Gottfried Curio, June 9, 2023, EU Immigration Regulations

AfD Kompakt, June 9, 2023.

The regulations will not solve the problems. If now some countries in fact buy their way out of a new “reception obligation”, in the end a considerable portion might again remain attached to Germany. And with the keyword “distribution” [Verteilung], the Merkel-ish subversion of Dublin III will now be set: The secure knowledge that from southern Europe one cannot further migrate under a declaration of an ostensible need to flee would thereby have led to a considerable relief, particularly in this country. In the end: Who comes from a secure country actually need simply not be tested; in other cases, the principle of secure states is ultimately reduced to an absurdity.

Even in the specifics, the regulations are highly ineffective: To be able to continue – under pressure of the Federal government – to simply pass through unaccompanied minors, without a stop at the external border with fast track procedures, even so entire families from Syria. And the problem that 80 percent of those coming to Germany could previously pass through the EU unregistered is not addressed: They indeed should be registered – yet this “should” is again plainly only a pure declaration of intentions and in the negotiations was not in the least operationally secured. Just so, again under pressure of the Ampel, was hindered a “Rwanda solution”, as aimed at in Great Britain. And why countries should at all participate in a distribution, why they should otherwise at all pay money, is not really established. One then may also not be surprised by a rejection.

In sum: For the main flow from countries where there is now already some acknowledgements, that is perhaps Syria and Afghanistan and various interior African countries, nothing really changes; thus here also, no relief in sight. And even in regards the planned rejections, the actual return is, as before, completely unclear. Without a return, even according to the new regulations, an appeal to the EU will then again soon be possible, with then a new asylum application. Even after a distribution within the EU, naturally will happily continue further secondary migration to Germany, as long as in this country the will and the structures are not created for an effective rejection and deportation mechanism. And important relief measures, as demanded by the AfD, plainly now simply do not arrive: Neither an alignment of the national refugee and/or social benefits, nor a conversion to primarily benefits in kind. Instead, false principles are perpetuated, such as one can be a refugee by a trespass in the EU, even if one already has come through ten secure third countries. An opportunity to perceptibly confront [begegnen] the dramatic overburdening in Germany was given away. The decisive problems were certainly not approached, primarily because, for that, any political will is lacking in Germany.  

 

[trans: tem]

 

Jochen Haug, May 25, 2023, EU Election Law

 

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/106, pp. 12811-12812.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

The EU Parliament’s proposal debated today for a change of the EU election law is an attack on the national states of Europe. The planned changes are alien to the citizens and fundamentally undemocratic.

Of this are first of all the trans-national lists which certainly have been often spoken of. The EU parliament shall be further enlarged, initially by 28 seats. These shall then be filled by the  European parties instead of by the national lists of the recognized parties. This is a particular act of alienation of the citizens. The European parties are largely unknown in Germany and in other member states. Their positions on concrete political questions are unknown. The citizen shall vote for persons whom he does not know and of whom he in many cases simply cannot inform himself; since there is no EU-wide media public. Information is here not routinely available in each man’s mother tongue. Yet that fits the picture. You want uninformed voters who simply nod to your personnel and positions. You want an EU central state with politicians who owe accountability to no one. Transnational lists are in this way a momentous step which we of the AfD oppose.

            Christian Petry (SPD): What nonsense!

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Super speech! Listen to what you can learn!

            Jörg Nürnberger (SPD): No idea of Europe!

No less do we oppose the attempt to introduce compulsory gender quotas for election lists. The EU Parliament’s proposal foresees precisely this in the form of a zipper procedure [Reissvershclussverfahren]. That means that men and women are to be alternatively installed. This is obviously unconstitutional. The Constitutional Courts in Brandenburg and Thüringen have already decided corresponding regulations. Among others, here is put forward a violation of the fundamental principles of the freedom and equality of the vote.

            Götz Frömming (AfD): The SPD is not interested.

To what unbelievable bleeding such gender quotas can lead may be observed in regards, among others, the Greens of NRW [Nordrhein-Westfalen] who in their statutes have consequently further developed the zipper procedure and call it a “minimum quota”.

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): And now?

I cite with permission of the President from §1 of the Women’s Status of the NRW Greens:         

Election lists fundamentally are to be filled by at least half women whereby the odd places are reserved for women. The election procedures are to be so arranged that, separated, positions for women and positions for all candidates will be elected. All women lists are possible.

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Well cited!

This needs to be looked at clearly: With the Greens, for odd places may only women be candidates, for the even, everyone.

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): With you, even fascists can be candidates!

If this should be democratic, then democracy in our country is truly at an end.

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Discrimination against men!

Not least is there today a restrictive clause in regards the suffrage for the European election. What you here propose – the introduction of a two percent hurdle – is a shameless circumvention of the legal ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court. This had twice, in 2011 and 2014, declared restrictive clauses for the European election to be unconstitutional. Now shall one such be introduced by the avoidance of EU law. There is no sustainable foundation for it. It is solely about building up the large parties’ sinecures at the cost of the small parties. It is simply the arrogance of power.

In conclusion, we maintain: The plans of the EU election law reform are undemocratic and in part violate the German constitutional law. It remains to hope – it was certainly already pointed out – that across Europe considerable resistance arises against it. It remains to hope that it never becomes reality.

Thank you.

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Very good speech! 

 

[trans: tem]