Thomas Ehrhorn, March 3, 2023, Automobiles

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/89, pp, 10644-10645.

Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

 For at least three decades now rages the obstinate – it might be said, hate-filled – struggle of leftist ideologues against the automobile, against one of the greatest achievements of the industrial age. The Euro-7 norm is in that regard only a further piece in the puzzle, the additional chess move in this perfidious game. If it continues to persist in its present form, it means the ultimate end of the combustion engine in Germany and Europe. For the German auto industry, that means the annihilation of from 300,000 to 400,000 workplaces.

Yet ultimately something quite else is hidden behind. It is namely the attempt to force us into a new world order, in which the vehicle in private possession shall no longer be at all in the least possible. “You will own nothing and will be happy”. That is evidently the motto of a self-named, arrogant and unashamed financial elite.

            Markus Hümpfer (SPD): Such an imbecility!

According to the line: Scarcely affordable electro-SUVs for us and for you, rabble, the freight bicycle.

It would have been long since time to solidly defend oneself against this. If a sufficient number of EU countries had managed by today to get underway a subsidiary reprimand, this would perhaps have been a beginning. The immediate vote necessary for that, you, ladies and gentlemen, however once again – it might almost be said, as expected – have gambled and snoozed away. Thus all participating actors in this campaign of destruction attain step by step their goal.

            Dunja Kreiser (SPD): Alter Schwede!

This then functions for example in the following ways: The World Health Organization (WHO), elected by no one, democratically legitimated by nothing in the world, issues new recommendations for clean air on the basis of indemonstrable hypotheses, naturally – who could be surprised? – with drastically reduced limit values. Shortly thereafter – you can bet on it – the EU Commission then as expected assumes these value limits and makes therefrom obligatory guidelines.

The monitoring stations in our cities, which previously measured and demonstrated an excellent air quality

            Susanne Menge (Greens): That is not at all right!

then naturally present excesses of the permitted values. Like a miracle, overnight is put forward a reason for banning even the cleanest Euro-6 diesel from our cities – an additional, long wished for justification for the already long before determined and aspired to auto-free city.

Exactly so will it be executed: Way above the heads of the citizens, today likely branded by you as a conspiracy theory, tomorrow – this, I guarantee you – the bitter reality in our cities. All of this will be justified by the tales of a green climate sect, by theses which will no longer be questioned by a portion of our population because the left-green media ever again manages to simply exclude from the political discourse thousands of critical voices.  

            Nyke Slawik (Greens): In what parallel world do you live?

Natural climate changes however will meanwhile continue, and indeed with or without our assistance. Yet in that regard we are gambling away our prosperity, our quality of life, and before all things, our freedom. Our predecessors drove with the horse and carriage, we had the automobile, our children and grandchildren will drive with the freight bicycle. Long live the world of red-green progress!

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

 

Joachim Wundrak, March 3, 2023, NATO and the Mediterranean

German Bundestag, March 3, 2023, Plenarprotokoll 20/89, pp. 10681-10682.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

For the seventh time, the Federal government now moves a robust mandate according to Chapter VII of the UN charter for the continuation of the NATO Operation Sea Guardian – this, although it has become clear in the previous years’ debates on the theme that this mandate is a deceptive packaging, is an empty shell, a “cardboard comrade” [“Pappkamerad”], as the colleague Tobias Lindner, today State Secretary, then in opposition quite pertinently stated. The colleague Lindner rightly then further stated that a mandate of the German Bundestag serves for the parliamentary control of the Federal government, especially if it is a robust mandate. A robust mandate may be granted if the substantive dangerous situation requires it. Robust supply mandates are to be strongly rejected; since they might amount to the same as a blank check for the government.

If the specific missions of Sea Guardian are now looked at, it is ascertained that two of them are purely routine missions which are ordinarily fulfilled by NATO naval forces in all operational areas and without a robust mandate. A third mission, which would not be obligatory, arises only from a conjuncture, namely the possible support of the EU mission Irini. And: Other than as you have presented it, Frau State Secretary, the necessary agreement for that between NATO and the EU has for years not occurred.  

And for years Sea Guardian primarily does duty in a secondary function. That is to say, sea-going units of NATO members report for the length of passage through the Mediterranean to NATO’s permanent Maritime Command at Norwood near London and thus contribute to the overview. The mission relevant to the robust mandate, namely for the fight against terrorism and against weapons smuggling, does not occur and has never occurred.

And the predecessor operation Active Endeavor of 2001 to 2016 which was based on Article 5 of the NATO treaty, according to the information of the Federal government, has never amounted to a threat or an application for the robust mandate.

That means that the German Bundestag for 22 years at the motion of the respective government decided on a robust mandate for fighting terrorism and weapons smuggling without there existing a real necessity for that.

            Beatrix von Storch (AfD): Hear, hear!

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Unbelievable!

And the argument that robust proceedings were not necessary because of the functioning deterrence of Sea Guardian’s presence is contrived and unworthy of credence.

Finally – this was already mentioned – it is not evident to me how, according to the motion, a robust Operation Sea Guardian shall promote a just, green and digital transition in the southern Mediterranean. Here, for me, access for a feminist foreign policy is lacking.

            Karamba Diaby (SPD): You can even pronounce the word! Crazy!

Nevertheless, the German Navy step by step is removing presence forces for Sea Guardian. In the present security policy situation, these forces should better increase the security in the principal mission territory of our Navy, namely the North and Baltic Seas.

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Jawohl!

This is indeed urgently necessary – it was already mentioned – as shown by the explosion of the Nord Stream pipelines.

We will not vote in favor of the presented motion for a robust mandate for Sea Guardian. Sea Guardian can continue without problem the hitherto fulfillment of the mission without a robust Bundestag mandate as a NATO operation.

I thank you for your attention.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michael Kaufmann, March 1, 2023, Research Strategy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/87, p. 10392.

Right honorable Frau President. Esteemed colleagues.

Honored Frau Minister, I repeatedly remonstrated to you that the research policy lacks a clear strategy and alignment. My expectations for the future strategy put forward were correspondingly high.

And now? What a disappointment! Here, generalities alternate with flowery phrases and vague intentions. It is a series of ever the same statements on the importance of research, on the transfer from research to application and on international cooperation. I ask myself: Do you want to disguise with this wordy work how little you have to say substantially on the future of research and science, or is this just one of many voluminous marketing brochures? From a strategy deserving of the name, I in any case expect very much more substance and less verbiage.

You call this strategy – I cite: “The basis upon which we want to continue to build in the course of the legislature”. May I remind you that 17 of 48 months of this legislature are already past? Yet you, ja, write you will “accelerate the tempo”. Oh ja, here one can become quite dizzy after putting forward in just 17 months 86 pages of printed paper.

Nevertheless, let us look at a small selection from your deliberations. You want to more strongly delineate variety in regards to sex, migration background, etc. Should that now mean that more should be promoted not according to performance but according to quota? You certainly act as if we had scientific talent like sand by the sea which has not previously had a chance on account of an alleged discrimination.

In another place you speak of a “continual further development of the education system”. “Further development” is here indeed a euphemism when one considers the requirements for those starting studies in math and science subjects ever again need to be reduced because those studying for the Abitur no longer bring with them the necessary tools.

You want to “further raise our attractivity as a country of immigration” and “construct and make more attractive immigration opportunities”. That is, ja, one of the few points at which this government has long since succeeded. Only plainly not for well-qualified skilled labor and academics.

You finally also identify “limiting or constraining factors” like a lack of transfer culture, a skilled labor shortage and others. Only the most constraining factor you disregard: A dark mood of despondency which lay like mildew on our country in 16 years of Merkel government [eine düstere Stimmung der Mutlosigkeit, die sich in 16 Jahren Merkel Regierung wie Mehltau auf unser Land gelegt hat] and which by the present government has again been reinforced.

In the end, all that you have contrived is under a general finance reservation. The solution of our problems thus lies according to your own words in education, research and innovation; yet this solution is under a finance reservation. Do you fail to recognize, does the Federal government so much fail to recognize the priorities, or is that your colleague Lindner, who still has not recognized what hour has struck?

I fear this work shall verbosely cover up that, basically, your hands are tied. Your hands are tied because our resources, instead of securing the future, are preferably expended for weapons in the Ukraine and uncontrolled migration into the social system.

            Maja Wallstein (SPD): That must come! Naturally!           

Gabriele Katzmarek (SPD): And here we have it again! Is nothing                                            too stupid for you, or?

In the present situation, we require an authentic mood of change [echte Aufbruchstimmung], the concentration on essentials and the unchaining of all powers. To that, this so-called strategy unfortunately makes no usable contribution.

 

[trans: tem]

 

Martin Hess, March 1, 2023, Crime and Immigration

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/87, p. 10408.

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

The policy of this Ampel government has led to that the criminality on trains and at train stations in the year 2022 simply exploded. According to an evaluation of the Bundespolizei, the number of knife attacks has risen from 166 to 336 and thus has almost doubled. Also, the number of violent offenses climbed in the year 2022 38.6 percent, from around 16,700 to around 23,100. The number of weapons offenses increased 30.4 percent and for sexual offenses an increase of 35.5 percent is to be noted. These numbers allow only one conclusion: Trains and train stations ever more become places of crime and areas of fear for our citizens. This is an unacceptable situation. Here, the state must take counter-measures as quickly as possible.  

Manuel Höferlin (FDP): And on that account, the state needs to make a statistic! That is the AfD’s solution!

I hear now those who, trivializing and relativizing, will assert these numbers cannot be compared; since the increases trace back to the ending of the pandemic. Yet such an assertion is plainly false; since the numbers prior to the pandemic – without any restriction of freedom of travel – were in any case considerably lower than in the year 2022; thus for example, the number of violent offenses, which in the year 2019 was at 17,927. The fact is: The exorbitant increase has nearly nothing to do with the pandemic. Thus please do not attempt to present this false assertion in this place and thereby take the citizens for fools.

            Manuel Höferlin (FDP): Nay, that pertains to you!

He who wants to manage a serious and credible security policy needs to attribute a particular meaning and pay attention to the portion of non-German suspects. To these are attributed over 50 percent of knife offenses on trains, for violent offenses 42.8 percent, for weapons offenses around 35 percent and for sexual offenses, believe it or not, 58.7 percent. Again – so each understands it – the majority of investigated knife attackers on trains and sexual offenders on trains and in train stations were non-Germans. In view of these numbers he who continues to relativize and trivialize or indeed simply does not pay attention to the high proportion of non-Germans suspects for violent and sexual offenses, he acts exclusively guided by ideology and against the security interests of our citizens.

            Kamya Kaddor (Greens): Thus, quite different from you, right?

That, we no longer accept.

We need to state it clearly and distinctly: The principal origin of this disastrous security development is the fully unchecked migration policy of this government. It thereby destroys security in our country, and against that, every responsible security politician must now finally oppose himself.

Instead of executing a radical change of course in the migration policy so as to fight the origins of this disastrous development, you set up more video surveillance and zones banning weapons. With this purely symptomatic fight you will however only be able, if at all, to deter a quite small portion of the violent perpetrators from the implementation of their acts. For that, you ever again restrict the rights of the citizens, and indeed of blameless citizens. The debate over the New Year’s Eve rioting was to be similarly understood. There, a general ban on fireworks was demanded

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Such an imbecility!

instead of approaching the origins. That, right honorable ladies and gentlemen, is high-grade security policy dilettantism, paired with an unacceptable disregard of elementary civil rights. And we go along with that no more.

And we also do not let it escape you that to an increasing degree you want to belie the citizens as to the consequences of your disastrous migration policy, as we needed to experience in the discussion on the New Year’s Eve rioting. And as you now also attempt by means of changing the citizenship laws so that namely some non-Germans become, essentially earlier than previously, Germans, and by means of this solemnity a criminal act will consequently be included in the criminal statistics as German. Thereby, following a present renunciation of the original citizenship, a conclusion as to a migration background according to the previous situation is no longer possible. We therefore say: Stop this deception! Stop this disguise! We need to rein in such manipulations. We therefore demand in our motion [Drucksache 20/5808] a publicly accessible Federal overview of criminality in trains and train stations, and which distinguishes between not only “German” and “non-German” but also includes the migration background of the suspects.

By means of your mobility transition, you ever more forcibly compel the citizen into public means of transportation; thus he must also have the right to make for himself a picture of the criminality situation there. The same applies besides for knife crime. Who refuses to accept this, who ignores fundamental interests of the people, may not wonder about the citizens’ ever greater loss of trust in politics.

 

[trans: tem]