Tino Chrupalla, September 11, 2020, Navalny

German Bundestag, September 11, 2020, Plenarprotokoll 19/174, pp. 21912-21913.

Frau President. Honored colleagues. Dear countrymen.

There is no end to the series of accusations against Russia. Every effort will be made to revive fear of the evil fiend of the East and to please the allied partners of the West.

The present discussions concerning the attack on Alexei Navalny are subject to a fundamental weakness: A lack of conclusive proof permitting a substantive assignment of guilt. Up to today in this case, there are more open than clarified questions: Why should the Kremlin attempt the murder of an opponent and then agree to his transfer to Germany? And why exactly should be used the same neurotoxin which after all did not work in the case of Skripal?

Apropos the neurotoxin: It is said that it belonged to the Nowitschok group. Can it then only be acquired from Russia and from Russians? Clearly not. A Bundeswehr special laboratory has analyzed the materials [Kampfmitteln]. Why was not commissioned a second test institution, independent of the state? That would reinforce the results and remove the Bundeswehr from the firing line of accusations; and thereby clearly cut a better figure on the international stage.

Ladies and gentlemen, the attack on Alexei Navalny requires an unconditional clarification.  Nevertheless, occasion will be taken to mingle it with Germany’s energy policy. There are renewed threats of sanctions against Russia and even of termination of the Nord Stream 2 project. Here, something new will be forced open from old graves between East and West, and indeed on German soil and with the assistance of the Federal government.

It is especially bitter when personal profiling plays a role in the decisive questions of war and peace in Europe.

            Elisabeth Motschmann (CDU/CSU): As by you!

Herr Röttgen, we do know that you are a member of the board of directors of the Atlantic Bridge and that you aspire to be CDU chairman. But please re-think the consequences of your actions.

One of which is: Germany will be yoked to the cart of the U.S. economy by the Federal government and its stirrup-holders. That will provoke a further escalation in the German-Russian relations. Do you wish to allow Europe to again become a scene of war? On this account, are the sirens of world war to howl again today? Ach nein, that has not happened. Yet the most important question that we must ask ourselves is: To whom is it of use when the Federal government betrays German interests? Cui bono?

Ladies and gentlemen, I know I am not alone in my suspicion

            Annalena Baerbock (Greens): Your suspicion was of the Bundeswehr!

that desperate effort are being made to stop the Nord Stream 2 project. It is certainly long a thorn in the eye of the U.S.A. Instead, we shall now buy its fracking gas. That appears to the Americans to be so important that a Bürgermeister in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern received a visit from the White House.

The price of this fracking gas is however much too high for us, and that in multiple respects. First, it is clearly more expensive than Russian natural gas. Second, it is also much dirtier. Finally, untold amounts of energy and toxic chemicals are required to produce it. For that, “environmental murder” is certainly no phrase.

Interestingly, this present hour takes place at the request of the Greens – many thanks, besides. But how green are you actually when it comes to fracking gas? Why did your national chairman Robert Habeck, as assistant minister-president of Schleswig-Holstein, support the construction of a discharge terminal for liquefied fracking gas?  

            Annalena Baerbock (Greens): He long since no longer does.

The energy supply in Germany is endangered by a premature withdrawal from brown coal; of that, we are regularly informed by the AfD.

            Joachim Pfeiffer (CDU/CSU): In the main brown!

The basic provision of the population is a duty of the state and it must be secured. Nord Stream 2, at the least, offers energy security in the coming decades.

Ladies and gentlemen, the current anti-Russian debates harm not only Russia but also ourselves.

We in the eastern Federal states cannot afford any additional economic breakdown. Exactly that will be attended to by successful cooperation in economic and cultural exchange with our neighbors in the East. The AfD definitely rejects renewed sanctions against Russia.

The people in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern need Nord Stream 2 and deserve our Federal German backing. Nord Stream 2 stands for a secure energy supply which makes possible work and prosperity in disadvantaged regions. We can no longer afford additional experiments in this area. What we as a land in the heart of Europe can least afford is a unilateral partisanship which may drive Europe into war.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jürgen Braun, September 11, 2020, Moria

German Bundestag, September 11, 2020, Plenarprotokoll 19/174, pp. 21868-21869.

Frau President. Dear colleagues.

Moria – back to the facts. Tents deliberately set on fire – by the residents of the camps. The fire defense prevented from extinguishing – by the residents of the camps. The assistant chief of the Lesbos civil defense in a verbal statement on Greek television: The camps were intentionally empty. – Quoting: During the night of the fire, some 4,000 violent, illegal immigrants moved across the island of Lesbos.

The contrary, left-green fake news in Germany: The life-threatening crime of arson

            Luise Amtsberg (Greens): Do you wish to make four year old children                                                        responsible for that?

trivialized by the ARD Tagesschau with talk of desperate protests. For years, ever again acts of violence from the residents of the camp at Moria on Lesbos. Numerous churches on Lesbos desecrated – in Germany, silence. The FDP – colleague Kuhle spoke in February – I quote – Criminal bands, moving across the island, quoting,

            Konstantin Kuhle (FDP): Quoting!

Violent bands of migrants, armed with iron rods and machetes.

On Monday, 13,000 empty chairs stand in front of the Reichstag – a scenery design between Leni Riefenstahl and the Soldatenfreidhof. Two nights later, Moria burned. 13,000 chairs – also for the arsonists? An attack on the dignity of the Bundestag can have many faces.

            Matthias W. Birkwald (Linke): You are acquainted with that!

Humanitarian aid for children is one thing, support of criminal arsonists and terrorists is another. Help for people nearby and before all for your countrymen is sensible, illegal immigration into distant countries is not and never will be.

16 CDU members presently demand the reception of migrants from the burnt-out camps. That is nothing new; already in April, 50 CDU members demanded the reception of children from Moria. The few kids who did arrive at such summons, some of them already wore beards.

Left-green lies in March about the situation on the Greek-Turkish border: Greek police have allegedly fired on refugees – a lie, a wretched conspiracy theory against the Greek people, constantly spread about by the media. The AfD delegation stands on the side of the Greeks and of Greece. There is no human right of migration, there is no human right of illegal immigration. Yet there is the right to leave one’s own country. And from that, you of the Linke-SED wish to turn away.  

Here in Germany, you have allowed people to be shot who wished to exercise precisely that right. From that, you wish to turn away in your motion full of socialist hypocrisy and with speeches like the Pharisees of the New Testament. Shame on you. Never again socialism!

 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

Dirk Spaniel, September 11, 2020, Transportation Policy

German Bundestag, September 11, 2020, Plenarprotokoll 19/174, pp. 21837-21838.

Right honorable Herr President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

The present perspective for employees in the automobile industry could actually not be worse than it is at the moment. What is to come is for us nothing other than the meltdown of the German automobile industry.

That it comes is furthermore not surprising. In the previous year, we had an experts’ hearing. Those there who heard the experts were – for you, it must be said, would have been – warned. Especially we of the AfD delegation have denounced time and again in this house your CO₂ legislation which is catastrophic for the auto industry.

Ja, now you will object: The legislation comes from Brussels.

        Daniela Wagner (Greens): No matter where it comes from! It is right! No matter                                        where it comes from!

The fact that you voted in Brussels for a law which will foreseeably destroy this country’s leading industry is either a sign of your incompetence or of your insufficient assertiveness in regards German interests in the European Union.

My estimate of your disastrous policy is shared in unison with leading experts of the automobile industry and also recently by the FDP. Of course, we in the meantime have a climate of angst

            Helin Evrim Sommer (Linke): The tears are coming!

and almost no one dares to openly contradict the socialistic control mania of your transportation transformation.

            Daniela Wagner (Greens): There ought to be angst only for the likes of you!                                            There ought to be angst for the enemies of democracy, like you!

– Ja, das ist so.

If we look at the past week, we may ascertain that, on the periphery of the auto summit, the partial nationalization of auto industry firms in extremis was demanded by IG Metall, the SPD and the Greens. The government’s hollow words were then the result of the summit. It there let it be known that it sees the salvation of the auto industry in digitalization and autonomous driving. As to the concrete problems of automobile firms – the perspective of a lack of market for combustion engine vehicles – it put in not a word. The end of the combustion engine, politically desired by you, is the cause of the loss of workplaces in the automobile and machinery building industry here in Germany.

            Stephan Gelbhaar (Greens): Please speak on the topic!

You cannot compensate for that with a state subsidized electric auto industry.

We have seen in the example of the solar cell industry how badly senseless technological demands function. Where are they then, our billions of tax subventions? Solar cells are today made in foreign countries and all the respective workplaces in Germany are gone.

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): Rubbish!

Precisely that may happen if subventions are invested in economically senseless projects, as you here again are demanding.

How did the works council chairman at Daimler AG say it in the summer of this year?

            Ralph Lenkert (Linke): Ach, the betrayer!

95 percent of workplaces depend on the combustion engine. – A little group of SPD, Green, CDU/CSU and FDP politicians, alien to technique and resistant to counsel, withdraw the basis of livelihood from hundreds of thousands of hardworking people and Mittlestand businesses, and that on the basis of the false assumption that electro-mobility will reduce CO₂ emissions in this country.

We here introduce a motion [Drucksache 19/22186] for saving the combustion engine. The workplaces dependent on the combustion engine will be saved by a charge on the use of synthetic fuels; and at the same time, more CO₂ emissions will be spared than by means of the operation of electric vehicles. And if you reject this motion, then you act against the interests of hundreds of thousands of workers in this country. And we will take care that you bear the complete political responsibility for destroying the livelihood of these people. Yes, sir!

Many thanks.

            Michael Grosse-Brömer (CDU/CSU): Off course! From the start, again                                                   the rhetorical way!

 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Götz Frömming, September 11, 2020, Vocational Education

German Bundestag, September 11, 2020, Plenarprotokoll 19/174, pp. 21845-21846.

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable ladies and gentlemen. Right honorable Frau Minister.

We are discussing the 2020 vocational education report which refers to data from the year 2019. The report was already completed in April and submitted to interested readers. Now, in September, we discuss it here in parliament for the first time. Ladies and gentlemen, that shows which priority you in truth assign to this topic; namely, not the first. That must be urgently changed.

            Stephan Albini (CDU/CSU): Nonsense! That was in the meantime!

And, if in the meantime the data for the most part has naturally become out of date, some long-term trends may still be gathered from the submitted report – and these, ladies and gentlemen, are alarming. From 2008 to 2019, we have registered a regression of 15 percent in the number related to completed training contracts. The dual vocational training which enjoyed a high reputation internationally – justly so – is in truth long since chronically ill. The reasons for that are various.

For one, the demographic crisis is to be named. Ever fewer children, before all, ever fewer German children are born and that naturally leads to us having ever fewer of those of school age. During the past ten years, there has been a decline of around 100,000. In addition, among those in school ever fewer can present a solid Haupt- and Realschul graduation certificate which is the most important entry card into the dual vocational training.

Instead, ladies and gentlemen, we are experiencing a bloating and inflation of the Abitur, a bloating even in the universities. We have ever more academics.  

            Kai Gehring (Greens): Where did you study?

Nevertheless, we also know – the numbers, Herr Gehring, you still do not wish to hear; they are right, though – that every third student discontinues his studies unsuccessfully. And this also belongs to the truth: The discontinuation rate among foreign students is twice as high as among German students.  

            Franciska Brantner (Greens): That’s not right!

Ladies and gentlemen, we think these young people for the most part do not belong in the universities.

            Helin Evrim Sommer (Linke): That is an expression of your inhuman ideology!

They belong in vocational training.

            Helin Evrim Sommer (Linke): That is still offensive, what you are saying here!

Your policy naturally in the meantime leads to us to having a terribly high rate of the unskilled; namely, it comes to 14.4 percent. That is 2.12 million young people of age from 20 to 34. Here also – you again do not wish to hear it – : Among migrants, the rate is twice as high. Among people of Turkish origin, we even have 52 percent without training.

I cite only from the submitted report. You can look up all of it.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is also true that the rate would be worse still if we included the refugees. We not longer do that; since, as the report reveals to us, in 2017 the survey methods were changed. Refugees who no longer live in private households will no longer be included in regards their level of training.

            Bernd Baumann (AfD): Yeah, great!

Ladies and gentlemen, the Federal government’s Corona policy in addition leads to the fact that many of the 400,000 businesses engaged in training are on the edge of ruin. We are of the opinion that we must especially assist the smaller businesses. The AfD delegation has therefore submitted a motion [Drucksache 19/22193] which contains eight concrete measures which can particularly assist small business. Included is the payment of part-time wages for trainees beginning on the first day.

        René Rospel (SPD):And then earn even less with your training compensation.

        That is preposterous!

Ladies and gentlemen, it is the trainees today in training who will tomorrow generate our pensions.

            Birke Bull-Bischoff (Linke): Not a clue about anything!

I think we ought not leave them in the lurch.

Many thanks.

 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

           

Jochen Haug, September 10, 2020, Election Law

German Bundestag, September 10, 2020, Plenarprotokoll 19/173, pp. 21775-21776.

Herr President. Ladies and gentlemen.

One remark beforehand, Herr Frieser. I am now really a bit astonished: You here claim nothing  is to be delegated to the Federal Interior Ministry and the fundamental of separation of  powers is guaranteed. It is certainly precisely the problem here that that is in no way the case; but I will go into that presently in my speech.  

Ladies and gentlemen, democracy lives by presence, by assembly at the same time, same place, be it in an assembly of citizens, be it an assembly of members in the parliament or in a party assembly. Common affairs will here be deliberated and decided. Consequently, the Federal election law prescribes that candidates for election to the Bundestag must be decided on in assemblies. In consequence of the Corona crisis, the coalition delegations now present a draft law which will create the possibility of a deviation from this.

What exactly is in the draft law? The Federal Interior Ministry, in case of natural catastrophe or a similar event – we all know that Corona is meant –, shall be empowered by legally ordered regulation to name candidates for election without meetings of assemblies. The prerequisite shall be the statement of the German Bundestag’s election verification committee that the holding of assemblies is wholly or partially impossible.

Now, to the making of emergency regulations in a crisis, there is clearly nothing to be objected to. But what you here today put forward is unconstitutional.

According to the established jurisprudence of the Federal Constitutional Court, the parliamentary law-giver itself must come to all essential decisions. It may not leave it to other legislators or to the executive. The delegation of essential decisions would be similar to an act of self-disempowerment.

A new regulation of the election law, more precisely stated: The presentation of candidates – and here it is about a new regulation – is a prime example of the identity of the aspects of fundamental law and democracy. It is an operation at the heart of democracy. For it, the parliamentary law-giver itself must answer. In no case may it leave free law-making to the executive. Thus a regulation by means of prescriptive authorization, as foreseen here by you, is already fundamentally excluded.

Once admitted, a regulation by means of prescriptive law would here be permissible. Then, according to Article 80 of the Basic Law, the content, purpose and scale of the given authorization must be determined. That is totally lacking here. The text of the law itself reveals not one word of which way the required nominations assemblies shall be replaced. Merely in one brief paragraph of the initial portion are the alternatives vaguely indicated, such as a nomination of candidates by written or electronic processes, followed by a mailed ballot. There is not a word concerning the practicality of similar things. This obviously cannot satisfy the determination principle.

One must consider what remains: You here wish to introduce the possibility of weakening the democratic rules of play, built up over decades, and then you do not even approximately state in the text of the law how you put forward a nominations procedure without an attended event [Präsenzveranstaltung]. That is grotesque.

What finally remains to be said? The presented draft law, in one of the most sensitive areas of democracy, contains a quasi full empowerment of the Federal Interior Ministry. It offends against the fundamental of separation of powers and the principle of democracy.

We reject it self-evidently.

Thank you.

 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Franciska Gminder, September 10, 2020, Family Tax Relief

German Bundestag, September 10, 2020, Plenarprotokoll 19/173, pp. 21703-21705

Right honorable Herr President. The Frau Minister is unfortunately no longer present. Ladies and gentlemen.

Today we deliberate on the so-called Second Family Relief Bill. It concerns the increase of the child subsidy [Kindergeld] and the child allowance [Kinderfreibeträge] on January 1, 2021. As a reminder: Article 6 of the our Basic Law states: “Marriage and family are under the particular protection of the state order.” The family, consisting of father, mother and children, is the nucleus of our state.

            Dagmar Ziegler (SPD): That is likely your interpretation.

            Matthias Birkwald (Linke): That’s not in there.

Unfortunately for years a weakening of this article and change in the sense of family have been taking place in Germany.  

            Michael Schrodi (SPD): Speak on the bill.

There was then certainly no other sense of family. We agree to the planned increase of 15 euros per month in the child subsidy, yet hold this to be next to nothing in regards the problems which today confront a family with children. In the text of the bill, I discern no real reduction of the cold progression. A possible increase in the minimum livelihood for tax-obligated persons and their children was in fact mentioned, yet a yearly income of approximately 56,000 euros is still hit with the top tax rate of 42 percent. Why has this amount not been increased? For years, unchanged – a scandal!

Which measures can actually promote families? To overcome the demographic catastrophe, the family must win back its economic integrity. And a sole earner should be able to care for a family with multiple children with his income. On that account, there is pressure in many cases to give up even the smallest children, virtually after birth, to the day-care nursery. The overwhelming majority of mothers want to care for their children themselves at home until the age of three.

            Steffi Lemke (Greens): Rubbish!

This is regrettably very often prevented on financial grounds. Calculations show that in general the cost of a day-care or kindergarten place is about 1,100 euros per month.

            Dagmar Ziegler (SPD): That is money well invested!

That would be money well invested with the mother who herself cares for her child at home.

            Steffi Lemke (Greens): Have even once heard of men who care for the children?

From its founding, the AfD has been committed to the introduction of a family splitting instead of a marriage splitting. According to the contract of generations, today’s adults care for the contribution payers of tomorrow. Unfortunately, the number of the childless grows.

Could you allow me to speak? That would be very nice.

            Katrin Werner (Linke): Nein, such idiocy does not go at anytime!

Moreover, ask yourselves whether you –

            Vice-president Hans-Peter Friedrich: Dear colleagues, please allow Frau Gminder to speak.

Unfortunately, the number of the childless grows amongst the college-educated and this weakens the future prospects. The contribution apportionment for sickness, pension and care insurance should lead to a direct relief of families with children; since these contribute disproportionately to the insuring of the childless. For ten years, a parents’ suit has been before the Federal Social Court in Kassel. In this context, I recall a statement of Professor Jürgen Borchardt, social judge in Darmstadt; I hope it is known to you.

            Wolfgang Strengmann-Kuhn (Greens): Yet it would be very annoying if you quote it.

Domestic care-giving performed by the family for the children and for aged parents deserves as family work recognition and protection. An optional debit for the basic security or for home ownership may contribute especially to old-age security. Here, the eastern and Baltic countries are at the top with a rate of 78 to 96 percent. Germany, with about 51.5 percent is next to last in the order of things, with Switzerland, even worse, at 42 percent.

One means of promoting home ownership was the own house subsidy [Eigenheimzulage] which was unfortunately abolished in the year 2006. §27b UstG [Umsatzgesetz, turnover tax] also falls under tempus passat. Introduced in 2018, the Baukindergeld proposed by the KfW was a decision in the right direction.

            Vice-president Hans-Peter Friedrich: Frau colleague, please come to an end.

            Michael Schrodi (SPD): Come to the topic!

It can however cause no surprise. We demand the straight reduction of the real property sales tax for families with children purchasing real estate for their own use. With three children, it should be completely omitted. Also, low-interest credit for this purpose would be worthy of consideration.

            Vice-president Hans-Peter Friedrich: Frau colleague, please come to the end – last sentence.

The interruption was not counted, or?

            Vice-president Hans-Peter Friedrich: The time is run out.

Please?

            Vice-president Hans-Peter Friedrich: The time is now run out. You had four minutes.

But if I an always being interrupted. Thus, I want a moderated value added tax on goods and services  for children's needs and a reduction of the tax component of electricity costs for all participants.

            Vice-president Hans-Peter Friedrich: So, Frau colleague, now enough.

There is still much to done to help do right by our families.

Petra Sitte (Linke): You have only won the speaking time because the president is gracious to older people!

 

[trans: tem]