Jochen Haug, September 22, 2022, EU Citizens Initiative

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/54, pp. 5928-5929.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

We today debate the law to amend the European citizens initiative by which themes can be brought to the EU Commission without the EU Commission being obligated to become substantially active therein. Understand: This toothless tiger is to give the EU a democratic coating. It is nothing more than a simulation of democracy in an undemocratic EU.

Were the EU a state which proposed its acceptance to the EU, the motion would need to be rejected – due to a lack of democratic substance.

Martin Schulz, formerly here with the SPD, then still President of the EU Parliament, said that. Herr Schulz quite correctly acknowledged: A parliament without a right of initiative, a parliament with restricted budgetary rights, based on an election law which violates the fundamental of election freedom, is in fact lacking in democratic substance.

To that pertain political discussions without a common public as a sounding board and a state power without a homogenous state people. That is rule almost without accountability. That is the dream of every technocrat. And a strengthening of the European citizens initiative would not contribute a solution to this problem. On the contrary: Every strengthening of the EU leads to a weakening of the national states. Yet only on the national level can democracy be earnestly lived. What we really need here is the introduction of direct democracy at the Federal level in Germany.

Right honorable colleagues, if you want to promote elements of direct democracy, then begin that here. Say yes to referendums on all questions concerning the national sovereignty. Say yes to referendums on amendments of the Basic Law. Say yes to the facultative referendum which gives to the citizens the opportunity to bring to a vote laws decided on by the parliament. In Switzerland especially, these instruments have been absolutely preserved. These are all points which we for years demand, which you however, out of fear of the sovereign, the German people, reject.

We of the AfD do not want that Germany be governed from Brussels and in that regard we hold that foreign citizens demands with effect, via the Commission, in Germany are fundamentally wrong. We therefore reject this draft law.

Thank you.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

Tino Chrupalla and Alice Weidel, September 26, 2022, Giorgia Meloni

AfD Kompakt, September 26, 2022.

According to initial projections, the Italians have voted for Giorgia Meloni, her party the Fratelli d’Italia, as well as their partners the Lega and Forza Italia, with an absolute majority in both chambers of parliament. We of the Alternative für Deutschland congratulate Giorgia Meloni on her election and hope, as the first woman at the head of an Italian government, that she may stand [stehen möge]. Despite all the undemocratic warnings from EU Commission President von der Leyen and other politicians, the Italians, as previously the Swedish Democrats, have decided on a political turn. And that is their good, democratic right. The Fratelli d’Italia’s election success is an additional victory of reason. Germany, with its left-green Ampel coalition, seemingly stands alone in Europe.

 

[trans: tem]

 

Alexander Gauland, September 22, 2022, After the War

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/54, pp. 5873-5874.

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Seldom have the hallowed principles of our post-1945 self-understanding been so mercilessly sacrificed on the altar of a false Realpolitik: We deliver no weapons to areas of tension. We defend only ourselves and our NATO partners. And at least: Sanctions are not allowed to more harm us than those sanctioned. – All blown away, all is yesterday’s snow.

We have long since become party to a confrontation which does not concern us, and each day we become it more. We are sliding on a steep plane into participation in a conflict which is not ours. It is simply not true that in the Ukraine our freedom is defended,

            Dietmar Nietan (SPD): Of course!

that Herr Putin, as per the Ukrainian President, wants to again erect the Berlin Wall.

Yes, the Ukraine defends itself in a post-Czarist and post-Soviet conflict.

            Johann David Wadephul (CDU/CSU): A Wagenknecht speech, you                                        are giving here!

Yes, the war is counter to international law and Putin’s goal of a reconstruction of the old Great Russia is out of date. Yet it is not our conflict. It touches on no German interests,

            Bengt Bergt (SPD): It is not so!

the consequences however very much so. We most feel our sanctions against Russia. If oil and gas become unaffordable, it is because we, as Frau Wagenknecht in this place correctly stated,

            Johann David Wadephul (CDU/CSU): See! Horseshoes!

are conducting an economic war against Russia and deny to ourselves an undertaking of Nord Stream 2. We have placed ourselves, ladies and gentlemen, on one side and must now unfortunately live with the consequences.

The Union now wants to go a step further and make us a war party with the delivery of heavy weapons. That is surely thus irresponsible because it would be our duty in all diplomatic channels to limit the war so as to end it, just after the latest developments of the partial mobilization.

Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP): Yes, an additional promotional tour in the eastern Ukraine! Didn’t you send people there? 

The chancellor has said from here, Putin is not allowed to win this war.

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): He is right!

To that, I add: He is also not allowed to lose it;

            Sara Nanni (Greens): Nevertheless, he must.

            Bengt Bergt (SPD): He will lose it!

since an atomic power has the means to avert this defeat. President Biden’s concern is thus justified and we should take it seriously. We are therefore not allowed to fan the flames, but we need to help stamp them out.

The delivery of heavy weapons does the opposite, ladies and gentlemen.

From Otto von Bismarck originates the observation – cite:

            Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP): Now comes the poor Otto!

It is easy for a statesman…, to sound the war trumpets with the popular winds and thus warm himself at his fireside. Yet woe to the statesman who in this era seeks a war for a reason which is not still valid after the war.    

Herr Wadephul, yours unfortunately is not.

I am grateful.

 

[trans: tem]

 

             

Joana Cotar, September 6, 2022, Digital Deutschland

German Bundestag, September 6, 2022, Plenarprotokoll 20/49, pp. 5280-5281.

Frau President. Valued colleagues.

All real property owners could just recently confirm how good digitalization is in Germany as they attempted, reporting by Elster, to fill out the questionnaire for the new property tax.

             Detlef Müller (SPD-Chemnitz): No problem! Half an hour!

The result: The program went directly down and was no longer to be reached. Welcome to Digital Deutschland 2022! Welcome to a digital developing country!  

That was the tip of the imputation exacted from the citizens. Germany is not in the position to gather together the information lying in the most diverse offices so that the officials themselves can figure the property tax. What nonsense, ladies and gentlemen!

Yes, much is promised in the new digital strategy. This time success shall be measurable, and each Ministry is allowed to contribute projects – whereby “allowed” is the wrong word; since it does not occur voluntarily. On the contrary: The first projects presented to Minister Wissing were so unambitious, so powerless and gutless, that the Minister decreed an after-hours round for the ministerial officials. Therein alone is seen that the majority of this government still have not grasped how our country must be overhauled.

In Germany at the end of 2021, only 7 percent of all broadband connections had fiber optic. In South Korea it is 87 percent, in Spain 79 percent; even Colombia and Costa Rica have overtaken us.

The online access law should provide for that our administration finally becomes digital. By the end of 2022, 575 administrative services should be available online, from the motor vehicle report to wedding announcements. Now guess how many will in fact be available at year’s end. 50! 50 of 575 – a crazy circumstance, ladies and gentlemen. And your solution: You extend the time period – it will surely work out – sometime or other.  

Cyber attacks cost the German economy up to 200 billion euros per year. Operators of critical infrastructure see themselves especially threatened. Where is your concrete answer to that, dear government? Instead of that, you exhibit an unyielding aversion against innovative technologies. Blockchain is meanwhile completely lacking in your strategy – a key technology which you completely ignore. For that, you speak of a “feminist digital policy”. What, God willing, should that be?

            Stephan Berandner (AfD): I ask myself that!

            Isabel Cadematori Dujisin (SPD):  I can gladly clarify!

Ladies and gentlemen, you are now almost a year in government and you still have not once managed to put forward a digital budget; we have heard it. This failure ensues when competences are not bundled in one place and no one bears responsibility, but it is shared by many various ministries which lack the passion for digital…this fragmentation nevertheless has one advantage and indeed for Minister Wissing; since if it again does not work out, he can shove off all responsibility from himself and say: The ministries are guilty. That is almost as practical as Olaf Scholz’s memory lapses, ladies and gentlemen. 

It is however less practical to have a minister who may have a say on digitalization yet has no idea of it. Thus in an interview Frau Faeser demanded so-called hackbacks in case of an attack, only to re-pulp this wish a few weeks later and demand the opposite. First she greeted the initiative for chat control by the EU, then she rejected it, although not entirely so. I am anxious as to what is to come of it. And before all things, I am anxious as to how the FDP will react to that. Following special funds, vaccination obligation, NetzDG [Internet Enforcement Law] and the new infection protection law à la Lauterbach, I therefrom proceed to that those who have betrayed freedom for a ministerial post will also here change their minds, ladies and gentlemen.

The Ampel’s hitherto digital performance is wanting. Yet there is now nevertheless the e-prescription. My absolute highlight in that regard: One can print the digital prescription and so go to the drugstore because the app, first and last, does not work. We are thereby again at the beginning of my speech: Welcome to Digital Deutschland 2022! Welcome to a digital developing country!

Many thanks.

            Maximilian Funke-Kaiser (FDP): Good, you contribute nothing constructive!                        Hearty thanks for this constructive speech!

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

Ulrike Schielke-Ziesing, September 8, 2022, Agriculture Budget and Hunger

German Bundestag, September 8, 2022, Plenarprotokoll 20/51, pp. 5559-5560.

Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable Herr Minister.

The Agriculture Ministry’s budget has in the last years regrettably received much too little attention. In the present crisis at the latest is shown how destructive was this assessment.

Right honorable Herr Minister, you in your speech in June of this year recounted that we needed changes, pragmatic solutions and planning security for the farmers – all demands to which my delegation colleagues and I directly subscribe. Yet honestly said, when I look at the numbers in your estimate, I see absolutely nothing of this. You simply continue to administer the status quo, otherwise nothing. And that in these times is a fatal policy.

What do the numbers show us? The biggest plus – and generally the only plus worthy of the name – is booked in the Agricultural Social Policy chapter. Sound good? Yes? I certainly see how the Ampel coalition writes this on the flag. It however is a fallacy; since this has nothing to do with your policy. That of course is reflected in the law’s mostly automatically advanced addition. Otherwise said: Here, your ministry certainly has no discretion; these numbers need be reset.

Note well, this plus comes in that there was a powerful minus last year. Here, where you within this chapter in fact have freedom of action, perhaps in regards the funding of the Agricultural Accident Insurance, you have again decided for less expenditures, contrary to the express and now so often repeated demands from the side of the farmers, from the Accident Insurance itself, and from our delegation. You still prefer to hang an additional millstone around the neck of the farmers – in these times, an absurdity.  

If your draft budget is further browsed, it is confirmed: It works according to the principle “left pocket, right pocket”. Many titles are simply re-parked and abbreviated; as for example with the special area plan “Promotion of Rural Development”: Whack – 30 million euros gone. This 30 million euros then lands in insect protection. Who believes that thereby operates any special nature conservation is disillusioned. No, the greater part of the extra expenditure will be employed so as to moderate the extra costs in regards the farmers which arise due to the provisions of the insect protection – the extra costs which you impose on the farmers themselves. Find the error!

A further example are the well-known expenditures for the community exercise “Improvement of Rural Structures and Coastal Protection”, GAK. Here, from the total title, 150 million euros will be withdrawn so as then in the GAK area to re-designate them with the new name of “Animal Welfare Reconstruction” – once again “left pocket, right pocket”. What exactly this new re-naming means, one can only riddle. It appears to me as if generally where “eco” and “animal welfare” is to the fore, a bit of money has been simply shifted so as to manage a little greenwashing – greenwashing: That in the Green doctrine sounds good, yet is fatal for the farmers. The best example of that is provided by the so-called aids for farmers. Here, the aids will be unnecessarily tied to the so-called greening premium. Here, the German government in Brussels is again more papal than the pope. However, it can also therein lie that your priorities are somewhat otherwise set than as with the rest of the population. I thereby mean your statement, Herr Özdemir, “…it may”, meaning hunger, “not be misused as an argument to make cuts in bio-diversity and climate protection”.    

Herr Minister, who in all seriousness puts climate protection ahead of the avoidance of hunger falsely sets his priorities. Something like that is simply destructive.

I certainly do not want to get started on the idling of acreage, the crop rotation and the eternal attendant procrastination, and also not on what this one-time exception with umpteen buts means for the farmers’ planning security.

That the Federal government is completely de-coupled from reality is also shown by your answer to the AfD delegation’s inquiry of a few days ago. Questioned as to the consequences if ever more fertilizer manufacturers close their plants, nevertheless came the serious answer – I cite: The substantial consequences for the domestic agriculture’s fertilizer supply are still not  recognized. The development of the gas prices and the reactions of the fertilizer industry referent to this continue to be closely observed.  

Ladies and gentlemen, for the farmers, that is just bare-faced scorn!

On other pages you plan almost 25 million euros of extra spending for the Agriculture Ministry and the subordinate officials, and all of that after already in June of this year, with the budget for 2022, you prepared an entire 80 million euros extra for this administrative apparatus. That means that in the good half year since you undertook the ministry, the expenditures for your ministry and its subordinate officials alone grew by fully 100 million euros. Those are your real priorities.

Dear Ampel, finally wake up! We are stuck in a crisis, and we cannot permit ourselves to dream and to administer the status quo. Outside in the real world, the prices are going through the roof. Not only the farmers no longer see a future. If here nothing is done,

            Vice-president Yvonne Magwas: Please come to a conclusion.

            Gero Clemens Hocker (FDP): Yes, please!

we will awake in a Germany which we simply cannot imagine.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

Rüdiger Lucassen, September 7, 2022, Defense Budget

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/50, p. 5382.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

The government puts forward the largest defense budget in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany –  a good 50 billion euros, more than nine times as much as the Ukrainian defense budget before the outbreak of the war. And like every year, we need ask ourselves: What does Germany receive for this money? How defense-ready is our Bundeswehr? To the greatest defense budget since the foundation of the Federal Republic is added the greatest injection of money in the history of the Republic: A 100 billion euro special facility for the armed forces. Yes, Frau Minister, the money is needed. At the same time, this enormous sum shows how greatly the Federal governments of the last two decades have economized and made our armed forces kaputt.

            Henning Otte (CDU/CSU): Yet it was steadily increased!

Now it could be said: Let’s forget it! The Ampel coalition is tackling it – and in fact on February 27 of this year one could have had the impression that the Federal government understands what is now to be done. Chancellor Scholz announced a “change of times” for the Bundeswehr. Yet for a good defense policy is required not only money but primarily capable personnel, determined by the political circumstances, so as to be able to wisely invest this money. And with all respect: Such a personnel I do not see on the government bench.

Frau Minister Lambrecht, Herr Chancellor, the defense budget which you put forward here is a document of failures. Of the enormous sum of 50 billion euros, only 19 percent goes for procurement and innovation. The rest goes to current operations, pay adjustments, supply capacity, material receipts, barracks management, to contractors, or is lost in inflation. The latter hits the area of defense with full force. The 100 billion euro special facility at the end of next year is worth only 90 billion euros, in five years just 62 billion euros. That is the result of your policy.

Ladies and gentlemen, Frau Lambrecht has directly effected that the government has shoved many armament projects onto the special budget. Were I in her place, I would not be proud of that; for she thereby discloses two things.

First. Despite the removal of many investments from the regular budget – over 2.3 billion euros – the total expenditure increases. That means: Still more money for the current operation of a non-mission-ready Bundeswehr.  

Second. The investments from the special facility are increases in the future operations costs; since any equipment you now procure by means of the special facility moreover additionally increases the large portion of operating costs. What the Federal government puts forward here is a ticking time bomb for the Federal budget of coming years.

Herr Chancellor, your change of times is no change of times. You continue to do exactly so as a cabinet minister under Merkel. You have not the power to commission capable personnel and to attempt a structural clearance. Instead, you deceive the public with giant sums of debt, yet the required investments in the build up of the Bundeswehr are lacking. Germany does not thus become more secure and also not more independent.

Ladies and gentlemen, this defense budget is basically an administrative budget. Just 19 percent goes into combat strength and continued development. Frau Lambrecht said in committee: What the soldiers need will be procured, and not what the industry wants to sell. – Yet the converse has occurred.

Gesine Lötzsch (Linke): That’s right. He’s right there!

You order, among other things, additional K-130 corvettes of the so-called Kahrs class, which goes back to a deal of your faded SPD comrade. Yet these corvettes are utterly unfeasible for national and alliance defense. And this is just one example.

The Defense Ministry is apparently incapable of adapting itself to the new situation. You continue to purchase for your failed intervention policy even though the security situation in Europe since 2014 has changed drastically. National and alliance defense is called for. Come about! This defense budget is not suited for that; it is only one thing: More expensive. As a Bundeswehr and and foreign security party, we must reject it.

            Alexander Lambsdorff (FDP): The Reichwehr perhaps!

I thank you for your attention.

            Falko Droßmann (SPD): Exactly! Reject any money for the Bundeswehr!                                                Embarrassing, embarrassing! Resign!

 

 

[trans: tem]