Alice Weidel, April 12, 2019, Europe

Alice Weidel

Europe

German Bundestag, April 12, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/96, pp. 11559-11560

[Alice Weidel is a chairman of the Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag delegation.]

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Worthy colleagues.

First of all, I must be truly astonished by the attendance on the government bench for this so important theme, we wishing today to discuss the future of Europe.

            Florian Hahn (CDU/CSU): Almost all are there! But the AfD is drawn up right 

            proper!

Europe stands before great challenges. In a multipolar world, a unified continent is, from the geopolitical as well as economic viewpoint, of great significance. Yet let us look at where Europe and the EU are today. Which place do we really occupy in the world? There, the numbers speak clear speech. In the year 1970, the portion of the world’s real gross domestic product attributed to today’s EU-28 was 35 percent. By last year, the portion had sunk to 23 percent. That corresponds to a decline of 33 percent, a third.

            René Rösel (SPD): The total portion has increased.

I really do not understand why you are already so excited about the numbers.

            René Rösel (SPD): Yes, and China?

For once please wean yourselves from rumpus here in parliament during discussion! [Gewöhnen Sie sich das Rumbrüllen bei Diskussionen hier im Parlament bitte einmal ab!]. The voters at the ballot box will appraise how you here behave yourselves, right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

            Britta Haßelmann (Bündnis90/Grünen): You certainly don’t have a good track 

            record!

The EU’s portion of world gross domestic product has receded by about a third. And for that is your politics guilty. It is bitter for our once so proud continent, in which some of the EU and euro projects are out of control.

            Sylvia Kotting-Uhl (Bündnis90/Grünen): You are so ignorant! Unbelievable!

            Katrin Göring-Eckardt (Bündnis90/Grünen): And from where comes the money 
            now?

            Britta Haßelmann (Bündnis90/Grünen): Was it now actually from Switzerland?

The devaluation of the national parliaments by the Brussels bureaucracy is in fact no childhood illness of which it is to be cured.

Herr Hofreiter, do not get yourself so excited. I indeed do not understand why you yet again almost fall out of the chair! That is just unbelievable!

Anton Hofreiter (Bündnis90/Grünen): We amuse ourselves over you! Tell us some more about the Franks!

The devaluation of the national parliaments is no childhood illness but an intentional, fundamental decision. And he who wants to overcome the nation and its democrats strives for another form of government –

            Katrin Göring-Eckardt (Bündnis90/Grünen): And now the donors.

- namely, the empire, directed by decision makers without democratic legitimacy.

Britta Haßelmann (Bündnis90/Grünen): Now for once, courage for the truth [Mut zur Wahrheit].

In this unholy presentation of Europe, which we do not share, the little politicians will ever more  divest the national states and demote them to the rank of provinces. Such a unitary state is undemocratic because it is necessarily confronted with consensus problems which are to be discharged in small-scale ways, in smaller units. The national state is small enough to induce the citizens’ process of identification without which there can be no commonwealth, and it is large enough to enforce domestically and externally the sovereignty of the commonwealth. The national state therefore cannot be renounced, right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Without it, the state of law, democracy and social solidarity cannot be organized.

Back to the EU level. The national states are the masters of the treaty. They are the only source of democratic legitimacy.

            Anton Hofreiter (Bündnis90/Grünen): Who wants to abolish the Euro-

            parliament?

A preferred method of killing off the national parliaments is to build up the [European] Union by the further bringing forward of guidelines and ordinances. Bundespräsident Herzog once stated that 80 percent of all laws come out of Brussels. An example: EU Ordinance, Council Document 1421/17, for the setting of emission standards for passenger vehicles. The EU wants to introduce consumption tests for Pkws [passenger vehicles]. The selected limits are thereby so low that the ordinance is the equivalent of a ban on combustion engines. Every seventh job in this country, right honorable ladies and gentlemen, depends directly or indirectly on the automobile industry. We of the AfD had therefore more than a year ago moved that Germany protect itself against this destructive ordinance from Brussels with a subsidiarity reprimand, and all of you rejected it. That is the deconstruction of a key industry in Germany. I must say to you quite honestly, we of the AfD want to secure competitiveness, solidarity, the social state and our welfare.

            Britta Haßelmann (Bündnis90/Grünen): You want to do away with Europe! I 
            think you want to do away with the euro!

And quite honestly: in regards all of you, it is not so clear to me that you also want that.

Many hearty thanks.

            Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): Solid bargains with Salvini!

[Translated by Todd Martin]

           

Peter Boehringer, April 11, 2019, Target System

Peter Boehringer

Target Requirements

German Bundestag, April 11, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/95, pp. 11340-11341

[Peter Boehringer is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the southern German state of Bavaria. He is a businessman, investor and author and is currently chairman of the Bundestag budget committee. He here presents an AfD motion calling for the federal government to enter into negotiations with European Central Bank (EZB) concerning the Target system, the major element of the euro rescue regime.]

Herr President. Honorable colleagues.

Target 2 is an extension of credit by the Bundesbank – without terms of maturity, without amortization obligation, without maximum limit, without payment of interest. It consists of unsecured, unmanageable and unaccountably worthless obligations of a sum nearly three times the yearly federal budget. The Target system is in fact the largest, single vehicle of the euro rescue.

The Bundesbank nevertheless continues to deny the risk factor of this position. The Eurozone is in fact regarded as unalterable, ja, as immortal, even though its general framework is creaking. Yesterday the Italians significantly increased their deficit forecast. UBS and Handelsblatt have this week even discussed an Italo-exit.

Until 2007, cross-border payments for decades were made entirely without Target balances by the private inter-bank market. And before Target 2, there was a flourishing world commerce. And, yes, we here have long since been exporting. Why then a further Target debate? There are four, equally good reasons for that.

First, it is now apparent the Bundesbank’s 2018 expectation, that with the end of the EZB’s bond purchases the Target balance would no longer increase, was unfortunately false. It is not so. There was a one-time, technical balance decrease in January of this year. The present March balance is approximately 70 billion euros greater than in February; at 941 billion euros, now again at an almost all-time high.

The federal government hoped seven years earlier for an improvement of Target 2. State Secretary Koschyk said here in 2012:

The federal government is proceeding on the basis that…Target balances…in the mid-term again decrease.

Since then, they have increased by hundreds of billions of euros. A trillion is now in sight. The long-term origins of the Target balances, trade imbalances due to the euro’s exchange corset and capital flight from the southern European countries, are actually unaltered. Nothing has changed.

Second reason. The alteration of the EZB’s statutes for a new regulation of its payments system announced in the fall of 2018 is not yet complete. There thus exists a good opportunity for this house and for the federal government to participate in the new regulation which we should finally grasp.

The third reason. It has lent itself to a little progress: It would for all that advertise a hearing – as we saw once – on the theme in the committees. Our motion presented today is a contribution to that.

The fourth reason. In the informed debate as well as in the federal accounting office and in the accounting audit committee are now voices recently heard which regard the Target system as a risk to the continuation of the euro – a viewpoint which we have shared and accepted for years. The Target requirements are in any case risky and that does mean initially with the complete collapse of the euro system.

With an Italo-exit there exists a high risk of the assets of the Banca Italia and the Italian commercial banks becoming distressed due to increasing interest at exactly the same time the 490 billion euros of the Italian Target obligations become interest-bearing. Italy must then in a moreover critical situation make very high Target interest payments. For the EZB the result would be initially to the detriment of many billions, and thus for the Bundesbank on account of its participation…in case of a euro exit it is fully clear that the Target obligations owed to the Bundesbank by Italy and Spain as the largest indirect debtor states will never be able to be paid back at value. For the national economy, these obligations are a complete risk.

The federal government in 2012 was more honest about the risk assessment. Then State Secretary Kampeter said:

Risks as a result of the Target 2 balances can only be realized with the exit of a country from the currency union.

Today, however, the risk of loss is denied by reference to the EZB as counter-party for the Bundesbank, which, ja, can never become insolvent. That is the story. That is, even for the EZB, irresponsible to the tune of 941 billion euros. Even a partial write-off of the Target obligations would rapidly consume the EZB’s own capital. That would also concern the Bundesbank, the EZB’s companion [Gesellschafterin]. Despite that, the Bundesbank unfortunately is forming no back-up for a deficiency. In an out year, it could as a consequence pay no profits into the federal household which would correspondingly be charged to the federal budget. In certain circumstances, the Bundesbank will have to be re-capitlaized with a three-figure billion euro sum of tax money. The German taxpayer would foot the bill to rescue the southern European states.

Many are currently saying: The USA also has a Target system. That is correct. But the EZB in 1999 made a bad copy of the so-called Fedwire system. The practically unlimited transfer of risk which is built into the European Target system is not in the Fedwire. The regional banks of the Fed system each year must cover their deficits with real asset values, even formally with gold. And so in the U.S. Target system it never comes to such absurd repudiations as in the EZB Target system.

Target 2 makes up nearly half of the German net foreign assets of some 2 trillion euros. That is the material savings of Germans in foreign countries. Almost 50 percent of this pays no interest and is at risk.

Even gold purchases would therefore be a better way: For 941 billion euros you receive approximately 25,000 tons of gold, or almost eight times the official state gold of the Bundesbank.

The Bank for International Settlements has recently decided in the context of the new Basel III regulations to accept in the future gold as bank capital. That is new and is an opportunity for the banks to rebuild their own capital or public assets and similarly reduce the unspeakably high Target balance. Gold plainly is not a barbaric relic as it is often described in Keynesian circles.

Unfortunately, the Bundesbank still says: Target balances are not obligations but irrelevant accounting entries. Yet they are credit obligations; otherwise, they would not be entered as such on the active side of the account. The question besides is officially clarified: EZB chief Draghi has required the Italians to pay back their Target liabilities in the case of an exit. That is quite clearly an indication of a credit. Naturally the Italians could and would not do that: Upon an Italo-exit, to pay at last its EU dowry of 490 billion euros. Naturally is that absurd. Therefore: To dispose of Target as a risk-free accounting sum, as the Bundesbank is doing, is a virtual rejection of standard book-keeping practice and thereby a falsification of the current economic relations underlying the balances.

Here is an accounting system which changes Germany into an uncontrollable, suddenly by-the-billions-worth source of credit for foreigners.

So please take a constructive part in the committee’s search for a workable solution for the German taxpayer. The AfD proposes as some options gold purchase and a re-securing of obligations and thereby implicitly also a renewal of interest payments.

            Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): You do know your way about gold purchases!

There are besides also others: For example, a Mediterranean fund, supplied by German credit, or a large investment program for improvements of German schools and streets which must be however performed by firms from southern European countries. While that would indeed be Keynesian debt stimulus, it would lead to a good use of the Bundesbank’s otherwise worthless Target balance. That would perhaps even be something for the left-wing delegations of this house. So please let us speak of this in committee and perhaps during the hearing.

Thank you.

[Translated by Todd Martin]

Rüdiger Lucassen, April 5, 2019, Arms Exports

Rüdiger Lucassen

Arms Exports

German Bundestag, April 5, 2019, Plenarprotokoll 19/93, pp. 11210-11211

[Rüdiger Lucassen is an Alternative für Deutschland Bundestag member from the western German state of Nordrhein-Westphalen. He is a retired army colonel.]

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

Who does not stand up openly for his convictions, and these clarify and defend, will be pushed into the corner. That is happening indeed again to the CDU. For that, the preceding speaker from the CDU has furnished proof. The government actually wants to export but is not in a position to brake the radical left in its own ranks. When realists do not stand up for their convictions, submission follows.

The German armaments export regulations are clear: No deliveries to states waging war. The Saudi Arabians are conducting a war in Yemen. The balance: Up to at least 6,000 dead; the Saudis alone shall have lost 3,000 soldiers. That is a war. It thence follows for the AfD: A complete stop of deliveries, even for systems containing German components.

            Kirsten Tackmann (Linke): That is radical left!

Germany is directed to the export of defense technology. Despite the immense replacement needs of our own armed forces, the Bundeswehr can never obtain sufficient numbers of units so as to be able to pay for the research, development and production of present-day weapons systems.

            Kirsten Tackmann (Linke): So, Europe!

German armaments makers require a reliable export quota to be able to continue to exist. The AfD wants this quota because we want a national defense industry, because we desire the domestic maintenance of key technologies.

Large armaments proposals are too expensive and technologically demanding for Germany alone to be able to develop and construct. For armaments, we need international cooperation. The AfD wants this cooperation. International consortia just so need exports so as to be able to build the weapons systems of the future. Who does not want that must pay the difference out of his own pocket. A helicopter or U-boat would cost four or five times more. What has that to do with the left?

            Kirsten Tackmann (Linke): They perhaps would at least fly!

It does not in any case conform with other governments. France and Great Britain have again this week made very clear what they think of German Moralpolitik – namely nothing.

Who wants international armaments cooperation must also be willing to sell. The AfD stands for such a principle. The AfD wants international armaments cooperation. What we however do not want is a centralized control from Brussels.

The AfD is for the free market in armaments. That means, states associate with one another to determine their needs in military capability and then announce them in common. Afterwards must it be left to the free market to cooperate and make offers. A Brussels bureaucrat stands in the way of the power and creativity of a free market. On this basis, we also decisively reject the EU defense fund. This fund is a construct of a planned economy to the disadvantage of Germany.

Ladies and gentlemen, arms export policy is not feel-good policy. Arms export policy is Realpolitik for the defense of our country’s interests and security. Yes, who sells defense technology undergoes a risk.

            Kirsten Tackmann (Linke): “Risk” is good!

No one can say whether a purchasing country ten years later will wage war and employ German weapons in this war. In the end remains the balancing of various interests. For the AfD, the security and independence of the German people are always the first priority. A domestic defense technology industry is therefore a basic requirement.

Ladies and gentlemen, Germany and Europe are losing contact with defense technology. The hostility to all things military in many parts of the political establishments contributes considerably to that. That is not moral. It is moral to take earnestly the duty to defend our citizens, to arm our country against dangers and to secure the future freedom of the German people.

[Translated by Todd Martin]