Dirk Spaniel, October 19, 2023, Electric Vehicle Subvention

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/131, p. 16445. 

Frau President. Right honorable viewers and listeners. Right honorable colleagues. 

As I read the motion, dear colleagues of the Union, I needed to look twice, whether it really came from you. 

            Klaus Wiener (CDU/CSU): It is printed on the upper left 

This is at the least an open coalition offer to the Greens. Here you want to maintain or again introduce the subventions for electro-mobility. 

Tilman Kuban (CDU/CSU, turned to the Greens delegation): You could just vote in favor!

Now you certainly know – you have already written it in your motion – that these subventions so far have indeed not worked. How then do you actually want to introduce with a motion something which has not worked? You yourselves write in this motion that there is mis-use, that we have promoted vehicles which were sold off in foreign countries, which we here in this country do not have in our fleet of vehicles. You write this in your motion. 

When we since 2016 so far promote electro-mobility with 10 billion euros

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): Madness!

and have just 1.2 million vehicles in this country, then it needs for once be asked: What actually is awry here? And then you want to knock out by 2026 six billion euros for the charging infrastructure. I want to say to you here: It can be believed that climate change is hindered with German tax money; you do that. We do not believe that German tax money hinders, stops or in some way influences the climate change. Yet you believe it. Yet if it is believed, then one cannot nevertheless proceed and senselessly incinerate so much money. Electro-mobility’s CO₂ avoidance costs per ton of CO₂ – the Scientific Service of the German Bundestag says this – are from 800 to 1,000 euros per ton of CO₂ – 800 to 1,000 euros! In European emissions trading we are at approximately 80, 90 euros per ton. That is to say: You buy the ton of CO₂ avoidance at ten times the expense that it actually needs to be. For that, you can easily do away with the coal power plant CO₂, and indeed ten times as much. There, we are at 65 euros per tons of CO₂. You want the dumbest thing that can be  done with German tax money: You want the promotion of electro-mobility. 

The FDP besides ought to know better. They commissioned an estimation according to which it is even 2,300 euros per ton. That is to say: All of you here know: What you are doing here does not serve CO₂ reduction, does not serve the climate change. What you are doing serves for the impoverishment of the German population. 

The employment of your methods is absolutely unsuitable for reducing the CO₂ emissions, and it is absolutely unsuitable for making the population accustomed to electro-mobility. Most, 70 percent of users of electric vehicles, use this vehicle as a second vehicle. What you are doing is socially unjust. You redistribute tax money so that people who gladly want to have an electric auto as a second or third auto will have it in the future. 

That also applies to business. The well-to-do business can do it, and the poor, the not so well-to-do business cannot do it. All essentially use the electric vehicle not as a first vehicle but essentially as a second vehicle. Thus the method which you employ here is completely wrong. 

Ladies and gentlemen, when one is headed in the wrong direction, then one does not go faster – which you here want – but turns around. Electro-mobility is a wrong way. We are of the opinion that here you should rationally use the tax money. Preferably exert yourselves to achieve the CO₂ avoidance, when we at all do it in this country, with synthetic fuels, with openness to technology, which you besides are always preaching, dear colleagues. That should be our way. I can assure you of one thing: There will still be the combustion engine when your policy long since no more exists. 

Many thanks.

  

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

Rainer Kraft, October 20, 2023, Hydrogen

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/132, pp. 16606-16607. 

Right honorable Frau President. Valued colleagues. 

The speaking time is brief, yet despite that I need to begin with a joke which the colleague Spaniel told to me here – an engineer joke: The hydrogen, that was the technology of the future; the hydrogen, it is the technology of the future; and the hydrogen, it will also in the future be the technology of the future. 

Michael Kruse (FDP): You simply have nothing to do with a future!

I know: One needs know what a MINT-Fach [Mathematics Engineering Science Technology subject] is, otherwise one does not understand. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): The Greens are still thinking!

Dear Union, your motion for a hydrogen start-up is completely out of date. The hydrogen strategy was of 2020, thus two decades after the beginning of the failed energy transition,  invented by irresponsible Union politicians so as to save what was no more at at all to be saved. The simple truth is: Hydrogen will not be able to store our electricity in sufficient quantities. 

Since then were billions of euros distributed in research of little purpose so as to ascertain what we all already knew: That hydrogen squanders enormous quantities of energy for manufacture, which we certainly do not have, its storage and transport ability is poor, and its employment quickly has every associated cost at an astronomical height. In the Pkw [passenger vehicle] area, despite your expensive resuscitation efforts, the hydrogen has already twice died. In the bus, trucking and trains area, hydrogen still appears in press articles. Yet the Union again rides a dead horse and thereby hopes to alter the laws of Nature. 

Yet in this the Union is not alone. The Ampel also pays its respects to the dead Gaul. There ultimately is tax money to distribute and posts to be filled with friends and acquaintances. The Ampel can thereby not generally disguise its own cognitive dissonance. According to the Ampel, the same hydrogen is inappropriate for home heating. Why? Because it is too expensive. Yet at the same time these same charlatans assert that the same hydrogen will be sufficiently economic to produce globally competitive green steel and green chemicals in Germany. That does not everywhere go together; thus you either deceive just yourselves, or yet deceive here your sovereign, namely the German people. 

While you thus merrily annihilate additional workplaces, the German citizens shall be forced to install heating pumps because these have a higher efficiency than hydrogen. Yet neither the SPD nor the Greens nor the FDP can guarantee the constant availability of electricity from wind and sun. How thus shall the people heat when Mother Nature someday leaves the German planned economy in the lurch? To that, the progressive coalition, ja, once again has no answer. 

This planned economy of yours also does not stop at the German border. With a new form of colonialism you want to generate energy in foreign states and allow transport back to Germany without a coverage of local requirements. Your entire post-colonial hypocrisy was well summarized by Antonio Osvaldo Saide, Vice-minister for Resources and Energy of the Mozambique Republic: That of course a nation, in which only every second generally has an electrical connection, can besides have no energy for export as long as not everyone in the country has access to economic energy. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): That is all the same to the Greens!

This position, which he communicated to us at his visit in Berlin, I and my delegation completely share. 

Back to the rainbow colors of the Union’s hydrogen fantasies. In regards all of your color scenarios is noticed that one color in your spectrum is lacking: The so-called red hydrogen, made from nuclear energy. Yes, that would have been a very good opportunity to produce hydrogen competitively and approaching a coverage of costs. Yet unfortunately you, ladies and gentlemen of the Union, have already refused twelve years ago the branch upon which you so happily want to sit. 

Dear Union, your hydrogen fairy tales stop here. Your motion does not perch in the realm of reality, but bestirs itself in a post-factual fantasy world. There is no energy for that from unreliable wind and solar power and there never will be. Your motion is pure wishful thinking and we therefore reject it. 

 

[trans: tem]

Stephan Brandner, October 19, 2023, Migrant Trafficking

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/131, pp. 16391-16392. 

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

You, Herr President, have correctly read the theme of this point of the daily order. It is not called “private rescue at sea”, but is directed against traffickers [Schlepper] and smugglers [Schleuser]. Eduard Zimmerman – who one or another still know – created the television series “Aktenzeichen XY…ungelöst” and “mal ranVorsicht, Falle!” and there warned of swindlers, traffickers and confidence men. This we of the AfD also do in regards to you of the old parties 

            Ulrich Lechte (FDP): Nazi speech!

and indeed nearly every day and rightly so. Yet not only you yourselves are those, but you even still support traffickers and smugglers in the Mediterranean. As it is only about Germany, so it is only about you of the old parties. And is actually what must be immediately halted and stopped. 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): Lies! Lies!

A few days ago, on October 13, a ship by the name of Sea-Eye 4 departed so as to bring still more refugees to Germany. It is the first time that the taxpayer financially supports quite official smuggling activities and smuggling and human trafficking in the Mediterranean, embellished and camouflaged under the name of “private rescue at sea”. 

A dubious mesh of criminal associations in Germany, state and non-state organizations, churches, associations and so-called rescue ships shall in the coming four years receive eight million euros which the Federal government of Greens, Yellows and Reds has let loose. In the midst of this mesh is an association with the name of “United 4 Rescue” of which the founder and director is a Herr Thies Gundlach and who furthermore is by chance the life partner of the Green Vice-president of the German Bundestag, Göring-Eckhardt. Ladies and gentlemen, that stinks, that stinks bad, and is an additional prime example of how Green sleeze functions in Germany. Here, we think of Habeck and Graichen; we not only think thereof but therefrom draw parallels, an additional example of which is besides that the Greens and the other old parties have looted the state and distribute this loot among one another without restraint. That German tax money will be used to finance smugglers and human traffickers in the Mediterranean, and to thereby further incite this dangerous business in the millions, is to be justified by nothing but simply nothing.   

In that regard, for us of the AfD it is fully beyond question that people who are in an emergency at sea of course need to be saved; you do not believe it, but it is in fact so. 

            Dunja Kreiser (SPD): Nay, we really do not believe it.

A true rescue at sea however means a shipwreck and to save people found to be in an acute emergency at sea, and to bring them to the nearest safe harbor. 

            Julian Pahlke (Greens): Right. Ten points.

It does not mean to ship people hundreds of kilometers across the Mediterranean to a previously made meeting point where the fully overloaded so-called rescue boats, intentionally brought to an emergency at sea, will be overhauled by the rescue ships. That is an abuse of the rescue at sea. That has nothing at all to do with rescue at sea. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Your descriptions have nothing to do with it!

We can authenticate that there are radio conversations to meet off the coast of North Africa, and then the refugees will be transferred. 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): Lies! Lies! 

They will then make for Italy, for the most part illegally, and from there they are quite quickly in Germany and become a component of the asylum industry in the billions in Germany which in our view is in broad parts actually nothing other than organized criminality to the burden of the taxpayers who need to cope with hundreds of billions in costs by the migration into Germany, the society of which all of you of the old parties are destroying. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): That is inhuman, what you say here!

We of the Alternative für Deutschland strongly stand for: The criminal smuggling business needs to be dried out. German state attorneys need to engage with the activists, with the actions, with actors of these so-called NGOs in Germany and ascertain whether not, for example, assistance for human trafficking is a question of a punishable offense.   

Here, the German state attorneys need to have a go, need to be encouraged to look for once at the whole under the aspect of German criminal law.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you do not want to continue to make of the Mediterranean a mass grave for people, follow our motions [Drucksachen 20/8872, 8873]. We stop the migration across the Mediterranean, thereby save many lives, and also the German society. 

 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Alice Weidel, October 24, 2023, Deportation

AfD Kompakt, October 24, 2023. 

It apparently required two crushing election defeats and massive, anti-semitic migrant rioting for Olaf Scholz and Nancy Faeser to at all take notice of the continual failure of the state in regards the deportation of rejected asylum applicants and the return of migrants with no right of residence. Without a fundamental migration change, which comes to grips with the roots of the problem and also has acts follow the announcements, their emphatic words are nevertheless to remain patchwork. 

Chancellor and Interior Minister want to tread lightly [einen schlanken Fuss machen] while they guide the attention on the deportation deficit so as to be able to shove off a large part of the responsibility onto the States. Yet as before, the Federal government, with eased residence and naturalization regulations, high social benefits and open borders, entices illegal migrants to immigration into the German social system. 

As long as the Federal government does not close the German borders and consistently sends back illegal migrants, refuses an effective securing of the EU external borders, and isolates itself in a Europe in which it wants to require of other EU countries the acceptance of undesired migrants, the announcements of Scholz and Faeser are to remain pure alibi politics. Germany needs a unified [aus einem Guss] remigration policy, and not just declarations of intention which will foreseeably remain without consequence. 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

Petr Bystron, October 19, 2023, Migrant Trafficking

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/131, pp. 16398-16399. 

Right honorable Herr President. Dear colleagues. 

We speak here today of the worst case of organized criminality since the Second World War. For it is an octopus which entwines billions, which costs human lives. It is no rescue at sea; it is human trafficking [Menschenschlepperei], and it is criminal. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Yes, what then do you dream at nights?

It begins with you enticing the migrants onto the high seas and plainly inducing them into an emergency at sea. 

Jamila Schäfer (Greens): Would you please for once read a scientific study? That would be total super!

This occurs with the aid of an app, which is called Alarm Phone. No one is so dumb as to climb into a rubber boat 

            Jamila Schäfer (Greens): Shame on you!

with benzine for 10 kilometers and to believe that he thereby comes 400 kilometers to Europe. 

Lamya Kaddor (Greens): What do you believe, where you live? Have you once made an impression of it? Quite honestly, it is shameless how you come forward here. 

The migrants do it just then when they see they are fished out of your boats 10 kilometers from the African coast. 

            Sebastian Fiedler (SPD): Who are desperate! Only one here is dumb!

And this app is financed by whom? By the Heinrich Böll Foundation, the Robert Bosch Foundation and Soros. For that alone ought the common use be withdrawn and the money eliminated. 

Julian Pahlke (Greens): Aha, and now even anti-semitism! That you are not ashamed, Herr Bystron! You are an embarrassment! 

This year alone – you yourself have said it – this has cost the lives of 2,000 people. 

Point two: Maritime law. What is the maritime law? To bring those rescued to the nearest harbor. 

            Derya Türk-Nachbauer (SPD): Secure harbor!

These trafficking boats do exactly the opposite: They do not bring them to Africa; they bring them 400 kilometers to Europe, intentionally, with announcement. That is trafficking. 

These inhuman doings are best documented by the incident of 2022. The migrants were already rescued by the Libyan coast guard. Then Sea-Watch came around and the migrants jumped into the sea because they wanted Europe. Twenty people thus died, among them children and women. For those deaths, you are co-responsible. 

If these ships would bring the migrants back to Africa – 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): For your sake! They will certainly not be asked!

for my sake to Algeria, Tunisia or Egypt, then thirty times more people could be helped for the same money than in Germany. Yet the salient point is: You do not want precisely that, because you want these people as care cases for your asylum industry. So it is. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): You have no idea!

Vera Lengsfeld of the CDU has already worked this out wonderfully. She has shown that the Red Cross alone has more employees than BASF – and BASF is the world’s largest chemical concern – and Caritas more employees than BMW. Yet all these people produce nothing, do nothing constructive, build no autos; yet they cost, and for that you need the money. 

            Clara Bünger (Linke): What? Caritas?

The costs for one refugee approach 57,000 euros per year. You are hereby creating care cases and tax money for them. That is the case. 

 

[trans: tem]

  

           

 

 

Gerrit Huy, October 17, 2023, Citizens’ Wage

AfD Kompakt, October 17, 2023. 

Ever more employees, especially in the low-wage sector, quit their work because the citizens’ wage [Bürgergeld] promises a performance-free income. We of the AfD delegation have quite early warned that the Ampel’s Bürgergeld has been framed too abundantly and thereby lies dangerously near the applicable minimum wage. An optional increase of the statutory minimum wage needs to be carefully weighed and continually take into consideration that already today many Mittelstand operations and businesses in eastern Germany are under an enormous wage pressure and simply cannot pay a higher minimum wage. And the assertion circulating in the area of the Bürgergeld debate that there exists in this country no wage disparity requirement [Lohnabstandsgebot] is false. So decided the Federal Constitutional Court in 2020 that civil servants in the lowest pay grades need to be better off than recipients of the basic security. They should have 15 percent more net so that their work pays. And for the normal employees, who are not civil service, work should also pay. Labor market policy decisions following the Federal Constitutional Court’s ruling appear to be sensible. In this sense, future wage development should anticipate Bürgergeld development. Otherwise will still more employees wander away to the Bürgergeld. 

 

[trans: tem]