Alice Weidel, September 11, 2024, Economy, Immigration, Democracy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/184, pp. 23858-23861. 

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable Herr Chancellor. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. 

Almost three weeks have passed by since the horrific, terrorist knife attack by a rejected Syrian asylum applicant in Solingen. Ten days have gone by in the country since the crushing election defeat in Saxony and Thüringen which has degraded your Chancellor party to a splinter party. 

You still want to make believe that the voters run away from you in droves because you did not well enough explain to them your policy. The opposite is the case: The citizens have quite sufficiently grasped that your policy means prosperity destruction, de-industrialization, mass migration, and loss of domestic security. You are the Chancellor of decline, Herr Scholz. 

For the erosion of Germany as an industrial nation also stands the decline of Volkswagen. For the ostensible climate protection, you destroy the German economy. Yet the Volkswagen disaster is only the tip of the iceberg. The statistics record 500,000, a half million unemployed since you overtook the government. That is a hundred thousand families, millions of people who need to fear for their future. 

It affects all branches, especially the automobile industry and all that depends on it. Supplier ZF eliminates up to 14,000 positions. At SAP, 10,000 jobs fall away, at Ford 4,600, at Bosch 3,760, at Bayer 3,200, at BASF 3,300, at Michelin 1,500, at Miele 1,300, at Continental 1,200. The most resonant names axe workplaces in Germany and remove them to foreign countries because they are no longer competitive here. 

Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Which of those which you have counted up have been threatened by Herr Höcke?

The list becomes daily longer. Thyssenkrupp’s steel branch proves to be unmarketable because it is uneconomic, and stands before the downfall. 27,000 workplaces are in danger. The number of insolvencies in July reached a ten-year high, 40 percent more than in the previous year. A dramatic balance, and it is your balance, Herr Scholz. 

Your Heat Pump Minister Habeck, whom I miss here today – where actually is Minister Habeck at this debate? – 

            Saskia Esken (SPD): He has Corona!

– wants to compel the threatened private households to pay for the politically demanded demolition of perfectly functioning gas networks. 

The budget which you have put forward after many vain starts is as dilettante and cobbled together as your entire coalition government. You take from the citizens tax money and duties in record sums, and despite that nothing comes. You pile up mountains of debt and for you it does not suffice. To say it clearly: This budget is an insolence and a frivolity not to be surpassed. 

While you seek to soothe the citizens with alibi politics and migration summits, everyday ever more knife attacks and rapes by migrants occur. 

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): By rightist radicals, too!

You celebrate, shortly before the State legislative elections, an absurd luxury deportation of an entire 28 most serious Afghan criminals and on the way endow them with a princely pocket money of 1,000 euros. That is two years wages for an Afghan: 

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Unbelievable!

The pay for murder and rape and a further invitation for illegal migration. 

At the same time, the Federal Interior Ministry under Nancy Faeser finances a portal which in newspeak calls for tips and tricks against its own authority so as to elude deportations. This Federal government sabotages deportations in that, at the cost of the taxpayer, it allots residency permits for legal residence opportunities and creates additional legal assistance for those obliged to leave. The Solingen assailant could for months evade his return to Bulgaria because a Green Minister thwarted deportations and a CDU Minister-president indulged her. More than half the year, the taxpayer works for the state which entices illegal migrants into the country and robs the citizens of the security which it owes to them. 

The Solingen victims would still live and be uninjured, had those responsible acted according to law and statute. That is to say, first and foremost, not to just let illegal migrants into the country, but to close the borders and turn back everyone who wants to break into Germany without a legal claim and without papers – not temporarily, but forever! 

That is besides no option, that is a legal obligation which you have. Article 16A of the Basic Law clearly says: Those entering from secure third states have no claim to asylum. §18 of the asylum law states that the turning back of these illegals is not only permissible but ordered. No European legal obligations sets this regulation – 

Can you behind me speak a bit more softly? Yes, it does disturb. That, we do not do. 

            Dorothee Bär (CDI/CSU): How thin-skinned you are! 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): You are screaming!

Thus: No European legal – 

With you, it’s the purest kindergarten, and the next election is coming! – 

For a third time, I begin so that you may know the law: No European legal regulation disempowers that. No sovereign state can be compelled to tolerate entries counter to its law and its intent. 

And then came a CDU Kanzlerin. This Kanzlerin nine years ago wiped away with a stroke of the pen this applicable law and established the rule of injustice which has ruined Germany. It is thus all scrap paper which the CDU tells you today, and Herr Merz will later tell. 

The CDU’s  Realpolitik we besides see in Berlin. Here, in CDU-governed Berlin, the number of naturalizations explodes. There are few rejections of those seeking naturalization: 60 percent more naturalizations in Berlin in the first eight months of this year than in the entire previous year. So looks the CDU policy! 

Mass migration and a migration policy renunciation of control have deadly consequences. We need the migration change, and indeed immediately! 

            Ralf Stegner (SPD): Yet you want deportations!

Non-Germans grab a knife six times more and commit sexual crimes seven times more than German citizens. Thus has the chief of the Federal Police, Romann, summarized the situation. 

Since 2017, as stated in the BKA numbers, more than 52,000 women are victims of a sexual crime by asylum migrants. The principal countries of origin: Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq. The numbers of gang rapes last year rose to 761, more than two of these horrific crimes every day. Of the 209 gang rapes in the State of Nordrhein-Westfalen are almost three-quarters of the suspects non-Germans or have a declared migration background. Around two-thirds of the suspects in criminal bands are non-Germans. What are you waiting for? Finally deport these criminals! 

Against exploding migrant criminality, only immediate, robust measures help: A strict moratorium for immigration, a stop of reception and naturalization of all migrants for at least five years and no naturalization of people who are dependent on our social system, a closure of the borders, a turning away of all illegals without exception, an immediate identification of all illegals and criminals, limitation of all financial, legal and social state incentives, benefits in kind instead of money, and finally the overhaul of the asylum law. That, a responsible, AfD-led government would do now. 

You all in the last years have driven forward the migration policy failures of the state. Still more: You have stamped out the way of reason and instead divided society. You have systematically defamed critics and, with noxious comparisons and wicked scatological and Nazi language, dehumanized and set the secret service on them. Herr Hofreiter of the Greens, with his demand to ban the platform X, has shown the hateful grimace of the totalitarian malignant spirit which you command. 

That is also to say: You hold freedom of opinion to be more dangerous than the boundless import of murderers and terrorists. Instead of seeking in fair arenas the best solution, 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Fair? That doesn’t go together with the AfD!

you rob the opposition of important parliamentary rights. To this day, you deny to us due positions in the Bundestag praesidium, in decisive bodies, in the committees. You thereby rob six million voters of their full parliamentary representation. You are those who truly scorn democracy and the state of law. 

With threadbare manipulations, your comrades in Saxony and Thüringen want to continue this election fraud and, with all means, keep the power, to which a third of the voters have given a quite clear mandate, away from the government and its rights. Your democratic middle, which you constructed for that, is as democratic as the middle D in the DDR. In the election campaign, the CDU copied from the AfD, yet rejected all of our motions – comical – and after the election they close ranks with the leftist unity front. 

Yet that changes nothing of our resolution, in the interest of our country, to put a stop to this grotesquerie, and at the latest in the next election period which hopefully does not just begin in a year. 

            Britta Haßelmann (Greens): Where? In Switzerland or here?

Since Germany can no longer wait so long for reforms, and so long may our country no longer endure it [und so hält das unser Land auch nicht mehr aus]. Who wants authentic change and reforms, votes for the Alternative für Deutschland. 

I am grateful. 

 

[trans: tem]

Enrico Komning, July 5, 2024, Coal

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/182, 23650-23651. 

Right honorable Frau President. My ladies and gentlemen colleagues. Dear Herr State Minister. Right honorable Herr State Secretary. My ladies and gentlemen of the Union. 

Herr State Minister, there is no overall social consensus for a withdrawal from coal. That is an illusion. That is a fairy tale. And it hurts me so: The Union tells these tales in tune with the left-greens. 

This coal withdrawal is a political project by-passing the people, primarily the people in the eastern German coal regions. The structural change, other than in the Ruhr, is not organic, not a result of technological progress, but solely a result of political intent. And the worst of it is: You of the Federal government have no concept. You come with the wrecking ball and then leave the people standing in front of the dump. 

Johannes Ardt (SPD): Och!

The Ampel would even most preferably move up the withdrawal to 2030. What you do here is irresponsible, dear Federal government. The people in the region need security, and not fear of the future. 

The decision for a coal withdrawal was a fatal failure. We need the coal, at least until we again have extensive gas- and, before all, nuclear-power plants. Look for once at how many coal power plants were in the network at the end of 2020, before the final atomic exit. There were 74. And today? Today it is 130. And in 2022 were just three nuclear power plants in the network. Your withdrawal from nuclear power made Germany still more dependent on coal, and now even that shall go. You transform Germany back into the Stone Age. 

In terms of climate technology, the withdrawal is completely superfluous. The total output from the German coal power plants contributed about 40 gigawatts. That is clearly less than China alone in the year 2023 started in new coal power capacity. Germany, with this government, is for no one in this world a model – on the contrary: The other countries just laugh over this energy nonsense. 

To the Union’s motions. Some of it, what is in the motions, – independent of the coal withdrawal – is, ja, reasonable; for example, the construction of the rail infrastructure. Nevertheless, it well needs be asked: Who deconstructed the rail infrastructure? That was the case under the aegis of the Union. 

            Sepp Müller (CDU/CSU): Just look at the record books!

Yet it is right to build up the rail infrastructure. Establishments from research centers: Right. And it is also right to create a highly qualified employment structure. 

The mainstay of the economy in the coal region in Brandenburg, Saxony and Thüringen is however the Mittelstand, especially small and very small business, manufacturing businesses. An attractive trades economy would be an authentic jobs motor. Finally free the trades from the Ampel bureaucracy! That would be more sensible than subvention orgies. 

We can nevertheless not agree to vote in favor of your current motion; since you also hold this unspeakable eco-socialist transformation to be correct; you hold fast to it, dear colleagues of the Union. 

Hydrogen is a wrong way. Hydrogen is not economic and will let the energy prices continue to explode; my colleague Dr. Kraft has directly explained that in the previous debates. The energy value of hydrogen is below par; it is of no use. You cannot simply convert the available gas pipelines to hydrogen. Here, you needed two or three times the pipe capacity. That, my ladies and the gentlemen colleagues, has now already been thoroughly plundered by this government, 

            Johannnes Ardt (SPD): Och!

and for future generations is not a financial expectation. Leave to the people their coal, in a literal and figurative sense. 

And, dear citizens in the eastern German coal regions, be smart, and in autumn vote blue [seid schlau, und wählt im Herbst blau]! 

Many thanks. 

 

[trans: tem]

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]