Alice Weidel, July 7, 2023, Heating Law

German Bundestag, July 7, 2023, Plenarprotokoll 20/116, pp. 14329-14330. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

The Federal Constitutional Court’s decision has spared us the disgrace of an ignorant, half-baked and bungled law, cobbled together with the crowbar, being enforced. 

You wanted to flog through this green ideological project, with disdain for the citizens’ concerns and the rights of the parliament, and arrogantly wipe away the reasoned objections of an entire host of experts. You obviously still have not heard the shot; for you stubbornly cling to this project. And you of the CDU also do not really want to prevent the heating law; you also have said yes to it. 

Thorsten Frei (CSU/CSU): Then you have not listened to the speech of the delegation chairman! 

A heating law in two months is just as wrong as now. Nothing therein is to be repaired. For the entire proposal by which you want to prescribe to the people how they have to heat their dwellings and houses is not only wrong, it is also unconstitutional.   

You speak of respect. Yet you seize hold of the citizens’ private property, without shame. Constitutional law defends this private property. 

            Konstantin Kuhle (FDP): And human dignity!

Your impoverishment and expropriation law forces owners of private property to sacrifice their reserves and resources for expensive, inefficient and in many cases unsuitable electric heating. You drive them into indebtedness. Many will not be able to maintain their property. International investors stand by, ready for the great sell-out. 

            Johannes Fechner (SPD): That is just rubbish!

Millions of renters will need to pay the bill as a result of rising rents. 

The world laughs at Germany because its government needlessly destroys the nation’s wealth, ruins the middle class and drives industry out of the country. For the reduction of CO₂ emissions and the influencing of the world climate, the heating law is completely useless. You have tinkered with it for months. Yet you still cannot say how great the CO₂ savings generally shall be. 

Over the true costs, you leave the citizens in obscurities, and deceive them with promises of subventions which you cannot pay. You do not tell the truth to the people of the additional attacks on the national wealth which threaten by way of the EU’s subterfuges, moreover pushed by CDU/Commission President Ursula von der Leyen: An intensified renewable energy law, the forced reconstruction by means of the impending EU building guidelines, and the introduction of the monstrous EU CO₂ certificate trade in the construction sector, threaten entire population classes with an annihilation of prosperity and expropriation. And herein is seen once again the double-standard and the hypocrisy of the CDU. 

A heating law of use to no one other than the international investors and the heating pump lobby which, even without clan chief Graichen, here have a tight grip on the Economy Ministry. And which is used by climate ideologues who thereby want to realize their dream of an eco-socialist, planned- and scarcity-economy, with its freight bicycles and candles, in which prescriptions and compulsion take the place of private property, of prosperity, reason and fair competition. 

It is completely clear why you wanted to so hectically enforce this: You are afraid of the citizens, of your own voters; since they very well understand that they will be lied to, cheated, expropriated and made poorer [belogen, betrogen, enteignet und ärmer gemacht]. Your calculation nevertheless will not proceed. Four-fifths of this country’s people are against the heating law. Four-fifths! That you cannot do fractions and math is fully clear. Have it explained to you what four fifths actually means. 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): By you, simply nothing is to be explained!

Be that as it may. The best heating law is no heating law. Use the hiatus which the Federal Constitutional Court has graciously given you to completely pulp this unspeakable law. 

I am grateful.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

Sylvia Limmer, July 12, 2023, EU Climate Decree and Agriculture

AfD Kompakt, July 12, 2023. 

By means of an intentional, massive recession of agricultural area, this decree endangers our food security, threatens the livelihoods of farmers and grape growers and is a further step into an EU climate museum. Its basic premise, according to which species variety on idled acres is generally greater than on acres in operation, is moreover to be questioned. 

Had the CDU/CSU members as a part of the EVP delegation on the Environment Committee proclaimed themselves for the rejection of the proposed decree, and thereby discreetly talked over the tacit cooperation with the AfD, they might now seemingly act quietly. The revolt contrived by Manfred Weber against the EU Commission President with a CDU party book has failed. 

All the same, this sudden change of mind was politically dishonorable. Even in October 2019, the “From Farm to Table Strategy” was enthusiastically agreed to in a resolution; a strategy which propagated, besides the reconstruction of nature, the wholesale reduction and in part the complete ban of pesticides. To that pertains the recent statement of Peter Liese, the EVP’s environmental spokesman, that the Green Deal would be “energetically” supported by the EVP. And who frankly admitted that with the Green Deal and the nature reconstruction decree, and the associated expropriations and interdictions of the citizens in reference to nutrition, one needs to apply more slowly. Thus increasingly in Germany, evidently “politically disturbed” citizens need to be “cooked green” more slowly so that they, like the proverbial frog in the pot, do not before time take flight. Thus one does not act out of factual and substantial conviction but merely on the basis of political calculation. 

The AfD on that account from the beginning has represented a clear line which makes a theme of and categorically rejects the abolition of agriculture associated with the green-red strategy papers. Since the farmers need our support, for it is they who safeguard our food. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

Thomas Ehrhorn, July 6, 2023, War on One’s Own People

German Bundestag, July 6, 2023, Plenarprotokoll 20/115, pp. 14205-14206. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The draft law put forward deals primarily with the acceleration of the approval procedures for windpower installations and facilities for production of so-called green hydrogen. So as to forestall the same: The speeches on green hydrogen, this alleged wonder technology of the future, which in reality is a stillbirth, is an additional green chimera. Yet this is marginal. 

How shall permitting procedures now be thus accelerated? The answer reads: a) While almost all possibilities of protest and influence are taken from the public, b) while the States’ power of decision is undermined, c) while examinations of environmental compatibility are simply abolished, d) so that in the future protection of species and agriculture no more play a role. But anyway – the main thing is, Germany saves the world climate! 

How absurd this supposition in fact is, the following figures show: Germany, which has a two percent portion of worldwide CO₂ emissions, has since 1990 cut back some one-third of its emissions. The rest of the world, which is responsible for 98 percent of CO₂ output, has in the same time increased its CO₂ emissions by two-thirds. In other words: What we in Germany do or allow is absolutely irrelevant for the world climate. 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): That is an absurd theory!

The ideologically motivated and artificially generated climate hysteria thus alone serves as a justification for the planned radical change in our society, the radical change into an authoritarian socialist planned economy 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): Uijuijui! 

Jan Niclas Gesenhues (Greens): Conspiracy theory! Again a false turn on the internet, or what? 

in which the state prescribes to the people how they are to live, how they are to eat, with what they are to heat. It serves as a justification for the rainbow coalition’s war against our industry, against the automobile, against our private property, a war which meanwhile has become a war of those who govern against one’s own people. 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): That is the wrong word!

And I say to you: The people there outside, they know this and they are fed up with it. 

            Axel Echeverria (SPD): Yes, with you!

Since the only sustainability goal which you are in a position to attain is to drive this country straight into the wall and to annihilate our sustained prosperity. Thus Professor Dr. Knut Löschke, 

            Carsten Träger (SPD): How is he called?

member of the college council of the University of Leipzig and member of the board of trustees of the Max Planck Institute, speaks to the citizens from the deepest soul 

            Petra Sitte (Linke): He is for long no more a member. I have taken care of that!

when he says – I cite with permission of the President: 

I have enough of it…I have a nose full of permanent and ever more religious climate talk, of energy transition fantasies, of electro-auto worship, through horror stories of world downfall scenarios…to world catastrophes. 

I can no more bear the people who daily scream this in microphones and cameras or publish it in newspapers. I suffer first-hand how natural science is made a whore of politics. 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): Eijeijei!

Ladies and gentlemen of the CDU/CSU, I can thus give to you just the good advice: Send the firewall fetishists and BlackRock orders-takers as quickly as possible into the wasteland. Become again a party which is ready, in common with the AfD, to turn things upside down 

Daniel Rinkert (SPD): Do you then want to change the Federal Emissions Protection Law? What are your proposals? Of that, nothing is heard!

and to make reason-oriented policy for Germany. If you do not do that, you will, quicker than you suppose, dwindle into meaninglessness. 

Thank you. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

Marcus Buchheit, July 11, 2023, European Semiconductor Industry

AfD Kompakt, July 11, 2023. 

So that the European Chips Law does not become the next flop of megalomaniac EU policy, the EU should respect the subsidiarity principle and leave industrial policy in the hands of the national states. Semiconductor manufacturing is a key industry. Yet the promotion of same is empirically far better boosted by the member states than in an EU competence. EU projects are often announced with great tam-tam so to be subsequently buried the more secretively, silently and gently. The EU member states can do industrial policy better, more successfully and more profitably. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

Joachim Wundrak, July 6, 2023, NATO

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/115, pp. 14195-14196. 

Her President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The CDU delegation 

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

thus wants the upcoming NATO summit to lead to success. A laudable intention, if it would then serve the interests of Germany and the German citizens. 

The Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany in Article 24, paragraph 2, specifies that the Bund may arrange for the guaranty of peace in a system of mutual, collective security and can willingly agree to restrictions of its sovereign rights. A look at the AfD’s program of principles shows that we also regard Germany’s membership in NATO as a central element of our security strategy. 

We nevertheless understand NATO as a purely defensive alliance in regards the alliance territories according to the NATO treaty and basically reject interventions outside these territories. The recent experiences with foreign missions should here be a strong warning for us. Alliance solidarity alone cannot replace vital national interest for a mission of armed forces outside the treaty territories. We therefore also reject the globalization of NATO in the direction of the Indo-Pacific, especially the meddling in Chinese affairs regarding Taiwan. 

            Wolfgang Hellmich (SPD): Where does it meddle there? 

The Federal government should instead strengthen its diplomatic efforts for a peaceful solution of the Taiwan question. 

We support the endeavor for a fair burden-sharing in NATO 

            Ulrich Lechte (FDP): Against freedom and democracy obviously!

and thereby also the so-called two percent goal. The strengthening of the European pillar of NATO is in the German interest so as to strengthen the weight and say of Europeans and also that of Germany vis-à-vis the dominant leading power, the U.S.A. Nevertheless, these additional fiscal means need in fact to be invested in armament and the Bundeswehr’s sustainable capability. It unfortunately is a fact that in the last 15 months the already reduced mission readiness of the German armed forces, as a result of donations to the Ukraine, has still further worsened. This is unacceptable.   

We welcome the membership of Finland and also soon that of Sweden in NATO because this will increase Germany’s security. On that account, we reject the acceptance of the Ukraine into NATO because that would mean not more security but less security. 

We also welcome that the NATO-Russia basic document of 1997 will not be seen as obsolete, despite the Russian aggression. In can in the long-term form a nexus for a new security structure which needs to be based on the principle of common security in Europe. Yet foremost must be sought practical ways for a rapid ending of the Russian war of aggression against the Ukraine. For that are to be used, in my opinion, NATO’s communication channels to Russia, as they were maintained for the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. 

We are critical in regards the announced long-term stationing of a German brigade of approximately 4,000 soldiers in Lithuania; colleague Wadephul has more precisely expressed that. This decision was certainly knit together quicktime with a hot needle. The question presents itself, At whose pressure was this done? From our viewpoint, the existing rotation solution for deterrence is fully sufficient. 

On the whole, we reject the motion put forward by the Union on account of the offensive character of the overall approach for NATO, although we thoroughly share in some of the points in regards the strengthening of the Bundeswehr. NATO needs to again concentrate itself on the its core duty according to the NATO  treaty: On the defense of the alliance territories. 

I thank you for your attention. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

Beatrix von Storch, July 6, 2023, Assisted Suicide

German Bundestag, July 6, 2023, Plenarprotokoll 20/115, pp. 14083-14084. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The Federal Constitutional Court in 2020 declared the ban on commercial promotion [geschäftsmäßigen Förderung] of self-killing to be null. Pandora’s Box was thereby opened. 

To declare suicide to be an act of personal autonomy leads us, in my firm conviction, to a terrible and deadly path. The Netherlands have gone before us in this way. The result is devastating: In 2021, 7,666 deaths by assisted suicide, and in that regard overwhelmingly by means of killing on demand [Tötung auf Verlangen]. That is 4.5 percent of all deaths there, 10 percent more than in the previous year, ten times more than traffic deaths. Calculated for Germany, that would be 34,000, three times more than presently. 

When the assisted suicide law was decided on in the Netherlands, it was about extreme cases in which people were severely ill, without a perspective of survival. Now it is not only about incurable illness, it is ever more about physically healthy people who still have a long life ahead of them who actually need and seek assistance. 

Kingston University made a study in the Netherlands. There, people with mental handicap and autism are legally killed. The study uncovered 39 such cases from 2012 to 2021 by means of a random sample of 900 from 60,000 cases. If that is calculated for Germany, then that would be 11,500 people in Germany, mentally handicapped and autistic, who would have been killed. A particularly tragic example from the study: A young man in his 20s who named the reason for his death wish: Social isolation. He wanted to die because he was lonely. 

The circle of those affected thereby becomes almost limitless. In surveys of socio-economic panels, 42 percent of Germans declare that they feel lonely. The Dutch psychiatrist Dr. Bram Sizzo explains the motivation of people seeking assistance for suicide. I cite: 

They believe this will be the end of their problems and the end of the problems of their families.

That means, they take their own lives because they do not want to be a burden on their families. That is terrifying. 

The draft laws put forward emphasize that the suicide should result from one’s own accord as an autonomous decision. They thus see entirely the danger that people take their own life under social pressure. I do not believe that they will prevent that; not one of the drafts. Against social pressure helps no double consultation obligation and no remark on a consultation document. Precisely in times of crisis, the pressure grows on the old and sick – not only on them, but on them especially – to be a burden on no one. We will have very many old and sick without families and very many more crises. 

The Chancellor has spoken for more respect. The reality appears otherwise. A frequent headline in the spring was “Housing Emergency in Germany: Pensioners Live Too Grandly”. Regensburg University has proposed forcing the pensioners into smaller residences by increasing the rental prices, and in Berlin the Berlin Church Institute has shown the door to 110 seniors. 

And added to that: The entire infrastructure of supervision, counseling and care of the old, the sick and those needing assistance, and of physically and mentally ill people, finds itself in an existential crisis. Care homes in great numbers are going insolvent. In Hesse, 25 percent closed this year. 60 percent of hospitals are in a business imbalance; many will close. The local provision for old and ill people is already bad and is becoming much worse. The emergency is growing. The average wait time for a therapy place for people in psychological distress amounts to five months. What will be the consequences if, in view of the crisis in care and health provision, it will be simpler to receive a nearby, open-ended [ergebnisoffene] suicide consultation than a care or therapy place? Before we strengthen the suicide prevention, you want to be concerned with open-ended suicide consultation. 

These are not my values. We should live our lives in freedom and responsibility before God. The beginning and end of life lie alone in the Hand of God. In that, I believe. 

Many thanks.

  

[trans: tem]