Stefan Keuter, June 9, 2021, Masks

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/232, pp. 29854-29855.

Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

In the last years, we have not heard much from the Linke that was reasonable.

            Helin Evrim Sommer (Linke): Shamelessness!

At this point, I might want – Frau Sommer, listen for once – to expressly thank you

            Helin Evrim Sommer (Linke): No, thanks!

            Jan Korte (Linke): That is the worst that you can do!

that you have brought this theme to the daily order; since it is extremely important.

The mask theme already for long occupies us. We have put quite a number of inquiries to the government. Not much came from the House of Spahn – just a lot of hot air: The parliamentary inquiries were mostly put off by State Secretary Weiss. We here have received no answers from the Federal government.

If it is desired to learn something more of this entire mask affair, it must be researched,

            Tino Sorge (CDU/CSU): Hui, you have researched!

and my delegation has researched: We have contacted suppliers, we have had informants, we have had informants – pay attention – in the Federal government, from your legal counsel Ernst & Young, and here documents have come to light of day which are seriously burdensome and seriously shameful for this Federal government.

Let us look at how the masks have been procured: A year ago, in March-April of last year, contracts were concluded with firms like Lufthansa, BASF, Otto, etc. The contracts are here submitted. It is a 16-page contract which ordinarily has been concluded.

From this research and other contracts has emerged other contracts with a FIEGE Logistik Stiftung & Co. KG, which then have been assigned to a FIEGE International Beteilungs-GmbH, a klitschig [half-baked] GmbH, abbreviated FIB, which before termination of contract received transfers to account of 40 million euros. This is an unparalleled scandal, Herr Spahn. These contracts have been concluded. Here are two sheets of paper for a procurement volume of over half a billion euros. Here, in a Wild West manner, were contracts concluded where not even a business stamp was present; which here was completed with a hand-written “FIB GmbH”. It is disgraceful to here have opened wide the door to fraud.

I ask myself: Why at all have the FIB GmbH or FIEGE been selected? Herr Spahn, is it thereby connected to that here exist personal acquaintances, that it is your neighboring constituency? The FIEGE Logistik certainly has no experience at all in the logistics which are demanded here – where it is about flying in protective equipment –, has no aircraft of its own. A skeleton agreement concluded on March 31, 2020, is assigned to the FIB. Then three days later on April 2, 2020, a one-time price discount of 10 cents was agreed to.

In conversations with suppliers it was made clear to me that it is customary when an intermediary still wants to earn, that it occurs in 10 cent increments. Here I ask myself: Who herein still earned? The volume of these FIEGE contracts alone, of these skeleton contracts, is 545 million euros. The conditions are a dream: Performance site: Shanghai; no freight costs; no clearance need be made; one need not trouble oneself with a certificate concerning how the article comes into the country. FFP2 masks were agreed. As far as I know, only a quite small fraction of those which were flown in by the Federal government were in fact FFP2 masks. The problem, in which oneself has come forward as a marketer, has been avoided.

Suppliers confirm to me that the market in March-April of last year for FFP2 masks – cleared, including freight – and import turnover tax yielded 2 euros maximum. These masks, which the Federal government procured and brought into circulation, were defective, grossly defective. Especially defective was particle passage in a rapid test: 6 percent was permitted, the masks as a rule exhibiting around 15 percent.

In addition, ever again emerges a name, a little shop in Switzerland, Emix, with which the Federal government has concluded billions in contracts. Here I also want to for once gladly look behind the corridors and peek at what has in fact happened there.

As a counter-move, the Federal government has published an open house procedure. 100 suppliers are today still not paid. A billion euros are here still in dispute. Once again, use has been made of your partners EY Law so as to ward off this demand. Here, the livelihoods of small suppliers are in play, those who have pledged all so as to help out the Federal government in a crisis and to procure protective equipment. With a legal subterfuge, you now draw yourself back into a Fixgeschäft [purchase for delivery at a fixed time]. I say to you: With the documents which have come out of your house, this Fixgeschäft is losing its balance.

In addition: How do these procurement chains work? Ever again emerges a name: Monika Hohlmeier, the daughter of Strauß. I recall just the Amigo Affair: Oneself known, oneself helped. That has obviously remained stuck together. Protocols concerning that have been submitted to me. Frau Hohlmeier recommends Emmi Zeulner, who in addition has good contacts at the Federal ministries. Thus are curtailed the procurement contracts.

I say to you: The fish have been partly selected. The CDU has already separated itself from some its members who have personally enriched themselves, or from those who are under suspicion.

            Paul Ziemiak (CDU/CSU): Do you have something to say on the theme?

Yet the fish always stinks from the head and here in this house there is much too much a smell of putrefaction.

We here have stirred up a wasps’ nest.

            Vice-president Petra Pau: Herr Keuter.

I come to an end, Frau President. – I say to you: We will still need to work on this matter. It cries out for an investigating committee – unfortunately after the Bundestag election. I am sure: This is not only a case for the investigating committee, but also for the state attorney.

Our chairman said: We will hunt them. 

            Vice-president Petra Pau: Come now please to a conclusion.

Yes.  – Herr Federal Minister, now you know what hunt means.

            Tino Sorge (CDU/CSU): I believe you were never on a hunt! That's why you                        speak such nonsense!

False!  

            

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jörg Dornau, May 20, 2021, Agriculture, Energy, Environment

Saxon Landtag, Plenarprotokoll 7/30(2), pp. 2098-2099.

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

In the past months, we have occupied ourselves in detail with Section 09 and thereby brought in 24 motions to amend. As always, all were rejected. Despite that, we can take away at few positives from your budget, like protection of environment and nature. We have nevertheless applied the red pencil where it was ideological – keywords: Climate, eco, and naturally the dear wolf.

Even in regards agriculture is found some isolated good, the strengthening of the nitrate monitoring system, for example. Had you last year agreed to our motion, “Stop the intensification of the manure decree”, the farmers would have been spared very much annoyance, costly time which you have let run out.

We see good initiatives in the promotion programs for grazing livestock and fish farming. Here were suitable interim means allowed for until the next GAP [Common Agricultural Policy] budget.

Unfortunately, a Green ideology of all sorts is stuck in the budget. In the coalition contract a “market regulated growth” of an eco-agricultural economy was still spoken of. Now you want to open a new subventions market: Almost one million euros for ecologically grown products in the scope of the EU school program. Here once again the money of the hard-working will be distributed – measured out with two standards, and with a rough ladle. The Greens barely receive a ministry and the expenditures increase: Believe it or not, 200 million euros more for this Section alone. What a gigantic sum! Worthy colleagues, obviously primarily for yourselves; since when Green, one is gladly a bureaucrat, and when a Green, one also gladly bureaucratizes.

One year after assuming the office of Vice-Minister-president, it occurs to Herr State Minister Günther that for this he still requires twelve new officials. In view of the existence worries of many citizens, it would have been simple to more closely tighten the belt. Yet happy is he who he himself and his are poised out of danger, is it not true, Herr State Minister?

Additional officials’ positions are planned for a climate and energy branch. What then shall 21 climate officials do? Perhaps observe the forced disconnection of a coal power plant from the Dresden shore of the Elbe? Or shall the central branch be newly created in preparation for the climate lockdown?

You, Herr State Minister Günther, for a year speak of strengthening the regional meatpacking industry. Nothing has happened. The meat inspection charges are much too high. Direct marketers and small producers can scarcely budget for these. Our motion for a reduction was yesterday rejected.

Worthy Herr State Minister, renounce your 43 new ministry officials for, believe it or not, 7.5 million euros! The reduction of the charges would thereby be counter-financed. That would nevertheless be a first step.

Previously, you have attracted exclusively negative attention amongst the farmers. Opposed to that, there is abundant tax money for new windmills, almost one million euros for acceptance measures so as to break the resistance in rural areas.

            Marco Böhme (Linke): Citizen participation!

Worthy CDU, some of your colleagues meanwhile also speak for windmills in the forests, although in the coalition contract it was still categorically excluded. For what actually does this government stand besides squandering money?

A warm money rain also for the localities, but not something for the financial infrastructure or for necessary reorganizations. No, the climate fight will as of immediately be led from Saxon townhalls and an additional five million euros have been planned for ideas competitions, eco raffles, and so-called future prizes. We will gladly support protection of environment and resources if there are clear concepts for that and measurable goals are put forward.You however ever further inflate the environmental officialdom, create eco and climate competences costing millions…

The Section reads in part as if it had been made in the State business office of the Greens: The sale of CO₂ indulgences for air travel, and a public promotion of climate schools. Yes, Herr Lippmann. – The climate fund however sets a crown on the whole. Why do you not transparently delineate these Section measures in a budget? Why an additional shadow budget?

            André Barth (AfD): Why indeed?!

For what is the 25 million euros? I put this question.

I say to you, Herr Lippmann: For a lot of mischief. – I cite from the regulations for the climate fund: “Securing of the energy supply during persistent periods of heat and drought”. Worthy colleagues, correct is: “Water supply during persistent periods of heat and drought”. We brought it to your attention in committee, where you struck the passage from a motion, yet nevertheless not out of the motions concerned and not out of the budgetary accompanying act. How do you arrive at such nonsense? Look for once at the page of the Green delegation in the press communication: “A climate fund for Saxony”. There you will find word for word this same nonsense. This coalition is obviously governed by the Greens.

            Valentin Lippmann (Greens): Oh!

            Rico Gebhardt (Linke): Man!

Worthy colleagues of the CDU, finally undertake your budgetary responsibility and not the unexamined mischief of an 8 percent party!

            Rico Gebhardt (Linke): When the Greens name the Chancellor, you need                                to emigrate!

Or do you think – I must emigrate?

            Rico Gebhardt (Linke): When the Greens name the Chancellor, then you, ja,                            need to emigrate!

– Why should I emigrate? Why should I leave my country? You may not say that to me!

What do you think, why I am standing here?

            (President’s bell)

            President Matthias Rößler: No colloquy! Allow colleague Dornau to                                        continue to speak. If anyone wants to come directly into the discourse,                                    please use interim questions, and at conclusion of the contribution, the                                    brief intervention. – Please proceed.

Thanks. – Or do you mean the securing of the energy supply during persistent absence of wind at times of darkness? That would be bitterly necessary in regards your irrational energy policy. The supply security one attempts to save with 7.5 million euros, with which charging stations and batteries are promoted.

            Marco Böhme (Linke): And is that what is bad, or what?

Is it still not enough that the citizens pay for the abundant returns of owners of the photovoltaic facilities? Now the taxpayers shall, above that, finance those of the expensive accumulators. That is the maximization of welfare for one’s own clientele on the backs of the taxpayers.

With this budget, the Green party wants to elect itself as saviour of the climate, and the CDU irresolutely dissimulates behind it. Worthy colleagues of the CDU, only with your votes could the Greens enforce this ideology and, uncontradicted, squander taxes in this inefficient manner. You must ask yourselves whether you can advocate for this budget. We will reject it.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

 

           

 

 

Nicole Höchst, May 21, 2021, Elections – Citizens Participation

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/231, pp. 29775-29776. 

Frau President. Valued colleagues. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

We are deliberating today on many motions of this legislative period, all of which are more or less honestly dedicated to the theme of citizen participation. The Greens for example in their motion, gendered almost into unintelligibility and unreadability, demand the establishment of so-called citizens *** councils. These shall participate in the legislative process.

This unfortunately, as shown yesterday in the city council meeting in Speyer, must be evaluated as a further attempt to transform a constitutionally chartered democracy into a kind of simulation of democracy. The testifying expert herself in the offered presentation went explicitly into the connection with so-called undesired results. Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Expert, for colorfulness, tolerance and variety, that you in advance so drop your trousers. For you, it is certainly not about citizen participation in a democratic process. For you, it is unfortunately about leading on the citizens with more participation – an absurd theater with the sole purpose of reaching the pre-determined result. Who then specifies the result? The German people know not.

Valued petitioners, why should young people be awarded the active right to vote when they themselves possess no passive right? No 16-year-old may drive a car or purchase liquor or be tattooed without the parents’ consent or decide whether he wants to smoke a cigarette or not. In court, there is the juvenile penal code. Yet shall he be able to make groundbreaking decisions for the entire society? That is incoherent [passt vorn und hinten nicht zusammen], ladies and gentlemen. Civil rights in the view of the AfD delegation should unconditionally correspond with civil duties.

Ladies and gentlemen, we live in unusual times. In today’s debate, we yet again experience the further deconstruction of the term “democracy” by government and petitioners. Celebrated by a press-for-hire, so-called fact finders, NGO and foundation democracy, centers for political education and also a civil society in part financed by tax money, for the purpose of promoting democracy you force public opinion into the desired corridors of opinion. Bravo!

A self-named speech police outlaws terms, issues prohibitions of speech and thought. This new, exclusive democracy by every means appears to be right: Democracy foundations, democracy projects and even soon democracy laws. You imagine yourselves to be unassailable in your sovereign interpretations. Who should have something against democracy?

            Helin Evrim Sommer (Linke): The AfD!

Unfortunately, with this concept of democracy, it is in truth a question of a really intense false labeling; namely, the poorly hidden attempt to ostracize unfavored parties, organizations, media, ideas, facts and persons from the political spectrum by means of scandalization and criminalization. A monstrous, almost tyrannical process, ladies and gentlemen! Since in practice tax money will be thoroughly committed to the annihilation of the political opposition at all levels. That is is the sad reality in the Germany of 2021, ladies and gentlemen. The Alternative für Deutschland  is the sole delegation in the German Bundestag which resists this monstrous process. We proudly engage against the epic error that democracy, participation, human rights and the rights of freedom are separable and may be assigned by a government. We are for authentic citizen participation and popular referendum following the Swiss model – not, however, your rotten jamboree.

Hearty thanks.

            Helge Lindh (SPD): It was really a philosophical discourse.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jens Kestner, May 21, 2021, Kosovo

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/231, pp. 29763-29764.

Right honorable Frau President. Valued colleagues. Quite especially I greet the member of the Serbian Parliament in the gallery above, Herr Karic, and in the name of my delegation. It is nice that you are here. Thank you.

Today’s opportunity to speak on the situation in Kosovo puts to us the proposition to consider an additional question which is much more wide-ranging than that implied by the mission of our soldiers. We should ask ourselves whether Germany is consistent in its policy: On one side in relation to Kosovo, yet on the other side in relation to Serbia, whether we are doing everything for the long-term pacification of the West Balkans and to create a region of peace and stability.

We should ask ourselves this question in view of the recent apology made by Czech President Zeman vis-à-vis Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic on account of the NATO attacks on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999. The pretense for this act of war, which the Federal government of that time invoked with a lie, was to prevent an ostensible humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo, although its direct consequence was a new humanitarian catastrophe, namely the resettlement of almost a quarter-million Serbs and other non-Albanians from Kosovo.

Yet was it really necessary to have supported the splitting off of Kosovo from Serbia in 2008, and indeed at a point in time when the democratic powers which led the government in Belgrade were known to be in a position to achieve, together with us, the creation of a functional, multi-ethnic society on the territory of an intact Serbia inclusive of Kosovo?

And today in Belgrade we have speaking partners in the government who have indicated that they as well are in a position to construct a functional, multi-ethic society and an economically dynamic and progressive state. I therefore today put to this house the question: What kind of dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina do we want to support so as not to run the risk of further alienating Serbia and Kosovo? Serbia, to which Kosovo for me continues to belong, must be more closely tied to us, instead of here ever again seeking the separation.  

If we claim that we are against a new drawing of borders, wherever in the world, we do not have the right to overlook the fact that we ourselves have directly cooperated in an unjust drawing of borders in this region. And in my experience, Serbs ever still today refer, correctly so, to this contrast.

In case we do not have the courage to scrutinize our own policy in relation to this region and turn back to a respect for international law by means of a re-integration of Kosovo into Serbia, we should reject in advance no innovations and courageous solutions under the pretense of the inviolability of borders; since we ourselves have disregarded this principle.

I call upon the Federal government to give serious thought to these themes, so as by solving one problem not to create additional problems, and not to compel Serbia, as the key country in the region as was already here addressed, to seek partners for other solutions on other sides [Partner für andere Lösungen auf anderen Seiten].

I know that Belgrade too is considering compromise solutions. Yet basically I share in the words of the then Austrian Vice-Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache, “Kosovo is without a doubt a part of Serbia.”

Thank you.

 

 

[trans: tem]