YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → LIVE: Pressekonferenz der AfD-Fraktion - Diese Woche im Bundestag

LIVE: Pressekonferenz der AfD-Fraktion - Diese Woche im Bundestag — Transcript

by AfD-Fraktion Bundestag · 11,293 words · 1,792 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:01Yes, good morning to everyone. These
0:04are very exciting times. Today will be
0:08another historic day. All of you who
0:14have joined us in these press rounds
0:16over the years know about the battles
0:18and conflicts we have had here in
0:20Parliament regarding the positions we
0:22are entitled to—vice presidents,
0:24committee chairs—and how all of that
0:26has been withheld from us by the
0:28majority of the others. The voters have
0:32now put a stop to that. In
0:35Saxony-Anhalt today, I will go ahead
0:38and predict, the first president of a
0:41German state parliament from the AfD
0:44will be elected. This is a turning
0:48point that the others have tried to
0:50prevent by all means, but the strongest
0:53power in a democracy is the voter, and
0:55they prevail and get their way. And
0:59that is what will happen today. You see
1:02, my second observation is that the
1:05dynamic within the electorate, which we
1:08have always discussed here, remains
1:10unbroken. According to the latest poll
1:13this morning, I don't know if you saw
1:15it, we are now at 30.5%. And the CDU at
1:1917.5%. So, this shift is continuing
1:24rapidly and the nervousness within the
1:28parties is growing greater and greater.
1:30The existential fear they have caused
1:33themselves—the press also reported
1:36this morning that there seems to be a
1:39new agreement within the SPD between
1:42Prime Minister Schwesig and Lars
1:44Klingbeil that there could actually be
1:47new elections next February or March.
1:51With Ms. Schwesig as the candidate, the
1:54chancellor candidate, and Mr. Klingbeil
1:57then being able to remain head of the
2:00SPD. So these kinds of things are
2:03already leaking to the public. We find
2:05that very interesting because it shows
2:08we are capable of turning Germany's
2:10fate around because we have the support
2:13of the voters, and the momentum is
2:16unbroken in that regard. And let's move
2:19right on to the first topic. We can
2:22discuss these general political matters
2:24in more detail at the end. The first
2:28topic this week is the fundamental
2:31issue that sets us apart from the
2:34others, namely the question: who are we
2:37Germans? What is German identity? Who
2:42are we? Who do we want to be? What do
2:45we want to remember? What should be at
2:48the forefront? And Germany needs a
2:51balanced culture of remembrance. That
2:54is, so to speak, the fundamental
2:56stability of the nation, and we want to
2:58restore it. It has become unbalanced
3:02over many years and decades. I
3:06experienced this throughout my life, at
3:09the gymnasium and at university, where
3:12I had to drive under a bridge every
3:15morning for years. Where it said "
3:17Buback, Ponto, Schleyer." The next one
3:19is a Bavarian. For decades, this
3:22extreme left-wing dominance at the
3:24universities and, along with it, a
3:26historical perspective and culture of
3:29remembrance that has focused almost
3:31exclusively, or at least very
3:33dominantly, on the low points of German
3:36history, thereby carrying feelings of
3:38guilt and insecurity into the present
3:41generation, which was all too often
3:43politically and ideologically intended.
3:47We must restore a balanced view. Also
3:50emphasizing the many positive aspects
3:53of history, that which we as Germans
3:55can rightly be proud of, what we have
3:57contributed to human history. And there
4:01must now be a rethink, so to speak, a
4:04reconception. For this, our member of
4:08parliament Götz Frömming is here to
4:10answer your questions about our motion
4:12and our policy in this direction. A
4:14senior teacher, many years at grammar
4:16schools, member of the Committee for
4:18Culture, Media, and the Education
4:20Committee. Please Götz, you have the
4:22floor.
4:23>> Many thanks, dear Bernd, for your
4:25introductory words. This allows me to
4:28be a bit briefer than I had originally
4:30planned. I would like to point out once
4:33again what we are building upon. If you
4:37remember the AfD party platform of 2016
4:40adopted in Stuttgart, this program
4:43contains, albeit only briefly, decisive
4:46words on the politics of remembrance.
4:50It states there that we want to bring
4:53the positively identity-forming epochal
4:55events of German history back into the
4:58center of focus. If understood
5:02correctly, this does not mean that we
5:05want to ignore the negative events of
5:08our history and phases that we
5:10undoubtedly had, but rather that we
5:13want the positive aspects to be
5:15appreciated more strongly again. The
5:20second starting point, I don't know if
5:22the coalition read our party platform,
5:24is actually the coalition agreement
5:26between the CDU and SPD. It already
5:31states there, quote, that positive
5:33events and places of German history of
5:35democracy are also of high importance
5:38for the politics of remembrance. We
5:41find that very correct. However, the
5:44coalition has delivered just as little
5:46here as it has, by the way, in other
5:49areas. There are initial approaches
5:52presented by the Federal Government
5:54Commissioner for Culture and the Media,
5:56but from our perspective, that does not
5:58go nearly far enough and is not yet
5:59comprehensive enough. The current
6:02concept for remembrance actually only
6:06has two, shall I say, two major poles.
6:11That is, on one hand, the Nazi history
6:13and, with far less scope, by the way,
6:16also in school teaching, the history of
6:18the SED dictatorship, which in terms of
6:21years was actually much more extensive.
6:24We believe that it is also important
6:27now, especially in a time where the
6:30generation, the eyewitness generation,
6:33is leaving us. There are only a few
6:36contemporary witnesses left, whether
6:38you look at the perpetrators, the
6:39victims, or the bystanders. Uh, this
6:42generation will no longer be with us in
6:44a few years. Uh, all the more reason,
6:47from our point of view, to look at this
6:50topic in a balanced way. This naturally
6:53refers first to official remembrance
6:55policy. You know we have fixed memorial
6:58days here in the Bundestag as well.
7:00That is, uh, the 27th. January, when we
7:03remember Auschwitz, the liberation of
7:05Auschwitz. We think that is fine, and
7:07we should keep it. But if you ask
7:09yourself what we actually have in terms
7:11of, uh, positive memorial days, then
7:13only October 3rd comes to mind. October
7:16. We think that's wonderful. Though we
7:19could certainly imagine a bit more
7:21patriotism there. I was there in Bremen
7:24and really had to look for German flags
7:26, even at the central ceremony in the
7:28concert hall, the Glocke, I believe
7:29it's called. So, you had to search for
7:32German flags with a magnifying glass.
7:33There was a single German flag behind
7:35the speaker's podium. So that is, let's
7:38say, the standard; if it were up to us,
7:40German flags would be visible
7:42everywhere on the balustrades, similar
7:44to how it was in St. Paul's Church. So,
7:48we want these positive highlights of
7:50German history to be at the center of
7:52attention. Also so that the youth, the
7:57German youth—those whose ancestors
8:00have lived here for a long time, but
8:02also those who have come to us recently
8:05—have something they can gladly
8:07relate to, something they can be German
8:10and proud of: namely, living in Germany
8:12and saying, "Germany is a beautiful
8:15country; it has not just a wonderful
8:17landscape, but wonderful people, and
8:20has also experienced many beautiful
8:22times." We want to put that at the
8:25center. You cannot permanently build a
8:30nation on what the philosopher Lübbe
8:33once called "pride in guilt." Because
8:38you won't be able to reach young people
8:40—including those with a migration
8:42background—with only a negative offer
8:44for identification. In our view, an
8:47urgent change of course is needed here.
8:51I wouldn't say 180 degrees, but at
8:53least 90 degrees; as Bernt Baumann said
8:55, we turned sharply to the left at some
8:57point in our history, starting in '68.
9:01We want to adjust the whole thing again
9:03, bring it back to a healthy, normal
9:05path, as other nations in Europe and
9:07throughout the world have long been
9:09doing. So much for the introduction. If
9:13you have any questions, feel free.
9:15>> Thank you, Götz. There is keen
9:16interest here, which pleases me greatly
9:18. We start with Mr. Gougem, please go
9:20ahead.
9:21>> Uh yes, what role should Bismarck play
9:24in our culture of remembrance? Um, he
9:26is a great party hero for you on one
9:29hand. On the other hand, one of his
9:31greatest achievements is the
9:32introduction of compulsory schooling,
9:34and you want to abolish that again.
9:36>> Nope.
9:37>> Yes, many many many thanks for the
9:39question. A perfect setup, so to speak.
9:41Thank you for that. Well, of course
9:44Bismarck, but not just Bismarck as a
9:46person, but the founding of the Empire
9:48must take on a central importance,
9:49because, as you surely know, the
9:51Federal Republic did not fall from the
9:53sky, but stands—this is also common
9:55case law of the Federal Constitutional
9:57Court—in a direct, if you will,
9:59imperial tradition or state tradition
10:01that can be traced back to 1870/71. Yes
10:05, so we are the legal successor to this
10:08state. It did not dissolve into thin
10:11air; it is legally identical, right?
10:15And we bear the responsibility for the
10:17history of this state, with everything
10:19that entails, which is why Bismarck
10:21must naturally play a special role in
10:24our culture of remembrance as the
10:26decisive man behind the founding of the
10:28Empire. Um, as you know, some federal
10:31states have now completely deleted the
10:3419th century from their curricula.
10:36Savings are being made, not just on
10:38teachers, but also on the scope of
10:40history education. Um, speaking of
10:43history education, one could also take
10:45a look at school history to see how
10:47things really were with compulsory
10:49schooling. We did indeed have
10:53compulsory schooling in Prussia, too.
10:58That's correct, it also existed in the
11:00Weimar Republic, but it was never as
11:01strict as it is today, where it
11:03practically permits no exceptions at
11:04all. Even in Bismarck's Prussia, it was
11:08naturally possible, for example, to
11:10provide home schooling as an
11:12alternative to classroom instruction.
11:16The extremely strict compulsory
11:17schooling we still have today goes back
11:19to—I have explained this at this
11:21point before—the Reich Compulsory
11:23Schooling Act of 1938. And here we find
11:29it strange that, for all the distancing
11:31from the Nazi state that we share, the
11:33ruling political left has so far failed
11:35to take a closer look at where this
11:37strict compulsory schooling actually
11:39comes from. That is a Nazi law that was
11:43never abolished. In this form, we have
11:46such strict compulsory schooling in
11:48most of our neighboring countries,
11:49Austria for example, Switzerland, and
11:51so on and so forth. The USA certainly
11:53doesn't have it; it doesn't exist
11:54anywhere else in the world. We want to
11:57return to the democratic conditions
11:59that existed before 1938 or 1933.
12:04>> Mr. Hallas, AfD,
12:07>> Mr. Freming, you just said that we took
12:09a turn to the left at some point. From
12:11your perspective, what is now "left"
12:12about the remembrance of National
12:14Socialism or the coming to terms with
12:16it?
12:19>> Well, of course, history per se
12:20shouldn't be left-leaning or
12:21right-leaning, right? Instead, and I'm
12:24a bit conservative here, the dictum of
12:27Leopold von Ranke still applies. It
12:30simply means looking closely at how
12:31things actually happened. Yes, but with
12:34the choice of topics, you are of course
12:37also doing something. And if I only
12:41teach students—or in the official
12:43culture of remembrance constantly talk
12:45about a kind of guilt cult, as some
12:47call it, I just spoke of "pride in sin"
12:50—then that naturally does something
12:52to the present as well. History is
12:55being instrumentalized to hold
12:58everything in contempt that we, at
13:00least in our opinion, need to find a
13:03healthy national consciousness. If I
13:06let all of German history just lead up
13:09to Adolf Hitler—which, by the way,
13:12was an idea of Goebbels. It surprises
13:14me that so many on the left have
13:16followed this idea, which he came up
13:17with at the Day of Potsdam. So, if
13:20Hitler is to have been the culmination
13:22and the inevitable end of German
13:24history, well, then you can pack it in.
13:28I believe that is a very shortened view
13:31of history. The left likes to do this,
13:34of course, because it wants to drive
13:37out and abolish the nation, so to speak
13:40, because it fundamentally has a
13:42problem with the word fatherland, the
13:45word German, the word nation. All of
13:49this is under suspicion, so to speak,
13:51and we believe that is not only an
13:54ahistorical way of looking at things,
13:56but it is an almost malicious,
13:58diabolical perspective that poisons our
14:00climate.
14:03>> Perhaps as a follow-up, would you stick
14:05to the practice—which takes place in
14:07some federal states—of school classes
14:09visiting former concentration camps or
14:11memorials? Yes, of course I think it is
14:15important to visit such places, but not
14:18exclusively and not only. And I also
14:22find it problematic when coercion is
14:24exercised during such excursions.
14:27Because such an excursion, especially
14:30with the school classes we have today,
14:32with 80, 90%migration background,
14:35including many Arabs, Muslims, and so
14:37on—well, try going with such a school
14:40class to Sachsenhausen or another site.
14:43You really have to be a good educator
14:45so that it doesn't get out of hand.
14:48Regarding what you just said, Ms.
14:50Ferber, about defining healthy national
14:53pride: when does unhealthy national
14:56pride begin, or how do you define the
14:58term "healthy national pride"?
15:02>> Yes. Um, the healthy part is that it is
15:05the sick part, let's say, when one–as
15:07I had explained, right–when one
15:09identifies Germany only with everything
15:11negative, when one assumes that, um,
15:13there is not only something like a
15:14historical responsibility, which we
15:16naturally have, um, but one can only
15:18live up to this responsibility if there
15:20is still a German people. It becomes
15:24unhealthy when one goes a step further
15:27and, so to speak, believes that today's
15:29generation also somehow bears some sort
15:32of guilt. German youth and young people
15:36who were born and raised in Germany
15:38have absolutely no guilt for, uh, what
15:40happened at the wall, for example, or
15:43what happened years, uh, before. They
15:46are free of guilt, because guilt is
15:48always something personal. The
15:50responsibility we have, by the way, we
15:52share with many other countries. Um,
15:54here also begins, let's say, um, the
15:56more complex re-evaluation of history,
15:59which is just now beginning, and which
16:01also shows that one cannot view events
16:04now—think of Timothy Snyder and so on
16:06—one cannot view it all as monocausal
16:08and, so to speak, shift the inherited
16:11guilt for all the evils of the 20th.
16:13Century onto Germany. Um, there was
16:16quite a bit more to it. Think of, um,
16:18Stalin, communism, and so on. So that
16:21is largely, um, yes, uh, much more
16:23complex than it has been portrayed so
16:25far.
16:26>> Now I have so many requests to speak:
16:28TV, then we have Süddeutsche Zeitung
16:31and FAZ in that order. Please.
16:33>> Then I will start with Welt. A question
16:36for you, Mr. Baumannel. Who, what are
16:38Germans here? Whether you could provide
16:40a definition for that? I would like to
16:43ask Mr. Frömming, um, what specific
16:45changes should there be to the current
16:47culture of remembrance? So, are there
16:51any concrete ideas or examples for
16:54shifting, cutting, what to build up, so
16:57where, so to speak, what can one
17:00concretely imagine? Mhm.
17:03>> That is, of course, a big question, who
17:06are we Germans, uh, now here in this
17:07short press round. I'll try to keep it
17:10as short as possible. Uh, firstly,
17:12historically, uh, Germans are, so to
17:14speak, historically rooted in a German
17:17self-awareness tracing back to the
17:20Germanic ancestors, the Germanic tribes
17:23. So in the 10th. Century with Otto the
17:25Great, uh, uh, the German king, uh, uh,
17:27that is when German history is said to
17:29begin. That is when one became aware
17:32that there is a German language in
17:34contrast to what was spoken to the west
17:36, the Frankish, or to the east, the
17:38Slavic, a self-awareness that then
17:40developed many facets, alongside the
17:42rule of the nobility, a free urban
17:44citizenry already very early in the
17:4511th, 12th. Century. I come from
17:48Hamburg. Free citizens joining together
17:52, not subjects of any king, bishop, or
17:54count, defending themselves and
17:57engaging in trade. The Hanseatic League
18:00, a vast early industrial manifestation
18:02driven by a society of high trust, a
18:05sense of duty, and civic spirit. We see
18:08this extending to Protestantism and
18:11Lutheranism, a worldview gifted, so to
18:14speak, to the entire world. With its
18:18sense of profession and duty, first
18:20religious and then secular, it led to
18:23what was asked about earlier: the
18:25Bismarck Empire, the Prussian-German
18:27model, so to speak, world-leading, a
18:29constitutional state, internal legal
18:31certainty, and efficiency in
18:33administration, processes, and science.
18:38All at the highest level of which
18:40European civilization as a whole was
18:43capable. In competition with Great
18:45Britain and France, a competition of
18:48European nations, there was always
18:50something distinctly German palpable
18:53and noticeable at the heart of this
18:55continent—the need to be especially
18:58fast in this competition, economically,
19:01militarily, and administratively. All
19:04these things are facets, so to speak,
19:07of being German. Unfortunately, at the
19:11end of the 19th century......a crazed
19:13competition broke out between these
19:15European nations, which had become
19:17massive powerhouses. This led to the
19:21First World War and the first shaking
19:23of European self-confidence due to the
19:25way the war was suddenly fought. Total
19:28war, with mutilation, the use of gas,
19:31and millions dead—a shaking of
19:33European self-confidence. The Second
19:37World War was even worse, but it
19:39remained clearly palpable: a European
19:41self-confidence, a European
19:42civilization spanning all the horrors
19:45that occurred, which now, in a global
19:47comparison—when we come into contact
19:49with the Chinese cultural sphere, the
19:51Arab one, and so on—makes it clear
19:53what our European cultural space is,
19:55based on our own values. Democracy,
19:59individual freedom, the rule of law—
20:01the best civilization that has ever
20:03existed in world history, according to
20:05our own values. And in a certain sense,
20:08Germany is the heart of that. It is the
20:10heart of Europe. Even today, it remains
20:13the economic, industrial, technological
20:15, and cultural heart of Europe. This
20:19gives us a responsibility; without a
20:21strong, self-confident Germany—as
20:23Gürt Frömming presented regarding
20:25memory culture—there is no strong
20:27self-confidence for Europe, nor is it
20:30capable of acting. That, in brief, is
20:33the overview. A follow-up question,
20:35please. Briefly.
20:37>> How about a short version of who
20:39Germans are today?
20:40>> There is no short version for such
20:42complex matters. Those are
20:44simplifications that do not, so to
20:46speak, do justice to the facts. This is
20:49something so profound, important, and
20:52central—the German and the European
20:54—that it cannot be reduced to mere
20:57slogans. Now, moving on, the next
21:01question, please, ma'am.
21:03>> Yes, I'll keep it short. You asked uh
21:05what we specifically envision; I don't
21:07know if the motion was uh distributed
21:09to you, so um, the sites of democracy
21:11and the freedom movement, starting with
21:13the Wartburg Festival, Hambach Castle,
21:15St. Paul's Church. Regarding St. Paul's
21:18Church, one could consider whether to
21:20perhaps restore it, so to speak, to the
21:22historical experience there. It is a
21:24very bare space at the moment. Um, the
21:26founding of the Empire I already
21:28mentioned, the peaceful revolution of
21:29'89, which is now over 35 years ago.
21:31Where is our unity monument? The
21:33monuments that remind us of German
21:35guilt are being erected at breakneck
21:37speed. Yes, but here the unity monument
21:40. Uh, we don't need to discuss the
21:41quality of this seesaw now, but I don't
21:43see one and I also don't know when uh
21:45when the groundbreaking ceremony will
21:47even take place here. So, we simply
21:50miss more effort here to also make
21:52these positive places, places of
21:54remembrance, of our history visible
21:57again in the cityscape, if you will.
22:01>> Now we still have Ms. Höhne from the
22:03Süddeutsche Zeitung, Ms. Haupt from
22:05the FAZ. Did I overlook anyone? Excuse
22:08me. Let's do it in order, please.
22:12>> I'll try one more time briefly. Who, in
22:14your view, belongs to the German people
22:15? And then my second question for Mr.
22:18Frömming. Um, what is your stance on
22:20the singularity of the Holocaust?
22:23>> There is a German national people.
22:27These are all those who have German
22:29citizenship, with all rights and duties
22:31, without restriction. That is the
22:34German national people. But there is—
22:38and that was just my point—a
22:40historically developed German
22:42ethnic-cultural people, which appears
22:45in many places in the Basic Law; to
22:47which Germans in Romania belonged. In
22:51Bulgaria, in former Russia, elsewhere
22:53in Eastern Europe, who were not German
22:56citizens, but ethnically and culturally
22:58German and who naturally belonged to
23:01the German people. Therefore, that also
23:03exists: an ethnic, cultural German
23:05people. And that is in a certain way
23:09from our perspective—could be or are
23:11—the values, the norms, the cultural
23:14influence, these things that we bring
23:17with us from history, also what we wish
23:20for and also demand from people who
23:22come to us from outside, who are
23:25welcome to come to us if they come
23:27legally, work here, pay taxes, support
23:30us, and want to become German. That is
23:33what Friedrich Merz, when he was still
23:35with [CDU/CSU] back then, called the
23:36guiding principle himself. So, these
23:39facets of being German exist. Götz,
23:42would you like to add anything to that?
23:44That's okay,
23:46>> but you also had, I believe, a question
23:47was also directed at you.
23:49>> Yes, that was the question about the
23:51Holocaust or the Shoah. Um, well, I
23:54believe that the Holocaust is
23:56unparalleled regarding the monstrosity
23:59of this crime. Uh, in that respect, it
24:03is unique. What worries me a lot,
24:07however, is, um, that we now have
24:10forces in Berlin again that have just
24:13formed an alliance and will likely
24:16govern here in Berlin, the German
24:19capital. Uh, who rally behind slogans
24:23like "Free Germany," right? No, "Free
24:26Palestine from German Guilt." You
24:29really have to let that sink in, what
24:31that actually means. And if you are
24:34looking for Holocaust deniers, then you
24:36should look into this left-wing
24:39Muslim-Arab milieu, um. You will be
24:41more likely to find them there than in
24:42the AfD. Now let's move from the
24:44Süddeutsche Zeitung to the FAZ. Go
24:46ahead, Ms. Haupt. Uh.
24:50>> Yes, the question just occurred to me
24:51because I was remembering my own school
24:53days, and we were, for example, not at
24:55a concentration camp memorial, but at
24:56an incredible number of local history
24:58museums and at the Bundestag and so on.
25:01So, we actually cultivated a lot of
25:03other things beyond KZ, uh, or
25:05Holocaust, uh, remembrance culture. So,
25:09but now for my concrete question, do
25:11you also see a need to specifically
25:13redesign school curricula, for example,
25:16or to mandate, for instance, that for
25:18every visit to Auschwitz, there should
25:21be two visits to a parish church or
25:23something comparable?
25:26>> Well, we don't want to return to a
25:28centralized control of the school
25:29system, as is, uh, by the way, always
25:31characteristic of dictatorships, right?
25:33Well, uh, both in the GDR and under the
25:36Nazis, they tried to control education
25:38centrally, by the way, also to create a
25:41"new man," and therefore reached for
25:43the youngest children. That is actually
25:45more of a left-wing idea, to turn even
25:47the youngest ones against their parents
25:48. We don't want that. We see ourselves,
25:50um, also as far as school is concerned,
25:52as advocates of federalism. There must
25:54also be a certain diversity here. And
25:57if you had teachers who took you on
25:59these excursions, every teacher of
26:00course has a certain freedom to do that
26:02, then we find that wonderful. We have
26:05also proposed in our educational
26:07programs, uh, that we should
26:09reintroduce a subject—it used to be
26:11called "Heimat und Sachkunde"[local
26:13studies], I believe—where such, yes,
26:15excursions into the local area and into
26:18nature are, uh, increasingly carried
26:20out. Yes, because one has to know, uh,
26:24where one lives, and we still have many
26:27nice local museums, regional museums,
26:29and so on; they are all worth a visit.
26:34Thank you for that. Let's move on to
26:37the next topic and follow up on the
26:39question from Mr. Hallasch from the AfD
26:40. What about this left-wing policy of
26:43history, so to speak? AD.
26:46>> ARD, what did I say? AfD.
26:48>> Well, I might have jumped the gun there
26:50, but Mr. Hallas from the ARD, of
26:54course, is also the critical voice in
26:57the room here, of course. Uh, you had
27:00asked, uh, about the Left and the view
27:02of history and what we are essentially
27:04trying to unite there. Uh, that is
27:07precisely the attempt to deconstruct
27:09terms like "people" and "nation," as
27:12you put it, uh, as a prerequisite, in a
27:15way, for a multicultural society—no
27:18borders, no nation—and to dissolve
27:20the entire settlement area of Germany
27:23to open it up to the whole world with
27:26open borders. Uh, Ms. Bas, as a
27:28minister, said she wants to abolish the
27:30"uniform gray" on all of our faces, by
27:32which she means getting rid of white
27:34skin color, in a way. We are supposed
27:36to become colorful and diverse. All
27:38these absurdities are the prerequisite
27:41for the migration policy we are
27:43experiencing. That is, how historical
27:47policy is laid as a foundation for a
27:50specific, uh, migration policy and
27:53population management policy. That is
27:57the great danger in the background and
27:59the importance of maintaining a proper,
28:02balanced historical image of one's own
28:05ancestors, one's own history, one's own
28:07people, one's own nation. And so we
28:11come to the next topic, namely
28:13migration policy, which, as it has been
28:16conducted, could in my view never have
28:19happened if this one-sided, false
28:22policy of remembrance and identity had
28:25not existed as a basis. And we are now
28:29the only ones out there standing for a
28:31real migration turnaround, for
28:33controlled migration. Merz had only
28:36promised that, and, uh, he wanted to
28:38turn people back at the border from day
28:40one. The latest figures from the BAMF
28:42—the BAMF, you know, part of the
28:44Interior Ministry—official figures.
28:46120,000 new asylum migrants have
28:48crossed the border and filed initial
28:50applications. For more on a real
28:52migration turnaround, Gottfried Curio,
28:54whom you know here from the Interior
28:57Committee and our domestic policy
28:58spokesperson, please, Gottfried.
29:01>> Yes, thank you very much. One can, in
29:03fact, build the bridge even more
29:06directly, almost. Bernd Baumann
29:09recalled the quote from Bärbel Bas
29:11against the "uniform gray" of the
29:13Germans. She continued that statement
29:17directly with the sentence, "I even
29:20want, hyphen, brown," so uniform brown,
29:23and that is why immigration is also
29:25needed for diversity. So the topics are
29:30linked in an exemplary way, where a
29:33terrible, dreadful past is
29:35instrumentalized for a specific type of
29:39immigration policy. What is it
29:42specifically about now? It was just
29:44mentioned. In March, he campaigned with
29:47the promise to turn everyone back at
29:48the border without exception from day
29:50one. The figures since May of last year
29:55show a scale each month of about 2%
29:57between the rejections actually carried
30:01out at the border and the asylum
30:03applications filed. That means 98%get
30:08through. There have been four
30:11deportations to Syria this year, not
30:14400 or 4,000; four new asylum seekers
30:16have arrived, once again over 100,000,
30:19via family reunification, another large
30:21city's worth, over 100,000 again. A
30:26migration turnaround, which we hear
30:29about and which the Union wants to
30:32portray as initiated or even
30:34accomplished, would mean that we have a
30:37net negative migration of 200,000 to
30:40300,000 per year, so that we can reduce
30:43this surplus of people not entitled to
30:46stay here. What is happening instead?
30:50It is being institutionalized. This
30:52reduction is being prevented by a
30:55record number of naturalizations, over
30:58330,000 people last year. Nota bene,
31:02here in Berlin it has doubled every
31:05year for years; in '23 there were
31:0810,000 naturalizations, 24,000 last
31:10year, and over 40,000 naturalizations,
31:13so, truly dire conditions. The solution
31:17is by no means in Europe. The new
31:20regulation of the GEAS concerns
31:22precisely the countries with the lowest
31:25origin and arrival numbers. That is,
31:28where the numbers are...
31:31>> Yes, the Common European Asylum System,
31:33where there was a new regulation, if
31:35numbers are going down, it’s not due
31:37to the government, but to external
31:39circumstances, as the civil war in
31:41Syria has been over for a long time;
31:43where one can judge the government's
31:45measures, the situation has even
31:47worsened, as with the deportations.
31:50Therefore, we are proposing a
31:51comprehensive package of measures and
31:53pointing out once again what a real
31:55migration turnaround would mean. As it
31:58was constitutional for decades,
32:01naturalization should again be at the
32:04discretion of the host state, at the
32:07earliest after 10 years, without dual
32:10citizenship as a standard possibility,
32:13and—it is necessary to add—a
32:16fraud-proof procedure must be
32:19established, as there have been
32:23extensive reports of falsified language
32:26and integration tests, which actually
32:28make a retroactive review of past cases
32:31necessary. Equally, we need a
32:35repatriation initiative that exerts
32:37truly massive economic pressure on
32:40countries of origin so that they
32:42cooperate through economic cooperation,
32:44development aid, technological
32:46cooperation, visa issuance; all of that
32:49must be strengthened. For federal
32:53states that do not participate
32:55sufficiently, we must also exert
32:57financial pressure through the federal
33:00government's only voluntary
33:01cost-sharing for the reception and care
33:04of asylum seekers. Then, the case of
33:08Syria is flagrant. The civil war there
33:10has been over for a long time.
33:11Therefore, protected statuses must be
33:14revoked for past cases, or at the very
33:17least not granted anew in the future.
33:21We have submitted written questions to
33:24the Ministry of the Interior regarding
33:27this, and to a significant extent,
33:30during repeat checks on whether these
33:33protected statuses are still current,
33:36they are still being confirmed,
33:39contrary to what is being put on public
33:42display. Therefore, naturalizations,
33:46family reunification, and residence
33:49permits attached to Syrian nationals
33:51are to be suspended and repatriations
33:54are to be resumed. Of course, any
33:57financial support for the new Syrian
34:00regime must be made dependent on this.
34:03Family reunification is another
34:04dimension. For those with subsidiary
34:06protection, this should not just be
34:08suspended, but abolished, as it is a
34:09voluntary benefit. Austria goes a step
34:12further and has also suspended
34:13reunification for those with individual
34:15protection status altogether. This can
34:18also be strengthened at the EU level.
34:21We have submitted detailed motions for
34:24actual border protection supported by
34:27AI and drones. We want airports to be
34:32included in this focus and for all the
34:34wrong incentives to be generally
34:36dismantled, so that there can of course
34:38be no asylum procedures for people
34:40arriving from safe third countries
34:42whose identity is unclear. No changing
34:46tracks, no voluntary admission programs
34:49. We go through all of this in the
34:51motion. But the crucial point is that
34:54we must not have this simulated
34:56turnaround, but rather a real
34:58turnaround, and this motion aims to
35:00make a proposal for that.
35:03>> Are there any questions about this? A
35:05real migration turnaround instead of a
35:07feigned one. Uh
35:09>> Yes, Mr. Curio, Ulrich Sigmund said
35:12after the election that an Israeli arms
35:15company should stay because its goods
35:18are needed for the remigration
35:21offensive. Is that also the opinion of
35:25the parliamentary group, and should
35:27arms companies in Germany generally
35:29provide goods for this? From your point
35:32of view, is that a task for them?
35:35Should you ask him more precisely what
35:37he means by that? Whether goods should
35:39be used. This phrasing would be news to
35:42me. It seems to be your interpretation.
35:44Whether it's because those to be
35:47deported, when placed on passenger
35:50planes, regularly throw themselves
35:53screaming on the floor, so that the
35:56pilots say they cannot take them.
35:59Whether a transition to cargo planes,
36:01and not people, meaning not passenger
36:03planes, is what is meant. Perhaps that
36:06is what is meant. Uh, just ask him
36:08further questions about it. Topic:
36:12Migration. Yes, please, the
36:13Süddeutsche again. Ms. Höhne,
36:16>> would you say Germany is a country of
36:17immigration?
36:21>> The question is actually always, uh,
36:24currently—as I just explained again
36:26—we have several large cities 'worth
36:29of people, in terms of numbers,
36:32immigrating every year. The question is
36:36, do you mean the status quo or do you
36:37mean what should be aimed for? Um, the
36:41same party, for example, here. We are
36:43in Berlin. Campaigns with the housing
36:46shortage while simultaneously saying we
36:48have room and continuing without end.
36:52It also propagates the immigration of
36:54people who all have no reason for
36:57protection when they reach the German
36:59border for the illegal crossing of this
37:01border. That is why we say that this
37:05type of immigration, of illegal
37:07immigration that we are experiencing,
37:10without a reason for protection, is not
37:12in the German interest, and is even
37:15against the German interest. That
37:18naturally has nothing to do with us
37:21wanting to attract, or win back, actual
37:25skilled workers—be they from abroad
37:28or those who have regrettably decided
37:31to turn their backs on Germany. Good,
37:36then we have finished with that topic
37:38as well. Then let us move on to the
37:40next important topic. We are currently
37:44seeing with the Left Party in Berlin
37:46just how deeply the Left is entangled
37:48in open hatred of Jews, in antisemitism
37:50. The colleagues here have to go to the
37:54next meeting, the next working group
37:56session. So, the Left Party is
37:59entangled in open hatred of Jews and
38:01antisemitism, and is heavily
38:03infiltrated by clan structures. There
38:07are representatives who file written
38:09parliamentary inquiries regarding
38:11police equipment and police
38:13organization during clan operations,
38:15who are then later seen celebrating,
38:17arm-in-arm, with clan bosses. Hurray,
38:22we won, at the Left Party's election
38:24party. And today we are addressing here
38:29in particular the close connection
38:31between the Left, Antifa, and left-wing
38:34extremist terror. Something we have
38:37encountered quite often, as have all of
38:40you who always attend these press
38:42conferences. We see the attacks by
38:44so-called climate extremists, who
38:45belong to the left-wing milieu, and
38:47many other things. For more on this,
38:49our representative Martin Hess, Police
38:51Chief Inspector and member of the
38:53Committee on Internal Affairs, as well
38:55as Deputy Spokesman for Internal
38:57Affairs. Please go ahead.
39:00>> A wonderful good morning from my side
39:01as well. The election result in Berlin
39:04virtually shows that the state has
39:06failed for decades in the fight against
39:08left-wing extremism. A party that is
39:12more or less openly left-wing extremist
39:14, that openly proclaims a change of
39:17system, that has clear ties to petty
39:20crime, that has clear ties to Islamism,
39:23to the support of Islamist terror,
39:25could now potentially provide the
39:28governing mayor; what that would mean
39:30for our security situation in Germany.
39:34That needs no further elaboration. It
39:36is obvious at first glance, especially
39:38when one also looks at what this Left
39:40party had in its election platform
39:42regarding the equipment of security
39:44forces and also the powers and
39:45procedures of the security forces. This
39:50means we must, especially now in light
39:53of these events, finally move to
39:56clearly name left-wing extremism and
40:00focus on combating it. This more or
40:05less one-sided focus on right-wing
40:07extremism, even on the fight against
40:09the right, appears completely misplaced
40:11in view of the overall development.
40:15Massive course corrections are needed
40:16here, and this motion is intended to
40:18serve that purpose. We must, I will say
40:21this again, combat left-wing extremism
40:24now with all robustness and with all
40:27determination. While it is always
40:30proclaimed by the Interior Minister, if
40:33you look at what is actually being
40:35implemented, there is nothing truly
40:37substantial coming out of it, and there
40:39are no real successes to show for it
40:41either. Just look at the attacks on
40:46critical infrastructure here in Berlin,
40:49where there are very few or even no
40:51investigative results to show; in short
40:54, we need a more effective and
40:57efficient approach here. This motion
41:01serves that purpose, and it can be
41:03presented in five key focal points.
41:06First, we want to strengthen the
41:08security authorities and centralize
41:10investigations. This means we need more
41:12personnel to combat left-wing extremism
41:15. We need cross-state task forces.
41:19Second, we must dismantle left-wing
41:22extremist structures and ensure that
41:24left-wing extremist safe havens no
41:27longer exist as such. In particular,
41:31when dismantling these left-wing
41:33extremist structures, violent and
41:34violence-prone Antifa structures must
41:36finally be banned. We must ban the Rote
41:39Hilfe and also ban the Mediaorg. Third,
41:42the financing of left-wing extremism
41:45must be dried up. We must also take a
41:47closer look at the corresponding
41:49support networks. This means, in
41:52particular, the state funding practice
41:54must be subjected to a review. We need
41:59seamless traceability of federal funds.
42:02Taxpayer money must not end up in the
42:04hands of extremists. Fourth, police
42:07operations and criminal law must be
42:09tightened accordingly. We need much
42:12more robust police intervention, a
42:14so-called zero-tolerance strategy that
42:16is actually worthy of the name. But we
42:20also need a tightening in the area of
42:23criminal law, especially regarding
42:25penalties for attacks on police
42:28officers, acts of sabotage, and
42:30corresponding terrorism offenses. And
42:34fifth, finally, regarding prevention,
42:36education for society, and their
42:38sensitization. When you see how deeply
42:41left-wing extremist structures,
42:43including Antifa, are connected to
42:45church institutions and trade union
42:47institutions, that is something that
42:49urgently needs to be corrected. In
42:52short: We want to increase
42:54investigative pressure, smash the
42:56structures of left-wing extremists, dry
42:58up their cash flows, protect the rule
42:59of law and critical infrastructure, and
43:01strengthen prevention and education
43:03regarding left-wing extremism.
43:06>> For questions on this, we have the AfD
43:08and the ZDF in that order. Mr. Hallas,
43:13>> Yes, Mr. Hess, the fight against
43:14left-wing extremism is also a task of
43:16the Office for the Protection of the
43:17Constitution. As the AfD, you are
43:19critical of them. You didn't mention
43:21them just now. Um, how do you see that?
43:24For example, should the Office for the
43:26Protection of the Constitution monitor
43:28the Left party? Um, do you see a role
43:30for them there? Given the fact that we
43:36are dealing with a situation where the
43:39Office for the Protection of the
43:42Constitution is being politically
43:45instrumentalized and outright abused,
43:49especially regarding the AfD, our
43:52position is that the agency must return
43:55to its core responsibilities. In our
44:00view, monitoring political parties is
44:04not among those tasks; instead, we must
44:07focus on actual extremism, actual
44:10terrorism, and the counter-intelligence
44:13against espionage and sabotage. A
44:17political instrumentalization of the
44:20agency must no longer be allowed to
44:23happen. Ms. Ferber, please, regarding
44:29your last point: you say that left-wing
44:31extremism is deeply rooted in society,
44:34for instance in labor unions and, um,
44:36the church. What exactly are you
44:38planning to do to enforce that? This is
44:43about prevention and public education
44:46—making it clear to people who they
44:48are aligning themselves with,
44:51especially those who are involved there
44:53in good faith. Man, this is simply a
44:57blind spot in our society, so to speak.
45:01If you look at Antifa structures, it is
45:03always claimed that they aren't a
45:05problem at all. They say Antifa stands
45:08for anti-fascism and that every
45:10sensible German should support that.
45:13But the opposite is true. We see that
45:16parts of these Antifa structures are
45:19simply left-wing extremist street thugs
45:22who use violence against those with
45:24dissenting opinions—those who deviate
45:27from the left-green spectrum—and take
45:29violent action against them. We have
45:34enough examples, and this
45:36trivialization and relativization must
45:38be ended by rolling out an information
45:41offensive to the public. FRZ, one more
45:46question, Ms. Haupt. Um,
45:49>> Mr. Hess, since you just described the
45:51Left Party as a left-wing extremist
45:53party: if the Office for the Protection
45:56of the Constitution were to shift its
45:58observation to targets other than
46:01parties, what fears would you have
46:03regarding things that you or the state
46:05might miss concerning the Left Party,
46:08especially since parties are partly
46:10extended arms into parliaments, so to
46:12speak? I mean, if you say we shouldn't
46:15look there anymore, you might suddenly
46:18ignore structures you see in society at
46:20a critical level, just because they are
46:22in parliament. The reality is that
46:28there are left-wing extremist
46:30structures, and this party interacts
46:32with these left-wing extremist
46:34structures. That means you don't even
46:39have to monitor the Left Party to
46:40realize that it interacts with
46:42left-wing extremist structures.
46:45Incidentally, to be perfectly clear,
46:47while the Office for the Protection of
46:49the Constitution has to compile
46:51thousands of pages on the AfD under
46:54political orders to supposedly prove
46:56that we are right-wing extremist, they
46:59do not need that at all for the
47:01left-wing extremists. They do not need
47:03it at all for the Left Party. You only
47:04have to look at who attends their
47:06election parties and stands there quite
47:08openly. I mean, that is clearly
47:09recognizable to everyone. You don't
47:11need an agency acting as an
47:12intermediary to portray it to the
47:14citizens. So, I want to reject that
47:17with all possible emphasis. We have no
47:19ties whatsoever to any criminal clans.
47:22We have no ties to any Islamist terror
47:25supporters, and we have no ties—
47:29>> Can we briefly proceed by you asking
47:31the question and me answering
47:33accordingly, because it is bad if we
47:34keep interrupting each other. So, I
47:36reject that. We have no such ties in
47:40any way, and what is being claimed here
47:43regarding right-wing extremism in the
47:46AfD is simply not substantiated. If you
47:50want to prove that a party is extremist
47:52—and you can ask any security expert
47:54about this—then you don't need
47:59thousands of pages of reports; you can
48:01demonstrate that relatively quickly
48:03with relatively few pages. And that is
48:06precisely what is not being done in our
48:08case. That is why there is clearly
48:09abuse there. And once again, the
48:11opposition to parties must take place
48:13politically. You must not abuse the
48:15Office for the Protection of the
48:16Constitution for that. And I don't need
48:19to monitor a party if I want to
48:21identify relevant ties to extremist
48:23areas. It is enough for me to monitor
48:27left-wing extremist organizations from
48:31the state side using intelligence
48:33services so that the connections become
48:36evident, so to speak. Good, let's now
48:42move on to the final topic, which is
48:45one of the most important that we want
48:48to present to you this week. A topic
48:52that dominates the republic up and down
48:55is the reform of social security, and
48:57at its core, pension insurance. And we
49:00want to present our proposals to you
49:02today in a somewhat broader form.
49:05Pension insurance is largely plundered
49:07by the state to the tune of tens of
49:08billions, with the money used for
49:09completely different purposes. A
49:12fundamental reform is needed here so
49:15that our pensioners receive what they
49:17have worked for their entire lives,
49:19which works in other Western European
49:21countries but does not work in Germany.
49:25More on this from our representative
49:27Geri Tui; for those who don't know her
49:29yet—though most of you do—she is a
49:31qualified mathematician, a qualified
49:34economist, attended Harvard University,
49:36held senior positions in industry at
49:38Mercedes and Compaq Computer, and is
49:40also our spokesperson in the Committee
49:42for Labor and Social Affairs. Please
49:45Gerry, you have the floor.
49:46>> Yes, thank you very much. I have
49:48condensed this a bit just now, because
49:49the time is already quite advanced. So,
49:52if I am too fast or speak too concisely
49:53, please feel free to ask your
49:55questions. We have—or rather, I would
49:59like to present to you today an overall
50:00concept for an adequate pension in
50:02Germany, a sustainably adequate pension
50:04, and I want to say one thing upfront.
50:07No pension concept works without a
50:09functioning economy. Regardless of
50:12whether it is pay-as-you-go or
50:14capital-funded, none of it works if we
50:17don't have a flourishing economy that
50:19generates the money we can then spend
50:21on pensions. So, that is the basic
50:24prerequisite. That is why economic
50:25policy measures are needed, but I am
50:27not talking about those today. We want
50:29to strengthen the statutory pension.
50:31That has gotten around. We have three
50:33points on this. The first is that we
50:35still want to be able to retire after
50:3845 years without any deductions. Anyone
50:41who has worked for 45 years should have
50:44the option to decide to retire without
50:46having to accept deductions. If they
50:49want to continue working, that is of
50:50course also good. We would also reward
50:53that with tax relief in the future.
50:57Then we would like to have a pension
50:59level of 70%, more precisely a net wage
51:01replacement rate of 70%. This is the
51:05level as calculated by the OECD and
51:07used for comparison between countries.
51:10And if you look at this comparison, you
51:12will find that about half of the
51:13European countries have a pension level
51:16of 70%or more. It goes up to almost 100
51:18%. Austrians, for example, have a
51:22formula that says anyone who has worked
51:2545 years and then retires at 65,
51:27receives 80%of their last income at age
51:3065. So, that—and they actually
51:33achieve that as well. Switzerland is at
51:3570%, and we are at 53%. Now you have to
51:38consider that anyone who receives 53%of
51:41their last income and perhaps
51:42transitions from minimum wage into
51:44retirement simply cannot live on that.
51:47So we want to change that, also to
51:49avoid sending all people who come from
51:51low-wage sectors into basic social
51:52security in everyday life. Today, you
51:55have to earn at least € 2,500, or
51:58even € 3,000 in a big city, to be
52:00above the basic social security level
52:03in old age after 45 working years. And
52:07these are perfectly normal professions
52:09that receive € 3,000 or less, trained
52:11professions that are then not enough to
52:14avoid becoming a social welfare
52:16recipient after 45 working years. That
52:18is the sad part. Anyone who receives
52:21basic social security is a welfare
52:23recipient and must spend their assets
52:25down to € 10,000 before receiving
52:26money from the office. And today we
52:30have a record number of basic social
52:32security recipients in old age, 770,000
52:34. So, it's approaching a million. Um,
52:38over a third of them, by the way, are
52:40foreigners who generally haven't worked
52:42, but what really hurts us is that many
52:44pensioners, who have sometimes worked
52:46for many decades, are also dependent on
52:48basic security. We want to change that
52:51sustainably. Yes, and then the third
52:56point is that we have non-insurance
52:59benefits, which are at least—I don't
53:01want to say unlawful, because it's not
53:04clearly defined—but at least contrary
53:07to the original requirements, being
53:09taken from the pension fund to pay for
53:12social benefits. Social benefits that
53:15we do not want to abolish. Mothers'
53:16pensions, for example, are a social
53:18benefit. The mothers themselves didn't
53:21pay into the pension fund, but we don't
53:23want the pensioner to finance them. And
53:26today, the subsidy that the government
53:29gives to the pension fund does not
53:31fully cover these social benefits. A
53:34deficit of 40 billion remains. And that
53:39means pensions are reduced by these 40
53:41billion, which should have been
53:42financed through contributions. One
53:46could increase pensions by 10%
53:47immediately if these non-insurance
53:49benefits were paid from the state
53:51budget in the future. That is what we
53:53want to do. By the way, that has been
53:54in coalition agreements for a long time
53:56; it was already in the traffic light
53:57coalition agreement, and it is in there
53:58again now. Only no one is thinking of
54:00actually putting this into practice,
54:02especially not Mr. Klingbeil. We have
54:04firmly committed ourselves to this
54:05because we want to massively combat
54:07this poverty in old age. So, in stages,
54:09we would increase pensions by 10%solely
54:12by addressing these non-insurance
54:15benefits, and we would finance it
54:17through savings. By scaling down
54:20support, specifically by no longer
54:22sending any arms supplies. We would
54:24remove refugees from the citizens '
54:25allowance. We would no longer overpay
54:28international organizations, we would
54:30cut development aid, and so on.
54:32Lowering EU contributions. The next
54:34round is supposed to cost 2 trillion—
54:36the 7-year cycle is supposed to cost 2
54:38trillion euros. That is, of course,
54:40completely insane. You can start there,
54:42and then enough money will come out to
54:44increase the pensions. Yes, and to
54:46ensure these non-insurance benefits
54:48don't keep happening, we have proposed
54:51a law that makes the pension insurance
54:53more independent of the Social Ministry
54:56. The Social Ministry retains legal
54:58oversight, but the pension insurance
55:00can otherwise act independently and has
55:02an explicit duty under the law to
55:04ensure that no one dips into the
55:06pension fund, so that these funds are
55:08visible. We would also like to make the
55:11pension insurance itself more visible.
55:13There are the so-called social
55:14elections, so that people know who they
55:15are voting for and who they are
55:16entrusting their money to. It is an
55:18asset of, yes, 400 billion euros being
55:21managed there, so that you know who is
55:23responsible for this wealth in the
55:25future. Yes, and naturally, we are also
55:29keeping an eye on the capital market.
55:31Everyone wants capital-funded pensions.
55:34We at least want to seize the
55:35opportunities and have therefore
55:36developed a company pension model. It
55:40follows two tracks, but is
55:42capital-oriented in both. The first is
55:44the employer-funded portion, which is
55:47accounted for as a company pension. And
55:50the second is the employee portion,
55:52which is accounted for as a private,
55:54tax-subsidized retirement provision.
55:57And this has the great advantage that
55:59social security contributions—namely
56:02pension, um...Wait, no, health
56:06insurance and long-term care insurance
56:07—you only pay those on the
56:09employer-funded portion. Today, you pay
56:1221%in social security contributions
56:14alone on the entire payout amount. That
56:18is lost from the very start, out of
56:19everything you are actually supposed to
56:21receive. And on top of that, there is
56:24capital gains tax. With our plan, that
56:27only applies to the employer-funded
56:29portion. It’s, so to speak, a gift to
56:32the employees. The employer can do this
56:35voluntarily and doesn't have to give
56:37any guarantees—no payout guarantees,
56:38only a contribution guarantee. This
56:42makes it attractive and legally secure
56:44for employers. And what the employee
56:48can do as an employer-facilitated
56:51private pension plan—meaning the
56:53company offers it, and it can simply be
56:56deducted from the wage and transferred
56:59—is indeed subsidized and tax-exempt.
57:05These two parts flow into a common,
57:08state-regulated, monitored private
57:10standard fund, which is managed by
57:13professionals and is not allowed to
57:15charge more than half a percent in fees
57:18. We want to jump-start this fund with
57:25300 million in state subsidies. The
57:29state can recoup these 300 million
57:31after just three years, because we
57:32assume that the contributions from
57:34employers and employees will be large
57:36enough that it’s no longer needed,
57:38and there will be sufficient capital
57:39for investment. And I would like to
57:42point out that both are completely
57:44voluntary. Neither the employer nor the
57:47employees are forced to invest anything
57:49in a company pension scheme. Unlike the
57:52mandatory levies proposed by the
57:53current government. We believe that in
57:55times when households and companies are
57:58so burdened, every mandatory levy must
58:00be avoided. Yes, and finally, we have
58:03our Junior Savings Account. That is a
58:07great thing because we are saving for
58:09the youth here. The state is setting
58:11money aside, not for foreign purposes
58:13this time, but for its own citizens.
58:15That’s why we think it’s a sensible
58:18idea, and it secures the pensions of
58:20young people for their future. That is
58:23what I wanted to tell you in summary.
58:25So, we are both seizing capital market
58:27opportunities and, at the same time,
58:30improving the statutory pay-as-you-go
58:32pension system. In the long run, it
58:34will still be the main component of
58:36retirement provision.
58:38>> Thank you very much. You presented that
58:40well, clarifying the 70%once again.
58:45>> Thank you very much. With that,
58:47you’ve clarified it well, Gerarit, uh
58:49, these 70%, which sometimes haunt the
58:51press and are questioned, are quite
58:54substantially achievable. And uh, other
58:57EU states achieve that on average, some
59:00are even significantly higher. We just
59:02have to pursue sensible policy. At its
59:04core, that is sensible fiscal policy,
59:06that is the crux of everything, and for
59:08that, you need the political will.
59:11Truly, the left is over, enough with
59:13the leftist delusions, then a, so to
59:15speak, a restructuring of social
59:17security, especially the pension
59:18insurance, is possible. Questions on
59:21that, please. Busch from WP.de.
59:25>> Exactly. Thanks, Fabian. Busch from
59:26Wip.de and KMX. Um, I’d like to
59:29follow up on that. I mean, these 70%do
59:32indeed sound a bit illusory when you
59:35consider that the coalition was arguing
59:37about 45 or 48%last year. Could you
59:41explain that again very briefly? Are
59:43you saying that if you pay for
59:45non-insurance-related benefits from the
59:46federal budget in the future and save
59:48on Ukraine and so on, then you can
59:49afford these 70%, or how do you arrive
59:51at that?
59:53>> No, that is, of course, a
59:54simplification. Um, we are also not
59:57talking about the pension level when we
59:59speak of this 70%EU comparison; the way
1:00:02Germans define the German pension level
1:00:04is incomprehensible. Nobody can do
1:00:08anything with that definition, so we
1:00:09take the comparative pension level of
1:00:11the OECD, which is ultimately the net
1:00:13wage replacement rate. Everyone
1:00:15understands that—what you keep from
1:00:17your last wage—that is understandable
1:00:18.
1:00:19>> I believe it’s at 53%.
1:00:20>> And that’s where we are at 53%in
1:00:22>> comparison.
1:00:23>> And so these 10%in
1:00:24non-insurance-related benefits would
1:00:26increase that level to about 58%. But
1:00:30then quite a bit remains to reach 70%,
1:00:32which we want to achieve in the future,
1:00:35but that is really in the more distant
1:00:37future, and not just through the
1:00:39statutory pension insurance, but
1:00:41through occupational and tax-subsidized
1:00:43private retirement provision. However,
1:00:47we are also of the opinion that if you
1:00:49reduce the burden on households through
1:00:51tax reform and, I might add, health
1:00:53reform—because there is a lot of
1:00:54money to be saved there—if we
1:00:56implement these two reforms, one could
1:00:58also consider increasing pension
1:00:59contributions. We have the lowest
1:01:02pension contributions in Western Europe
1:01:03. That is, of course, a statement about
1:01:06the future. That will not be the case
1:01:08within the next 10 years, because we do
1:01:10not want to burden households. We want
1:01:13to provide overall relief in any case,
1:01:15and it only makes sense to put even
1:01:16more money into pensions if there is
1:01:18room for it. Any further questions?
1:01:22Pension insurance, please.
1:01:25>> Okay, so one of the most important
1:01:27topics of all. Thanks, Ger, for making
1:01:30this important point at the end, our
1:01:32pension concept for the short, medium,
1:01:35and long term. Then we'll move on to
1:01:37the popular general section. Is that
1:01:39the Süddeutsche? Go ahead, Ms. Höhne.
1:01:42I just wanted to ask about the European
1:01:45politicians' position paper on the euro
1:01:48and the softening of that position,
1:01:50what your stance is on it, and how you
1:01:52perceive the conflicts that partly
1:01:55exist regarding it.
1:01:59>> I don't know if there are any conflicts
1:02:01, but these are intra-party
1:02:03programmatic developments. We were
1:02:06founded back in 2013 because of the
1:02:09euro, Professor Lucke and the like. Uh,
1:02:12that was based on profound economic
1:02:14knowledge and an approach at the time.
1:02:18But now we have had the euro for so
1:02:20long, and all institutions in Europe,
1:02:23in Germany, the funds, the investors,
1:02:25private individuals, the companies,
1:02:28have all adapted to it now. And it's a
1:02:30bit, a bit like this—the analogy is a
1:02:32bit flawed, but—it's like a marriage:
1:02:34the longer it lasts, the more expensive
1:02:36the divorce becomes. This means that
1:02:39facts have been established that we
1:02:40have to acknowledge. We never, never
1:02:43wanted to exit the euro overnight. Uh,
1:02:46I am a doctor of economics myself. Uh,
1:02:48that won't work, that isn't feasible.
1:02:51But the euro is a currency that will
1:02:53not survive in the long run as it
1:02:54currently stands. The stability
1:02:58criteria for the euro were narrowly
1:03:00defined. 3%debt. France has 6%, 8%, and
1:03:05no one cares about it anymore.
1:03:08Depending on how you define it. We are
1:03:10heading into a bond crisis. France is
1:03:12in the middle of it right now. Uh, the
1:03:14greatest difficulties in prolonging
1:03:16their debt. Uh, they have to pay
1:03:19horrendous new interest rates to pay
1:03:21off the old debt. This means, and the
1:03:23other southern countries, so to speak,
1:03:26also have problems. There will be
1:03:28problems, without us having to somehow
1:03:30abolish the euro, which, as I said,
1:03:32cannot be done overnight and which we
1:03:34do not want either. We want stability
1:03:36in Europe. So, the euro would have to
1:03:39be reformed from top to bottom, so that
1:03:42it becomes a stability currency again,
1:03:44or to become a stability currency at
1:03:46all, that's a bit illusory. However, we
1:03:50would have the political will from
1:03:52Germany, as the largest nation, a
1:03:54stable budget, a debt limit, everything
1:03:56that Merz promised, sound finances in
1:03:58Germany, in the largest country in
1:04:00Europe, would stabilize the euro in a
1:04:03certain way. But what France and other
1:04:06countries are doing is beyond the pale.
1:04:09Therefore, it is a currency that will
1:04:11develop into something problematic. Uh,
1:04:15but we can certainly tell all citizens
1:04:17and everyone out there in the country,
1:04:19as I have always done anyway, that we
1:04:21won't abolish it overnight. It has
1:04:23become an institution and one must deal
1:04:26with it sensibly, just like the EU as a
1:04:29whole, and we have never had the idea,
1:04:31as Merz claims, that we would exit
1:04:33overnight—these bogeymen that Merz
1:04:36invents, that we would exit NATO. Those
1:04:39are really, I must say, tall tales,
1:04:41because he of course knows better. We
1:04:44first and foremost want stability, and
1:04:46that means we are in the EU, we want to
1:04:49maintain the single market through
1:04:51thick and thin. That is the core, so to
1:04:54speak, of the European community, the
1:04:56European market. Free trade, free flow
1:04:58of goods, free movement of people for
1:05:01Europeans within Europe. But we want an
1:05:04EU that can defend its borders. The EU
1:05:07can't even do that. Yes, it is more
1:05:09open than a block of Swiss cheese.
1:05:11There is nothing at all at the borders.
1:05:13Frontex, the EU agency for border
1:05:15protection, so to speak, is effectively
1:05:18associated with the smugglers. They
1:05:20have to take the refugees from the
1:05:22smugglers on the high seas and escort
1:05:24them to European ports. That is absurd.
1:05:28Here too, the EU is completely
1:05:30mispositioned. Then there is the Green
1:05:32Deal and the interference in national
1:05:35sovereign policy. Why does everything
1:05:37have to be regulated in Brussels? This
1:05:39means the EU must be turned right-side
1:05:42up; it must be restructured. But that
1:05:44is nothing new. It has always been
1:05:46restructured. It started as the
1:05:49European Economic Community and then
1:05:51this increasing centralism set in,
1:05:53which we want to end. So, we want a
1:05:57European community of sovereign states
1:06:00that can protect its borders, that also
1:06:03emancipates itself militarily and in
1:06:05terms of security from the USA, and can
1:06:08truly form a second independent pillar
1:06:11within NATO. All these things are being
1:06:16recorded and further developed in the
1:06:18paper now; it is a programmatic
1:06:20evolution that all parties undergo, and
1:06:22it is entirely sovereign and based on
1:06:24the substance we have—there is
1:06:26nothing new, nothing foreign, nothing
1:06:28surprising here. So, then I have the
1:06:33FAZ first, and then we will do the
1:06:34Süddeutsche, and then Mr. Gugemos from
1:06:36the Berlin Editorial Society, please.
1:06:40Um, following up on that topic, um,
1:06:44does that mean that you expect a change
1:06:48to the program on this point? At the
1:06:52moment, it still says there that the
1:06:53euro experiment should be abandoned.
1:06:56You just said not overnight, but you
1:06:57also said, and this paper states, that
1:07:00the euro should actually be stabilized,
1:07:02in other words, placed on a stable
1:07:03foundation. From my perspective, those
1:07:06are already very different objectives
1:07:08for a medium-to-long-term development.
1:07:11>> I just outlined that. We are coming
1:07:13from 2013, the founding of the AfD.
1:07:16Back then it was still realistic, back
1:07:18then the, so to speak, the euro was
1:07:19still relatively new. Uh, one could
1:07:21talk about it then. Now we are taking
1:07:24into account what has happened, exactly
1:07:26as I outlined. Therefore, this is, so
1:07:29to speak, an organic further
1:07:31development of what was and what a
1:07:33party that wants to ensure stability in
1:07:36economic and foreign policy in every
1:07:39respect must also do. Once again,
1:07:42please, in a nutshell. Yes, if you said
1:07:44the euro must be reformed from the
1:07:46ground up. People have, well, because
1:07:49you are an euro-party, maybe just
1:07:50briefly now.
1:07:54>> I have already tried, so to speak. The
1:07:56debt criteria must be adhered to. 3%new
1:07:59debt maximum, that is, so to speak, a
1:08:02stability-oriented maxim that somehow
1:08:05also stems from the Bundesbank's
1:08:08stability culture, and that was
1:08:11guaranteed somehow in Maastricht and by
1:08:14Merkel, and we will never take on more
1:08:17debt and there must be no European debt
1:08:20. That means, apart from the
1:08:22nation-states taking on debt—that
1:08:24should also be the case, nation-states
1:08:25can take on debt. But they are also all
1:08:28liable for their own debts. In the USA,
1:08:30the states are also all liable for
1:08:32their own debts, even though it is, so
1:08:34to speak, even a real federal state. In
1:08:37Europe, this has all been loosened in a
1:08:39certain way; the idea of stability has
1:08:42really gone to seed, regarding what has
1:08:44happened there. Uh, the EU is now
1:08:48planning trillions in new debt. Uh, and
1:08:52the main guarantor state will be
1:08:55Germany. That cannot be. Only the
1:08:57nations may take on debt, and no more
1:08:59than 3%at that. Because if any nation
1:09:02takes on more debt, it is at the
1:09:04expense of the common currency, at the
1:09:07expense of the overall rating. This
1:09:10must be turned on its feet instead of
1:09:12its head. And France, with the
1:09:15hardships they have—if you have
1:09:17looked at it in the last week, the
1:09:20cities were burning again—all of
1:09:22France has fallen into turmoil, into a
1:09:25systemic crisis. That is not just in
1:09:29the schools; what is happening there
1:09:31will also manifest in the businesses.
1:09:34Uh, and they are already at, depending
1:09:36on how you calculate it, 6 or 8%of new
1:09:39debt. Money is being printed and debt
1:09:42is being piled up without end to plug
1:09:45holes, because France as a state, as a
1:09:47nation, is no longer able to pay its
1:09:49own bills. All at the expense of the
1:09:52euro; that must change. Go ahead, Mr.
1:09:55Hallas. AfD,
1:09:58>> I wanted to ask about Saxony-Anhalt
1:10:00again. You
1:10:01>> have I, well, before we make the leap
1:10:02now, is that okay? Or are there any
1:10:04other questions on the uh? Good, then
1:10:06let's make the leap to Saxony-Anhalt.
1:10:09>> You had mentioned at the beginning,
1:10:10what would such an election today,
1:10:12should it be successful, mean for the
1:10:14Bundestag? Mr. Rein from the Union had
1:10:17expressed himself, saying once again
1:10:19that committee chairmanships should be
1:10:21granted to the AfD. So, are you already
1:10:23holding talks with other parliamentary
1:10:24groups? Is anything moving there? Or do
1:10:26you believe it will stay the same here
1:10:27in the Bundestag?
1:10:29>> There are no official talks, but one or
1:10:31two individuals, so to speak, do reach
1:10:34out for a private background discussion
1:10:36; I can say that openly here because
1:10:38they are, of course, also uh
1:10:40politicians and uh can read the signs
1:10:42of the times. Uh we are now at uh 30.5%
1:10:47. We are roughly as strong, almost, as
1:10:51the SPD and CDU combined. You have to
1:10:54let that sink in nationwide. And uh
1:10:57that naturally has consequences for how
1:11:00the other parliamentary groups assess
1:11:02us here in the Bundestag, how they can
1:11:05or should encounter us, not out of
1:11:07interest in the AfD, but out of
1:11:09self-interest, in order to somehow
1:11:11survive. Uh we have seen that the SPD
1:11:14is already considering new elections
1:11:16with the Schwesig maxim, how she won in
1:11:19Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania as an
1:11:21anti-AfD party, so to speak, the woman
1:11:23against blue. is perhaps the SPD's
1:11:27strategy out of self-interest. With
1:11:29that, they could even improve their own
1:11:31position, they achieved 30%in
1:11:32Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. The CDU
1:11:34will, of course, be completely ground
1:11:36down, just as it was ground down in
1:11:38Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. A large
1:11:41block on the left led by Schwesig, the
1:11:43AfD. On the other hand, this vibration,
1:11:46these tectonic upheavals and changes,
1:11:48the dying of parties, Konrad Adenauer's
1:11:51party already in the first state
1:11:53associations, naturally has a
1:11:55thunderous echo that resonates here
1:11:57through the Bundestag, and everyone
1:11:59hears it. There are no concrete talks
1:12:03yet, but in whatever form, I am quite
1:12:05relaxed about it, so to speak. Uh I
1:12:09know what the tectonic shifts are, what
1:12:11the new power relations are. Sooner or
1:12:16later, as Saxony-Anhalt is now showing,
1:12:18the voter holds the longest lever,
1:12:20because in a democracy the voter rules,
1:12:22and they make their influence felt, and
1:12:24the trickery of the other factions—I
1:12:27have always laughed about it—comes to
1:12:29nothing, makes them, makes them look
1:12:31bad themselves, like bad losers and
1:12:33even worse losers. And so we now go
1:12:37into this week in a Lutheran sense,
1:12:40joyfully. Go ahead, Mr. Googelmus. Uh
1:12:44yes, the uhm Likely the first AfD state
1:12:50parliament president, Mr. Rausch, was
1:12:52at the center of cronyism in
1:12:54Saxony-Anhalt and hired half of his
1:12:57soccer team in his office at the
1:12:59taxpayer's expense. My question to you
1:13:03now would be: if a member of the
1:13:04Bundestag were to exhibit such behavior
1:13:06, would you accept that as the
1:13:08parliamentary group leader? So, is that
1:13:10acceptable behavior for you or not?
1:13:14There was never a cronyism crisis or
1:13:16anything of the sort. That is a crisis
1:13:19conjured up by the media, so to speak,
1:13:21stuff that has been conjured up. Uh,
1:13:24Tobias Rausch, for example, met Lisa
1:13:27Lehmann, his wife, because she was
1:13:29working in the parliamentary group, and
1:13:32that's how it's being portrayed. His
1:13:37father co-founded this, uh, Salzland
1:13:40district, I believe it's called, within
1:13:43Saxony-Anhalt. He is also a
1:13:46representative and is on the front line
1:13:48, and so is his son. And the siblings
1:13:51were all involved in the founding of
1:13:54this Salzland district; it's a highly
1:13:56political family, and they all went
1:13:59through normal application processes
1:14:01and they deliver results. Without the
1:14:04work of these people, the Saxony-Anhalt
1:14:06AfD would not be where it is. Uh, and
1:14:10the people from the soccer team, so to
1:14:12speak, they apply, they are highly
1:14:13politically engaged, and they aren't
1:14:15being discriminated against just
1:14:17because they play on the same soccer
1:14:18team, but they are vetted: what can
1:14:20they do in the jobs they have? And they
1:14:22are good, they are actually very good;
1:14:24no one is complaining about them. Look
1:14:26into it yourself. And the performance
1:14:29of the organization in Saxony-Anhalt,
1:14:31of the staff and the representatives,
1:14:32is exemplary. Nobody is placed anywhere
1:14:35if they don't contribute anything just
1:14:37because they belong to a certain family
1:14:39. That is complete nonsense. These are
1:14:42high performers who are impressive to
1:14:44behold. Are there any further questions
1:14:46? That is not the case, looking at the
1:14:49clock. We went on for a very long time
1:14:51this time. But we also had very
1:14:52exciting topics. Many thanks also to
1:14:54you, Ms. Gerit. Thank you. This
1:14:57complicated topic. In the end, we
1:14:59waited to lay it out once more: the 70%
1:15:02—when, how, and where are they
1:15:04possible? What have German pensioners
1:15:05earned? What can they expect from us?
1:15:07Many thanks to the panel.

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of LIVE: Pressekonferenz der AfD-Fraktion - Diese Woche im Bundestag by AfD-Fraktion Bundestag, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 11,293 words across 1,792 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to choose a caption track available on the video.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, caption language selection, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.