Stephan Brandner, July 4, 2024, Voting, Escrow and Shakespeare

German Bundestag, July 4, 2024, Plenarprotokoll 20/181, pp. 23593-23594. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

It is, so to say, the Shakespeare of the AfD who now again has the word. A pleasant good evening, I wish you. Yet an exciting point is on the daily order for today’s debate. It is a high point, and a high point of every Berlin trip – this goes for the guests in the gallery – when one can occupy oneself at 2240 with the professional law of the registered professions – notaries, attorneys-at-law, patent attorneys and the tax consultants. Thus it crowns each day. 

            Jürgen Coße (SPD): 2236!

2240, I said. It is 2236. You can still read the numbers, in contrast to me. That distinguishes you, and you are with the SPD. Congratulations that it functions! 

Thus, it is about allowing possibilities, which there were during Corona; for example, of being able to hold principal proceedings [Hauptverhandlungen] in hybrid or virtual form. Do you now continue to count, or can I continue talking? 

            Jürgen Coße (SPD): I’m listening, even if it’s difficult.

Okay. Or, there is the possibility to continue mail-in voting or also to bringing about decisions by means of the post office. That, we find quite good. I say, there can be nothing against that. 

Nevertheless, we look critically upon the possibility of conducting virtual or hybrid association assemblies [Kammerversammlungen]. It is also undemocratic in regards associations if they can or must be held exclusively. As a result, we therefore reject that. In regards the conduct of the assembly, the flexibility should indeed be strengthened, and be given the possibility to lower the threshold of being able to participate; in the lived, German practice – you all know the construction of our networks – those affected may expect all possible forms of technical imponderabilities which can and will make impossible the orderly conduct of assemblies. You all know of software problems, connection and network problems, to the point of a complete break of connection. All is conceivable in Germany. Everyone knows that who more or less regularly takes part in such on-line conversations. 

It should not remain unmentioned that you – God be thanked – have turned a corner concerning the originally planned possibility to scour without cause attorneys’ escrow accounts and so be able to massively encroach upon attorney privilege [Mandatsgeheimnis]. 

            Otto Fricke (FDP): Collective accounts, Herr colleague! 

            Jürgen Coße (SPD): Otto, he’s not familiar with that!

It would have been a systemic break. There would have been considerably more administrative expense. It’s therefore nice that you in the last meters have managed to eliminate that from the law. 

All in all: You now previously from here have heard a comprehensive, Shakespearean weighing of the pros and cons of this law. 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): I believe you have never read Shakespeare.

We have wrestled with it, we have debated, and as a result come to the view: We unfortunately cannot vote in favor. That will not prevent this law, it also should not; we will with absolute vigor abstain. 

I thus for the AfD delegation dispatch or release, on a nice evening, you and the guests above in the gallery into the Berlin nightlife. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Jörn König, July 4, 2024, Digital Euro

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/181, pp. 23585-23586. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable colleagues. Dear savers. 

I affirm that the FDP and the Union have taken over our slogan from the first reading, “Cash is Printed Freedom” – very nice! 

            Enrico Komning (AfD): Excellent! Well done!

Our goal is namely to maintain cash as the only legal means of payment, and bind the introduction of the digital euro to a referendum vote according to Article 20, paragraph 2 of the Basic Law. 

The Union cannot do that; since the AfD is the only party which wants to introduce the popular referendum at the Federal level. The Union is thus restricted in its possibilities and thus “only” demands that the German Bundestag needs to agree to the introduction of a digital euro. More, the Union cannot do. 

The Ampel coalition is still much worse: They want to allow introduction of the digital euro by the ECB without any parliamentary control. 

Currencies – this, the German Currency Union of 1 July 1990 has shown – need to be a matter of the entire people, 

            Enrico Komning (AfD): That is true democracy! 

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): Of that, you have no idea! 

            Enrico Komning (AfD): Yes, direct democracy!

and plainly not the decision of technocrats. Yet the ECB consists only of technocrats, and presently Germany as the largest nation in the ECB Council does not have a vote. 

            Frank Schäffler (FDP): No, we have a vote!

For many months, no vote; the voting rights rotate every four months. 

In the U.S.A. also the risks are recognized and the central bank by law is forbidden three points, among others: First, to issue a digital dollar without express approval of the Congress; second, to issue the digital dollar direct to an individual person; and third, to give up control over the digital currency policy to unelected technocrats. If indeed our hegemon U.S.A. warns of the surveillance by means of digital currencies, then there must be something to it. 

The digital euro is from our viewpoint a further step in the direction of the virtualization of money – away from the human haptic 

            (The speaker holds up a piece of paper)

to a virtual abstraction. 

Jens Zimmermann (SPD): Yet you think it is not too big! What then is done with 200 euro bills?

Together with the EU-ID, a possible programming ability and a social credit system, some horror visions could become true. 

            Frank Schäffler (FDP): Your friends in China do it!

The authorities could limit where, when and what one may be paid, they could observe any transaction and take note. 

            Johannes Steiniger (CDU/CSU): Nonsense! 

            Armand Zorn (SPD): Simply just nonsense!

The state could connect the account with the CO₂ exhaust and the social credit score. 

            Johannes Steiniger (CDU/CSU): Are you still reciting correctly?

Yet the ultimate horror would be that account could be completely frozen. We do not want all of that, since freedom is the only thing that counts! 

            Jens Zimmermann (SPD): Do the people in the Ukraine also think that?

For all who think that the euro is a success story: The euro since its existence has lost 80 percent of its value. An 80 percent loss of value, that is a catastrophe for the saver. The measurement of value in euros is as absurd 

            Vice-president Katrin Göring-Eckardt: Herr König.

as if one wants to measure length with a rubber band. 

            Vice-president Katrin Göring-Eckardt: Come to an end. 

We are thus in favor of the measurement of value by money with a fixed, defined connection

Vice-president Katrin Göring-Eckardt: Your speaking time is up.

to natural resources. 

            Vice-president Katrin Göring-Eckardt: Your speaking time, Herr König, is up.

Many thanks for your attention. 

 

[trans: tem]

Norbert Kleinwächter, July 4, 2024, Collective Bargaining

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/181, pp. 23574-23575. 

Valued colleagues. 

In this place, I greet all people in Germany who work hard and produce something significant. The members of the Linke group do not belong to that. You have the impudence to here again present for discussion a motion which this plenary session has already rejected, word for word – it’s about your motion in Drucksache 20/6885. 

            Matthais W. Birkwald (Linke): You did not find the distinction!

And that allows a deep look over your diligence and your intellectual depth, right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

Yet I again gladly explain to you why your demands which you have made are complete nonsense. You demand an action plan for strengthening the collective bargaining [Tarifbindung]  in Germany. First: Collective bargaining is of course a good. We want that people have wage contracts, that they ultimately have a secure work relationship. That is certainly in everyone’s interest. 

Yet we should not base that on an EU guideline. Quite honestly, the European Union has absolutely nothing to do with wage rate law. Just because some EU commissioner up there in Brussels thinks that some action plan should be developed for a collective bargaining quota of under 80 percent, we still need develop no action plan; since the European Union has nothing at all to do with that, ladies and gentlemen. That, you should for once understand. 

And generally, is it then significant to declare generally binding wage rate contracts? For starters, your argument that more is earned with collective bargaining than without is already false. We have heard differing numbers. In your motion, you write it is 36 percent more; Herr Dieron said  something like 12 percent. In fact, one arrives, when the numbers are cleared up, at 2 to 6 percent which the people earn more with wage rate contracts than without collective bargaining.   

            Frank Bsirske (Greens): Sorry nonsense!

So far, it makes no great difference. 

Primarily, it is nevertheless thus far significant for Germany as a business venue to preserve the coalition’s freedom, as a general obligation of course would also make possible excessive resolutions and thereby endanger the business venue of Germany. We also require competition by businesses not bound by collective bargaining so that the resolutions remain rational, ladies and gentlemen. 

For exactly that reason is it also quite dangerous to set aside the mechanism which we in fact have in regards the declaration of general obligation of wage rate contracts. Here it is certain that employee and employer representatives in common need to present a motion. In a wage rate committee, it will again be examined in regards the national economy, and then released or not by the Federal Ministry for Labor and Social Affairs. You want to abolish this system so that the employee representatives can even go and demand: We now want a 300 euros per hour wage for our employees. Ladies and gentlemen, I can say to you: For 300 euros per hour, then absolutely no one works, because the position no longer exists, because the employers are then simply no longer able to afford this wage. It first needs to be earned, what one is then paid in wages. This basic course in economics once again needs be given to the Linke, ladies and gentlemen. 

The solution is fully another one. The labor unions for that very reason still lose members, because they have become purely lifestyle unions, because they concern themselves with some LGBTQIA+ things, yet not in the interests of the workers, ladies and gentlemen. 

Frank Bsirske (Greens): That is clueless! You are clueless! You have no idea at all! I’m sorry! Nothing other! 

Martin Reichardt (AfD): That’s quite true for the Greens in the Bundestag! There they sit, the over-the-hill labor union bosses!

We now simply need to bring down the taxes, we need to bring down the duties for the businesses! Out of the socio-ecological transformation! Do you know how the wages then may rise? That, you simply cannot imagine, Herr Bsirske. Madness! 

            Vice-president Katrin Göring-Eckardt: Herr Kleinwächter. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Beatrix von Storch, July 5, 2024, Pro-Life and Criminal Law

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/182, pp. 23698-23699. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

The left-greens can primarily do one thing: Discover ideological fighting words. Today, a new one: Sidewalk harassment [Gehsteigbelästigung], discovered by gender ideologue Ulrike Lembke. 

Filiz Polat (Greens): What rubbish is this, then?

All forms of relevant harassment are nevertheless today culpable, or are a violation of an ordinance. 

            Christina Baum (AfD): Right!

Thus why now Gehsteigbelästigung? An Orwellian newspeak. 

You want to demolish basic rights of Christians and defenders of life. For you, it is not about climate clingers who block hundreds of thousands of motorists, or about tens of thousands of leftist extremists seeking to prevent with violence an AfD party day, and also not about Islamists who in their fighting prayers conquer our public space. You find all of that to be fantastic or democratic or acceptable. Yet when Christians and defenders of life make use of their right to freedom of opinion or freedom of assembly, then you hollow out [drehen Sie hohl]. 

The Federal Administrative Court on 23 May 2023 clearly held that defenders of life may demonstrate in front of pro-family abortion centers. 

            Filiz Polat (Greens): What then is that for a term?

I cite: 

“There is in a pluralistic society no right to remain entirely exempt from the confrontation with divergent religious presentations or opinions.”

With that, all is said. 

You present in your draft law the assertion that, by means of sidewalk harassment, counseling offices and abortion clinics would be hindered in their activity, or those pregnant restrained from entering them. 

Canan Bayram (Greens): No, the women are hindered in their counseling possibilities. You need to read it correctly, Frau von Storch!

A dumb thing, that is a dumb thing! You know that. For that, there is no statistic, there is no survey, there are no police reports, there is simply nothing. You discover a problem which does not exist so that you have a reason to proceed with state repression against Christians and defenders of life. 

It is little surprising that the preparation for this comes from the Heinrich Böll Foundation, which in 2021 published an evaluation with the title, “Possibilities of Statutory New Regulation in the Conflict Field of Sidewalk Harassment”. The author: Sina Fontana. And here it becomes interesting, since Frau Fontana has written another evaluation with the title, “Universal Women’s Rights and Islamic Law”. 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Oh! An interesting alliance!

Fontana therein wrote that the Scharia is quite wonderfully compatible with women’s rights. That is the Greens: Criminalize Christian prayers because against women’s rights, but praise and extol Scharia because good for women’s rights. 

            Christina Baum (AfD): Unbelievable!

The central point: Who like the Greens and the Linke defend Scharia, for them it is not about women’s rights, but for them it is about the fight against our culture.           

Canan Bayram (Greens): You have a Scharia fetish, Frau von Storch!

And in this culture war, the green Verbot parties want to silence critics, naturally with friendly support of the FDP. One prayer or the protest of defenders of life: 5,000 euro fine. Here in the Bundestag, to name a specific first name in a specific context: 1,000 euro fine. The Green catalogue of fines for forbidden expressions will soon become very long. 

            Gero Clemens Hocker (FDP): Expensive for you, Frau von Storch!

This law is unconstitutional and breathes the spirit of a totalitarian Green ideology. 

Canan Bayram (Greens): A court still decides, and not you, what is compatible with the constitution!

And the CDU wants to forbid the prayers, but thinks for that the right of assembly suffices; you have indeed said it, and Frau Breiler also on Wednesday in committee. Alone the FDP – not alone the FDP is responsible, but it shares in all of this. 

            Lukas Köhler (FDP): Your confusion is noted.

Alone the AfD stands for defense of life and freedom of opinion. 

Ladies and gentlemen, to me you will not forbid prayers, and also not the expression of the male name of Markus. 

 

[trans: tem]

Fabian Jacobi, July 4, 2024, The German Language

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/181, pp. 23455-23456. 

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen. 

With associations, it is so a matter: What in regards a new item of business comes to one spontaneously, often appears accidental and then proves to be of little help. In the case put forward, my thoughts certainly turn back more often in further course to the matter which this draft law for me initially called to mind. The famous sociologist and economist Max Weber expressed it in his entry speech at the University of Freiberg in the year 1895, and he said: 

“Big businesses which are only to be maintained at the cost of German nationality, from the standpoint of the nation are worthy of perishing…”

Now, the circumstance to which this matter referred – it was about the collapse of the noble estates in the Prussian agrarian areas – has well nigh sunk into the fogs of history. And the verbal characteristic of Weber’s speech for us today has become foreign. Yet it would be decadent arrogance to believe on that account alone we could easily do without the insights and thoughts of earlier generations. 

You, ladies and gentlemen, want by means of the law which you today are deciding “to strengthen Germany as a venue of justice [Justizstandort Deutschland]” The expression reveals the authors’ world view. It is a view which we do not share. 

The German state is no business firm which has to compete for a share of the market. The German state is, if so desired, the worldly form [weltliche Gestalt] of the German nation the continuation of which it has to serve. To this belongs that the language of this Republic is and remains the German language. 

            Stephan Brandner (AfD): Exactly!

You want to strengthen the justice venue in which German courts further conduct proceedings in the English language, and no longer pronounce sentence in the name of the people in the language of the people. 

This shall initially apply only for a specific category of judicial procedures. It would  nevertheless be naïve to suppose the matter will thereby rest. The FDP, the minister of which is responsible for the law, demands introducing quite generally the English language as an official language of the German state. We recognize here the first step of a classic salami tactic: Once the salami begins to be cut, it is only a question of time until it is completely consumed. 

Ladies and gentlemen, we experience for long already the downfall of our language. The loss of its earlier importance beyond our borders needs not be mourned; yet it might be explained as a consequence of two destructive world wars. Meanwhile long since also occurs the decline in its own land. 

Martin Plum (CDU/CSU): In the Legal Affairs Committee, also with you!

Ever more often it happens that in businesses the staff are urged to communicate with one another not in German but in English. Universities hold teaching events in the English language, even if all participants are native German speakers or are fluent in German. 

Carsten Müller (CDU/CSU-Braunschweig): You as a member speak English in committee!

And now also shall a core area of our state, the justice, begin the process of the suppression of our language. If we open this door a crack, so will it tomorrow be completely pushed open. It should remain closed. This applies all the more as the implications disturb not only the national but also the democratic character of our polity. 

In the pre-democratic ages, the feudal ruling class spoke to one another in French, despised the German language as a language of farmers and domestics. This situation was overcome by the bürgerlichen and democratic revolution of the 19^th Century. The German national state which grew out of that revolution would be entirely perverted; in the 21^st Century, it wanted to set about abetting a revival of such a social division [Der deutsche Nationalstaat, der aus jener Revolution erwuchs, würde gänzlich pervertiert, wollte er sich im 21. Jahrhundert daranmachen, einem Wiederaufleben solcher gesellschaftlicher Spaltung Vorschub zu leisten]. I began this speech with a citation, and with a citation I also close: 

            Erhard Grundl (Greens): The main thing, to end! 

“We hope that what always distinguishes and will distinguish the nation from other nations…our beautiful language, will not become dry and common, but will renew its nobility, and with it all that finds its expression in words. If that not be done, what would all recovered great power and seeming power then help us?”

Golo Mann wrote that as a closing sentence of his Deutschen Geschichte. And if my speech will surely have no influence on today’s vote, may it still be taken to heart by one or another for his future work in this house. 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

Rainer Kraft, July 5, 2024, Energy Policy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/182, pp. 23642-23643. 

Right honorable President. Valued colleagues. 

The draft law put forward by the government serves the purpose, cost what it may, of attaining the EU’s planned economic intentions for renewable electricity generation. And to this purpose you subordinate everything – apparently motivated by an eco-mania. You strive for no less than a comprehensive industrialization of the German ocean areas and in your blind mania toss all sensibility overboard. 

            Renate Künast (Greens): Blah, blah, blah! 

If you would interest yourselves with the same élan for the citizens of this country as for the EU’s planning target – in regards the latter, your wet dream becomes true – I would need not stand here today, Frau Künast. You skew German planning, environment and conservation law as you would lead the Bitterfeld chemical combine or a sweatshop in Bangladesh – all in the name of the eco-socialism for an establishment of the green world order. 

You endanger international shipping by which you negligently shorten the clearance of the monster wind parks through the shipping routes. 4,200 meters does not correspond to the requirements of modern shipping. Your ignorance of safety aspects thus endangers human lives and increases the danger of shipwrecks with consequent disastrous environmental catastrophes. Just three years ago, you forbade balloons to the children and replaced plastic straws with paper straws contaminated with perfluorooctanoic acid. Now you want to take care that we release into the sea each year hundreds of tons of microplastic abrasions per windpower park – each year, hundreds of tons of microplastics. Your double morality will here be exceeded only by your economic incompetence, since a customer or circuits for your electricity and your hydrogen on land – that simply does not all exist. 

Let us remain with hydrogen, for which you plan offshore generation. In times in which the German industry cites the energy costs as emigration and insolvency reason number one, you want to establish the hydrogen from offshore electricity as a new energy carrier. Okay, let’s look for once at what that costs. For one kilowatt-hour of hydrogen is needed around three kilowatt-hours for the electrolysis. One kilowatt-hour from your monster park costs for the generation around ten cents per kilowatt-hour. 

            Renate Künast (Greens): Can you speak somewhat more lightly? We are                                    not listening!

We would thus already be at 30 cents in energy costs per kilowatt-hour of hydrogen – pure  energy costs. The production and write-off costs of the electrolysis installations in the midst of the corrosive ocean environment are still not figured in. Just to recall: This government, this coalition, introduced a cap on gas prices of 12 cents per kilowatt-hour so that the gas prices not lead to the impoverishment of the people and the ruin of the German economy. And the same government with the same coalition wants to establish a future energy carrier for which today alone we need to contribute 30 cents per kilowatt-hour in energy costs. Thus, dear coalition, he who needs to use this hydrogen of yours, he can toss the money roll directly into the oven. 

Yet the economy nevertheless still only plays a subordinate role in the Economy Ministry. In the law’s statement of purpose it is quite openly named – cite: 

“The changes are adopted to align Germany’s entire line, its entire climate, energy and economic policy, to the 1.5 degree climate defense path…”

Aha, the German economy, the motor of our prosperity, is for this government only a hindrance which needs to be overcome on the way to the red-green Utopia. This government deliberately incinerates umpteen billion euros in tax money for the construction of a deformed energy system which robs this nation of its entire ability to compete. And the only profiteers will be foreign states, multinational investors and additional subvention appendages. 

To sabotage the output power of our economy by means of over-expensive and scarce energies endangers our prosperity, the future of our children and the social security of our nation. A fundamental change of course in the German energy policy is thus absolutely necessary, and in place of the fulfillment of socialist planning, a cool, virtuous reason needs again to enter. Yet there is this change of course only with the Alternative für Deutschland. 

 

[trans: tem]