Oliver Kirchner, March 12, 2021, Restaurant and Retail Trade

Sachsen-Anhalt Landtag, Plenarprotokoll 7/122, p. 45.

Many thanks, Herr President.

The Linke, in their motion of June 3, 2020, demand that the local special use charges be waived for restaurant and retail trade and that the State refund the charges to the localities – so far, so sensible – at least retroactively for the time in which restaurant and retail trade was compulsorily closed. For us, however, this does not go far enough. For us, this does not affect the core of the problem.

Of the recommendation of the resolution, the following is to be said: In this resolution recommendation is not much left of the the sensible part of the Linke’s demands. The Landtag shall respect and welcome the charges waiver – so far, so imprecise. Of a refund to the localities in the resolution recommendation, there is nothing to be read – even so little as the required refunds of the charges already paid.

Better than to now speak of charge refunds is, for us, to open everything, especially restaurant and retail trade, because in this case the preventive measures are disproportionate and inappropriate. They endanger livelihoods and harm the economy. They thereby drive the people to a state of emergency. The example of restaurants has exactly shown that, given a 0.8% portion of infections incidence and the restaurant trade’s hygiene concepts, it is utterly senseless to close this branch. We want no little decree games which aim at a specific number of persons in a specific number of square meters or shopping times. For us, that is straightaway unacceptable, impractical and bad for business.

A waiver of charges is good. But that the State does not cover this deficiency is bad. We speak, as was said, of the turning of the set screws. In regards these restrictions threatening livelihoods in the restaurant and retail trades – this, for us, is not purposeful.

The motion of the Linke is cosmetic and does not affect the core of the problem. On that account, we say: We need to immediately end this lockdown and better protect the groups at risk and the seniors.

We could have much more money on hand if we did not, by means of the policy conducted here, throw away 4 billion euros each week. The democracy deficit must be eliminated. In regards the decrees, parliamentary government also must again return.

The vaccination obligation must be prevented. Vaccination must remain voluntary. That is what we want. You want to turn the set screws. We want to turn the big wheel. The voters will decide which is the right way.

Many thanks for your attention.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

Stefan Keuter, March 26, 2021, Crowd Funding

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/219, pp. 27799-27800.

Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Dear viewers.

We are today deliberating on a draft law of the Federal government for swarm financing, also called crowd funding. This is a fairly old financial instrument which is plainly not only in the new form on the internet. There are various kinds of swarm financing: For donations, for equity, for loans. Then there are a couple of special forms, which I will not go into. This instrument is thus nothing new. Already in the 1800s, the construction of the American Statue of Liberty was made possible by means of 160,000 individual donations. A very early form of crowd funding.

What are the advantages? With these products, there is often a better return than when I acquire a product through a bank. This simply depends on that here expensive intermediaries will have  been eliminated. In addition, with it, I have smaller specific risks. A practical example: If a businessman has a path-breaking idea, and for the financing requires 10,000 euros, he will, if he does not have the corresponding securities, with difficulty receive this 10,000 euros from a bank. For venture capital companies, this sum is much too small. Here is offered to find 100 persons who also believe in this business idea and from these to gather in respectively 100 euros. We are thereby at 10,000 euros. That also works. As the banker says, we thus have to do, for all sides, with a very positive Delta; a win-win situation. 

How does this preparation and implementation function these days? As the State Secretary has just attempted to explain: Mostly over the internet platforms. Here come together those seeking capital and those providing capital. This today requires a great deal of paperwork and bureaucracy. Naturally, existing laws will be adhered to today on the internet: The banking act, the securities exchange law, the consumer protection laws. We are thus already very, very well regulated. Yet these platforms have not figured on Brussels. The EU in its merciless regulation mania has here issued an EU guideline and an EU decree which the Federal government now wants to convert into national law with this draft.

What does the EU want to do? It wants to make the platforms obliged to register. It wants to place them under a European supervisory authority and it wants to expand information and publication duties. We of the AfD are quite distinctly opposed to this regulation mania. We as a parliament do not see ourselves in the role here only to wave through these regulations from Brussels and the laws which have been brought about there.

In addition, we see the great danger that the market entry risks for additional platforms will be made more difficult, that market offers may disappear, and we see the danger of forming an oligopoly. Here, we are quite clearly opposed.

I do not want however to go substantially deeper into these themes. We are here in the first reading. We will deliberate on these themes in the committees. So it shall be good with this.

We have a supplemental motion from the Greens on payment protection insurance [Restschuldversicherungen]. What this substantially has to do with swarm financing is not accessible to me. Good, since the motion of the Greens is to be added, I want to briefly go into it.

This is quite clearly an ideological motion. Your network marketing [Strukturvertriebs] rhetoric in the motion forcibly disturbs us. You of the Greens obviously have not heard. The German economy is going to the wall, and you have nothing better to do than occupy yourselves with a little credit by-product, namely the payment protection insurance.

            Katharina Dröge (Greens): If nothing better occurs to you as an argument!

            Stefan Schmidt (Greens): Clueless!

We of the AfD are against state intervention in the market. We do not want to knowingly regulate these risk premiums. Yes, from a subjective viewpoint, the payment protection insurance perhaps might appear on occasion to be expensive. It nevertheless also covers a very high risk, namely the risk of default. If a borrower defaults or becomes unemployed

            Vice-president Wolfgang Kubicki: Herr colleague, please come to a conclusion.

then this insurance covers these risks.

            Stefan Schmidt (Greens): You also need to pay a bit of attention.

At this point, it only remains for me to wish you a Happy Easter and a nice weekend.

Many thanks and all the best.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rüdiger Lucassen, March 25, 2021, Bundeswehr in Afghanistan

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/218, p. 27565.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

The Afghanistan debate for long no more revolves around Afghanistan. It is about the questions of how the Federal government conducts foreign policy, how the Federal government deals with the Bundeswehr on foreign missions and how the Federal government commits the lives of our servicemen [Soldaten]. The answer is: It does this without purpose or plan, and indeed for 20 geschlagenen years.

Ladies and gentlemen, in regards the question of the Afghanistan mission, there are two categories of people in Germany: The Dumb and the Knowing. The Dumb ever believe in the fairly tales of civil reconstruction, of a partnership with Afghan security forces, of the German responsibility for Afghanistan, and of the success of the international community. The Dumb even allow themselves to be persuaded that the Afghans would wait for the Pashtun version of the Basic Law – all of it only feel-good babble, recited so as to lull the red-green coalition partners and conceal the truth from the voters.

No reproach can be made of the Dumb, since they are, ja, dumb. Much worse is the second category of people: The Knowing, those who, despite all knowledge of the situation in Afghanistan, speak of “success”; those who, instead of a withdrawal strategy, preach palaver of sticking it out; those who thus, despite an assured ineffectuality, continue to send Soldaten into harm’s way in Afghanistan. And these people sit here on the government bench.

The truth is: All participating states in Afghanistan – even the Americans – want out; but none want to say it openly. One of the the last of the Federal government’s arguments is fidelity to the alliance. And naturally there is something in that. To simply get out would naturally be, like the Federal government ever warns, a sign of unreliability.

Permit me an interim remark. In regards NATO’s core duty, the defense of the countries and of the alliance, the Federal government for years proves itself to be of maximum unreliability. Is it their idea to adhere to their promises in Wales in connection with the defense budget so there be no need to simulate reliability in Afghanistan?

In addition, there already is a good example of a withdrawal: Canada. The Canadians left Afghanistan already in 2011 – not “simply so”, but in consultation with the allies – and today are as ever in NATO.

I have a daring idea for the Federal government. Do what normal governments do and make a normal policy for our country. Your job of course is not to wait for a call from Washington so as to learn what shall happen next. Take the initiative in the Afghanistan policy. Start with the withdrawal from the endless war, and assert yourselves with this international approach [und setzen Sie sich mit diesem Ansatz international durch].

Thank you.

 

[trans: tem]