Karsten Hilse, June 15, 2023, Green Dictatorship

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/109, p. 13187.

Valued Praesidium. Ladies and gentlemen. Dear countrymen.

Again and again, destructive draft laws are put forward by the Ampel – driven by the green climate sects – and against every reason rushed through under disregard of all rules of this sovereign house, the main thing being it serves the climate ideology of the green communists.

It is a law which affects all households, all firms, all landlords, all renters, all homeowners, all local governments – thus practically everyone. According to the will of the greens of all the parties, by 2045 they shall be forced to heat climate neutral. In conformity with the experiences of the Corona dictatorship, every citizen is to be impressed under a climate yoke. Forsa chief Güllner is led to this statement, cite:

"Earlier SPD voters have the impression that their party bows down before a green dictatorship."

In concrete terms:

"When a small, elite minority…enforces its values by means of instructions and bans upon the society of a great majority of those thinking otherwise, that can indeed be evaluated as a dictatorship."

He is right.

This compulsion, these bans of course affect all of us. Correspondingly great are the outcry, the resistance and the comprehensible rage.

The perpetrators [Macher] naturally notice this rage. And despite that, they bring in this law today, talking drivel from their pompous “guard rails” for the pamphlet named the “Building Energy Law”, that Germany by 2045 should be climate neutral. The asserted consensus is however a flat lie. According to a Spiegel poll from March 30, 2023, climate neutrality is meanwhile left behind by half of Germany. 80 percent of people in the country reject your so-called heating hammer. And against this 80 percent, you make your destructive policy.

Yet what is really bad is that the other old parties extend a hand to you for that. From the special democrats and the green communists is meanwhile expected nothing other. That however the coward democrats play along with that is actually tragic.

Despite the mini-changes, for which the coward democrats celebrate themselves, it is and remains a destructive law, annihilating prosperity and workplaces, as is otherwise possible only in a war. Many people meanwhile designate your policy as a “war against one’s own people”. Anyone who participates in this war will someday need to be held responsible before the people.

The only party which stands against this collective suicide is the AfD. Consequently, our approval numbers are rising. That is good for Germany. Bad for Germany is that with each day this government further manages its work of destruction

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): Enough now with the shamelessness!

the heaps of rubble which we as a future governing party will have to clear away will become ever greater. We will do it, rely on it. I am besides of the opinion: He who votes Green, votes for war.

Many thanks.

            Marianne Schieder (SPD): Shamelessness!

            Jan Korte (Linke): Thorough Nazi speech!

 

[trans: tem]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gottfried Curio, June 9, 2023, EU Immigration Regulations

AfD Kompakt, June 9, 2023.

The regulations will not solve the problems. If now some countries in fact buy their way out of a new “reception obligation”, in the end a considerable portion might again remain attached to Germany. And with the keyword “distribution” [Verteilung], the Merkel-ish subversion of Dublin III will now be set: The secure knowledge that from southern Europe one cannot further migrate under a declaration of an ostensible need to flee would thereby have led to a considerable relief, particularly in this country. In the end: Who comes from a secure country actually need simply not be tested; in other cases, the principle of secure states is ultimately reduced to an absurdity.

Even in the specifics, the regulations are highly ineffective: To be able to continue – under pressure of the Federal government – to simply pass through unaccompanied minors, without a stop at the external border with fast track procedures, even so entire families from Syria. And the problem that 80 percent of those coming to Germany could previously pass through the EU unregistered is not addressed: They indeed should be registered – yet this “should” is again plainly only a pure declaration of intentions and in the negotiations was not in the least operationally secured. Just so, again under pressure of the Ampel, was hindered a “Rwanda solution”, as aimed at in Great Britain. And why countries should at all participate in a distribution, why they should otherwise at all pay money, is not really established. One then may also not be surprised by a rejection.

In sum: For the main flow from countries where there is now already some acknowledgements, that is perhaps Syria and Afghanistan and various interior African countries, nothing really changes; thus here also, no relief in sight. And even in regards the planned rejections, the actual return is, as before, completely unclear. Without a return, even according to the new regulations, an appeal to the EU will then again soon be possible, with then a new asylum application. Even after a distribution within the EU, naturally will happily continue further secondary migration to Germany, as long as in this country the will and the structures are not created for an effective rejection and deportation mechanism. And important relief measures, as demanded by the AfD, plainly now simply do not arrive: Neither an alignment of the national refugee and/or social benefits, nor a conversion to primarily benefits in kind. Instead, false principles are perpetuated, such as one can be a refugee by a trespass in the EU, even if one already has come through ten secure third countries. An opportunity to perceptibly confront [begegnen] the dramatic overburdening in Germany was given away. The decisive problems were certainly not approached, primarily because, for that, any political will is lacking in Germany.  

 

[trans: tem]

 

Jochen Haug, May 25, 2023, EU Election Law

 

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/106, pp. 12811-12812.

Frau President. Ladies and gentlemen.

The EU Parliament’s proposal debated today for a change of the EU election law is an attack on the national states of Europe. The planned changes are alien to the citizens and fundamentally undemocratic.

Of this are first of all the trans-national lists which certainly have been often spoken of. The EU parliament shall be further enlarged, initially by 28 seats. These shall then be filled by the  European parties instead of by the national lists of the recognized parties. This is a particular act of alienation of the citizens. The European parties are largely unknown in Germany and in other member states. Their positions on concrete political questions are unknown. The citizen shall vote for persons whom he does not know and of whom he in many cases simply cannot inform himself; since there is no EU-wide media public. Information is here not routinely available in each man’s mother tongue. Yet that fits the picture. You want uninformed voters who simply nod to your personnel and positions. You want an EU central state with politicians who owe accountability to no one. Transnational lists are in this way a momentous step which we of the AfD oppose.

            Christian Petry (SPD): What nonsense!

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Super speech! Listen to what you can learn!

            Jörg Nürnberger (SPD): No idea of Europe!

No less do we oppose the attempt to introduce compulsory gender quotas for election lists. The EU Parliament’s proposal foresees precisely this in the form of a zipper procedure [Reissvershclussverfahren]. That means that men and women are to be alternatively installed. This is obviously unconstitutional. The Constitutional Courts in Brandenburg and Thüringen have already decided corresponding regulations. Among others, here is put forward a violation of the fundamental principles of the freedom and equality of the vote.

            Götz Frömming (AfD): The SPD is not interested.

To what unbelievable bleeding such gender quotas can lead may be observed in regards, among others, the Greens of NRW [Nordrhein-Westfalen] who in their statutes have consequently further developed the zipper procedure and call it a “minimum quota”.

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): And now?

I cite with permission of the President from §1 of the Women’s Status of the NRW Greens:         

Election lists fundamentally are to be filled by at least half women whereby the odd places are reserved for women. The election procedures are to be so arranged that, separated, positions for women and positions for all candidates will be elected. All women lists are possible.

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): Well cited!

This needs to be looked at clearly: With the Greens, for odd places may only women be candidates, for the even, everyone.

            Lamya Kaddor (Greens): With you, even fascists can be candidates!

If this should be democratic, then democracy in our country is truly at an end.

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Discrimination against men!

Not least is there today a restrictive clause in regards the suffrage for the European election. What you here propose – the introduction of a two percent hurdle – is a shameless circumvention of the legal ruling of the Federal Constitutional Court. This had twice, in 2011 and 2014, declared restrictive clauses for the European election to be unconstitutional. Now shall one such be introduced by the avoidance of EU law. There is no sustainable foundation for it. It is solely about building up the large parties’ sinecures at the cost of the small parties. It is simply the arrogance of power.

In conclusion, we maintain: The plans of the EU election law reform are undemocratic and in part violate the German constitutional law. It remains to hope – it was certainly already pointed out – that across Europe considerable resistance arises against it. It remains to hope that it never becomes reality.

Thank you.

            Götz Frömming (AfD): Very good speech! 

 

[trans: tem]