Markus Buchheit, March 14, 2023, EU Forced Housing Restoration

AfD Kompakt, March 14, 2023

That eco-fanatics and climate sectarians are allowed to presume such a deep intervention in rights of ownership and privacy is unbelievable. This proceeding affects not only homeowners. Renters also will need to bear the costs. One in addition may be yoked to thousands of legal procedures which will strain the tormented citizens. Yet in Germany there still is in principle the basic right of Art. 13 of the Basic Law which guarantees the immunity of the dwelling. The individual has the right to a secured, elementary living space in which one is left in peace – and indeed from planned-economy, regulatory interferences in the freedom of individuals.

 

[trans: tem]

 

Albrecht Glaser, March 17, 2023, Election Law

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/92, pp. 11018-11019.

Honored Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. Honored fellow citizens.

We deal with a central theme of our democracy: The election law, the legitimation of the Bundestag as a law-giving power by means of a mandate of the citizenry, from which, according to Article 20, Section 2 of the Basic Law, all power of the state proceeds.

The Ampel wrote in its coalition agreement – I cite with permission of the President:

We will within the first year re-work the election law so as to durably prevent the growth of the Bundestag

It needs to be reduced in line with a statutory control parameter [gesetzliche Regelgrösse]. And further:

A committee will concern itself with a parity representation of women and men in the parliament…We want to alter the Basic Law so as to lower the active voting age…to 16 years.

All of this was more or less intense because the Ampel has also blocked themes debated in a reform committee which up to today still has not concluded its work. The infantilization of the active right to vote, ladies and gentlemen, happily requires a change of the constitution. It can thus be prevented by a qualified minority of the reasonable in this house.

Of interest is which other states lay their fate in the hands of the young. I name for example Cuba, Nicaragua, Sudan and North Korea – thus good models for Ampel regulation.

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Good friends of the Greens!

The presumption may be posited that such countries want to exploit for political propaganda the young’s lack of ability to judge.

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): The people are smarter than you!

Easily manipulated citizens are good citizens.

The manufacture of a parity representation – allow me also to let slip a few words in this regards – of women and men in the Bundestag by means of simple legislation, right honorable ladies and gentlemen, is a usurpation of the pouvoir constitué over the pouvoir constituant, that is, the mastery of parliament over the sovereign.  

The citizenry [Staatsvolk] is as it is: It comprises women, men, old, young, believers, non-believers, intelligent, less intelligent, responsible, irresponsible, crooked and straight, people with and without a migration background. No one has the right to make quotas of this heterogeneity of the citizenry and from that derive proportions by which group rights to organs of the state will be allocated. The citizenry is inseparable and consists of individuals, not of clusters of groups of persons. This proposal of the Ampel is unconstitutional, as has already been declared by the Constitutional Courts in Potsdam and Weimar for their States.

With that, I come to the Bundestag. For the goal of limiting the Bundestag’s excess, the Ampel formulates very defensively; the growth should be prevented. In this question, we were in the last legislative period further along.

One hundred public law scholars in the autumn of 2019 had expressly reported and stated in an open letter to the German Bundestag that a deferral of the reform would “violently shake the people’s trust in our democracy”. They regarded the parties’ particular interests as a hindrance to reaching results after years of discussion. I cite:

In no case may the impression arise that many members would defer the urgently necessary changes because their own shirt was more important to them than the common coat.

The AfD delegation was new in the Bundestag and had a clear charge from its basic program: A Bundestag with 450 members should be strived for. We have worked for that and in September 2020 put forward a formulated draft law which included the fixed mandate number of 598 – 598! – so as to prevent the new arrangement of election constituencies and thereby to attain a quick implementation of the reform in the last legislative period – besides billions in savings for the state in this legislative period. This proposal was rejected under the usual, inclusive din against the AfD from all other delegations.

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): Shabby. Yet they learn.

In May of last year, a day before the reform committee occupied itself with the Bundestag’s excess, right honorable ladies and gentlemen, a miracle occurred: The Ampel put before the public a concept for shrinking the Bundestag to 598 mandates, which is nearly identical with the AfD’s concept of 2020,

             Stephan Brandner (AfD): The AfD works! Even the Ampel notices!

which in any case is to be voted on today. The Ampel  thereby knowingly gave rise to the impression its election law proposal may be a product of its own cognitive performance.

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): That, it certainly cannot be!

The media believes it to this day and they write it so. Borrowed wisdom is still wisdom.

Not overtaken were our requests for an open list election which should guarantee a direct influence of the voter on the candidates order on the State lists. That would be an authentic democratic progress; but the Ampel does not want it.

With a motion to amend of three days ago, the Ampel wants the number of future mandates, hitherto disputed by no one,

            Konstantin Kuhle (FDP): Other than by the reality! We have namely 736!

            Christian Dürr (FDP): But with reality the AfD has nothing to do!

of 598 – never disputed, by no one! – to increase to 630, and abolish the basic mandate clause, as already ever in the proposal of the AfD.

Herr Dobrindt, I now tell you a secret.

             Stephan Brandner (AfD): Ui!

This presumption which you have of the effect of this clause on your political fate in Bavaria is false. It is false; the application is not as you believe it to be. This I unfortunately cannot pursue since the President gives me only a few minutes of time.

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): The President shakes her head!

There are no arguments for this latest government sleight of hand, ladies and gentlemen. The Ampel has justified what it otherwise never does. They have thereby determined that, by means of the original reform à la AfD, the SPD alone would lose 38 mandates, according to the election results of 2021. This price was too high for the comrades. First the party, then the public good. By means of the increase of the number of mandates and the elimination of the basic mandate clause, they can halve their loss of mandates. That is the crux of the matter in regards the sleight of hand we experienced three days ago. What – Frau President, if you will permit me this concluding paragraph – would the one hundred public law scholars have said to this sleight of hand?

On account of the self-serving increase of the mandates number in the last seconds, and the lack of direct democracy progress, the AfD does not agree to the Ampel draft. We so far abstain. We will support our own draft on account of its consistent quality of reform.

Hearty thanks.

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): Bravo!

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

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]