previous decisions, for cession of sovereignty, for entry into supra-national organizations. For the facultative, the people themselves shall receive the possibility, from their own ranks by means of a petition for referendum, to place before the people a vote on substantive issues and draft laws. Finally, the government shall maintain the possibility of realizing the people’s will by means of organization of a people’s inquiry. Brexit sends it respects, one or the other will say. With this instrument, much can be put in motion, as the example indicates. On the whole, the realization of the presentations would at a minimum distinctly reduce the power of the backrooms.

            Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): You must free yourself of AfD customs!

            Christoph de Vries (CDU/CSU): The backrooms, which with you are of the                            worst!

I now greatly rejoice over the speakers of delegations which themselves already have brought in initiatives for direct democracy; that is to therein refer to the dislocations with which they set forth why all of this is not at all needed.

Many thanks for the attention.

 

[trans: tem]

           

 

 

 

 

 

Beatrix von Storch, February 25, 2021, Indymedia

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/212, pp. 26783-26784.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Yes, we want to ban indymedia, the association and its website and its logo. Alone the question presents itself: Why has this not yet happened? Since as you had quite correctly said, Herr Bernstiel, the predecessor association was called linksunten.indymedia, and it is banned and it also could be banned, other than as you have directly insinuated.

It had been banned because it called for violence and published self-incriminating writings on extreme left, serious acts of violence – exactly the same as indymedia does now – the identical. Indymedia mobilizes violence-ready leftist extremists against the free, democratic basic order, and the Constitution Defense confirms: The leftist extremists approvingly make allowances for attacks on police officers up to deadly injuries.

Indymedia is not about humanity, justice or the environment.

            Marian Wendt (CDU/CSU): Which you then have in common with them!

They want to batter, trample and plunder. They want to humiliate, intimidate and threaten, set fire, burn down and destroy. They want terror, and they want to kill. And they say that themselves. I cite with the permission of the President indymedia itself: “Call us terrorist and criminal…” And in another place is written: “There are enough possibilities to arm oneself. Thus on the internet there are sufficient instructions for the making of explosives…We can thereby kill their personnel.” Where, Herr Bernstiel, is this now relativized? It is not exactly known what can be done? No, they want to kill and they write of it.

For a second, we imagine one which came from rightist extremists. In the next second, the site would be banned. Gott sei dank, it would be banned. In Germany, there is left and right extremist terrorism; yet between the two there is a central distinction: There is, Gott sei dank, a massive pressure of prosecution against rightist terrorism which has now forced this underground. And rightist terrorism proceeds from individual perpetrators and small groups. There is, on the other hand, as good as no pressure of prosecution against the leftist terrorists. That does not occur. They do not act secretively, do not conceal, are not underground and it is not only a handful of individual perpetrators.

            Irene Mihalic (Greens): 200 rightist murders!

The leftist terrorists can quite openly and unabashedly publicly advertise, mobilize and organize and call for violence on the indymedia platform. I may yet again cite: “There are enough possibilities to arm oneself” and “…instructions for the making of explosives.” “We can thereby kill their personnel.” “Call us terrorist…” Why are they still on-line?

For most here, leftist violence is always a moral, in some way a good violence; in any case a better violence. Leftists are disturbed by rightist opinions, not by leftist violence. When an AfD politician criticizes the refugee policy, then that is a crime in the view of the left. When in connection with that, a leftist burns his car or bludgeons him into the hospital, like my colleague Stephan Schwartz recently in Baden-Württemberg, then that in the view of the left is somehow consequential, is held to be good violence. The sympathizers of this leftist violence sit everywhere, in the editorial rooms, in the universities, in the environmental associations, in the trades unions, in the NGOs and, ja, here in the German Bundestag and in the government. The entire left side and a large part of the middle belong to that. Therefore, Federal Interior Minister Seehofer does what he can do best, namely nothing.

I predict of this debate: You will at most pronounce a brief, obligatory lip service on the leftist violence on indymedia, perhaps half a sentence. Then you, especially you of the Linke, will employ the entire remainder of your speaking time to incite against the AfD. You will rant with hatred and incitement, yet you will not fairly condemn the violence against the AfD or the leftist violence because indymedia and its perpetrators of violence are your willing executioners, your long arm, primarily now in the election campaign, so to silence a political opponent and to force from the field the most intense of competitors.

Just now, indymedia is organizing and mobilizing directly against our party day in Berlin in three weeks under the headline “Stomp the AfD Party Day Into a Pulp!” The opposition shall be flattened. This simply suits you here to your concept. On that account, you do not chain up your indymedia bloodhounds. Or don’t you?

I might now be gladly refuted by you. Come forward here. Vote for our motion [Drucksache 19/20682, 24123] and pull the plug on indymedia.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]