Nicolaus Fest, March 11, 2021, EU State of Law

EU Parliament, Brussels, P9 CRE-PROV (2021)03-11(4-023-0000).

Frau President.

Before I begin, one word to you: In your dovecote lie already two love letters from me to you, to which I would gladly at anytime have an answer. And please control your postal delivery so that we do not get the impression that your personnel organization was at times as insufficient as your assembly leadership.

As to the matter: Poland and Hungary stand here under suspicion of violating the state of law [Rechtsstaatlichkeit]. It would on the contrary be sensible to direct a glance at Germany. The judges were appointed according to political criteria. The public prosecutors are not independent. The SPD, a governing party, is one of the largest media owners in Germany. And just recently a regional prosecutor in Berlin published a book in which he comes to the fact that we in Germany have no state of law… because the procedures would last so long that even serious criminals were ever again set at large.  

And naturally my own party is also directly affected by this. The Constitution Defense has now been twice whistled back by the courts or been shown the boundaries, because it had just designated the AfD as a test case – even that was illegal – and had in inadmissible ways leaked the observation to the media. And that was clearly a violation of the law. And in so far as it is about the state of law in Germany, it is plainly not in order.

In addition is the government’s setting aside of essential basic rights in the area of Corona policy. This was ever again sharply criticized even by your colleague Kubicki, yet also by many constitutional judges.

Thus when we speak of the mechanism of the state of law, we should occupy ourselves not so much with Poland and Hungary but with the continually disturbing conditions in Germany.

 

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

Nicolaus Fest, March 10, 2021, EU Social Rights

EU Parliament, Brussels, P9 CRE-PROV (2021)03-10(3-096-0000).

Frau President.

The action plan of which we are speaking today was in the last weeks and months discussed in the Social Committee. And there a lot of wind was encountered: Covid was wanted. And the economic crisis which at the moment we are experiencing is actually not taking place. Instead was wanted – I have written myself a note – high-value workplaces, resilient workplaces, gender-correct workplaces, sustainable workplaces, inclusive workplaces, diverse workplaces, digital workplaces, workplaces free of discrimination, family-oriented workplaces and naturally also climate-neutral workplaces.

At the moment, at least in Germany yet also in many other countries, the restaurant trade is facing its end, the skilled trades have the greatest problems and tourism is prostrate. Yet here that is of no interest at all. The construction of sozial Europe is preferred. Herr Radtke has said it, Herr Schmidt also: This sozial Europe stands at the center of all of our deliberations. How far this sozial Europe goes is aided by a glance at the youth unemployment statistics – in Greece at the moment approximately 40%, in Spain, France, Portugal approximately between 20 and 30% and over 30%. That is the EU’s policy.

And when State Secretary Zacarias says the firms should place people before profits, then it is nothing more than a dumb, empty formula. For without profits, firms cannot offer workplaces and, for that, all the pretty speeches here are of no use at all.

Therefore, dear gentlemen and ladies, get a grip on reality and then make your policy accordingly.

 

[trans: tem]

Tobias Rausch, March 11, 2021, Broadcasting Contribution

Sachsen-Anhalt Landtag, Plenarprotokoll 7/21, p. 24.

Right honorable Frau President. Right honorable colleague members.

Today we discuss the presented motions. Herr Sturm has directly pursued this. Each will still have in memory the discussions concerning the broadcasting contribution [Rundfunkbeiträge]; they were conducted with much controversy in the last December plenary session and in the preceding half year. There were therein discussions on the increased salaries of the directors, on non-scale payment and other various things. At that time, the SPD, Greens and Linke expressed themselves in the feature pages as being in favor of an increase of the broadcasting contribution. The CDU was of the opinion that the contribution should be kept stable; since – as Herr Kurze always so nicely says it – stable means stable. There were discussions to this extent.  

We have made clear that with us there will be no increase; for we want the Grundfunk and not the Rundfunk.

We want that the companies and independents need not continue to pay this compulsory charge. We primarily want that a reformation takes place, that it be narrowed and that one pays only for what one consumes and uses. We want to concern ourselves with these questions in connection with the next State contract. These are meanwhile put forward, namely in the MDR [Mitteldesutscher Rundfunk] State contract, which is about diverse things. We have held hearings on this and much was discussed. The hearing actually yielded that this State contract should not be agreed to because there were discrepancies therein. This is to be pursued but it would go beyond the area of the daily order’s topics.

It remains to be stated that the opinion in committee is emphatic to declare for the discharge of this motion of the Linke as well as of the AfD delegation’s motion, that is, of my delegation. The aim of our motion [Drucksache 7/6987] , that there is to be no increase, has been successfully implemented. On that, the parliament to be sure passed no resolution because the CDU has shirked from – what? Na ja – and Herr Minister-president Haseloff again had quasi withdrawn the draft. I think that is still not to be in Sachsen-Anhalt. This is a small success for us.

In principle I do not want to make it too long. There remains to say: In the mid-term, we for once attained that there is no increase. We will now await what the Administrative Court says. The public law institutions will initially continue to observe their duties; that was announced in the first decision. That must now be decided on. When that has been decided on, then we will likely discuss it in a similar context. We are eager for that. We will self-evidently vote for the resolution recommendation. – In this sense, I end my speech.

 

[trans: tem]

 

Marc Bernhard, March 5, 2021, CO2 Tax

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 19/216, p. 27308.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

The illogic of red-green policy once again manifests itself in all its distinctiveness in both of your motions. You first let your Fridays for Future advance organization demonstrate for months for a CO₂ tax, and obligingly you have then also naturally introduced this CO₂ tax of the Federal government.

Despite your protests, Herr Beutin, it persists: For you of the Linke and the Greens, the CO₂ tax cannot be high enough. Instead of the now introduced 25 euros per ton, you actually want 180 euros! That you should please for once say to the voters out there.

Now you suddenly ascertain – and what a surprise – that the climate hysteria fired up by you quite simply can no more be paid for by many people. Ja, damn it all, whether the citizens can afford a tax or not needs to be considered before the introduction of the tax, and one may not out of ideological delusion rip off the citizens with one duty after another without regard for the loss.

Since January 1 alone, you take in an additional 6 euros in tax for every full tank.

            Klaus Mindrup (SPD): Not a tax!

The CO₂ tax will be more than doubled by the year 2025. With the 180 euros demanded by you, it would then even be 35 euros for every full tank.

Yet that is only the tip of the iceberg. The effects of your measures upon housing costs are much worse. By means of your rip off package, heating costs increase about 20 percent and the renters’ union is figuring on an additional rent increase of 200 euros per month for an average household.

All of this was known before you introduced these burdens and now you of the Greens and the Linke want to conceal this government bungling with your motions – what I name really a service opposition, right honorable ladies and gentlemen.

Have you even once thought through which effects it would have if your motions would actually be decided on? The great majority of landlords are of course small landlords. Of an average age of 60 years, who with the rent improve their pensions. With your motions, you now want that these pensioners must pay the CO₂ tax with their rents, without that having influence on the renters’ heating condition or to be able to expect that the additional burden owing to the CO₂ tax could decline.

Model calculations show quite clearly and distinctly that a typical required investment of 40,000 euros for insulation and heating comes to a savings in heating costs of exactly 800 euros per year. The amortization thus lasts 50 years,

            Timon Gremmels (SPD): Such rubbish!

and that is only if the entire savings in heating costs was taken as a basis.

            Timon Gremmels (SPD): What, is that too complex for you?

Mark well: the average small landlord would then already be 110 years old, and your motion alters nothing of these facts.

            Timon Gremmels (SPD): Milkmaid math!

The climate package and the CO₂ tax included therein is and remains what the Federal Audit Authority since already a year has ascertained: Unfair and unsozial. It therefore must immediately be abolished.

 

 [trans: tem]