And in this situation, Ms. Reiche knows this, by the way. She has to know it. I would be surprised if she didn't know it. Listen to your colleague, Ms. Reiche. In this situation, gas would now have to be stored for the winter. But no strategic foresight that relies on resilience and diversification of Germany's energy supply can be discerned in you, and you are truly steering us with our eyes wide open into a catastrophic supply crisis in winter. Another total failure of this government.
Anyone who works, pays taxes, and provides for themselves and their family is being plundered and taken for a fool. The person who drives to work every morning is bleeding at the gas station because of the far too high taxes at the pump. Anyone who instead migrates into the social systems and lives at the expense of the general public is being coddled, fully provided for, even if they are wanted on an arrest warrant. The Syrian who annoys people day after day in Witten with Islamist songs is financed by the job center without any questions. Likewise, the Syrian clan chief with his 32 children, some of whom are serious offenders. But what if an ordinary citizen, an unemployed ordinary citizen, misses an appointment at the job center? Then all hell breaks loose. Around three quarters of the citizens' benefit recipients are foreigners or have a migration background. The costs are rising to astronomical heights. The shrinking, working, and tax-paying population — that is, the Einheitsbraunen, as your social minister, the SPD social minister, likes to call them — should pay for this without limit and work themselves to exhaustion, while others live it up at their expense and enjoy a comfortable life.
Yes, the truth hurts. The truth hurts. I can imagine that. Mr. Merz, the Germans are not too lazy to work more. They see that effort does not pay off because an unfair tax system takes everything away from them. Out of one earned euro, only 46 cents remain, and that is robbery. Above all, however, people notice when they are being ripped off left and right and taken for a ride. In Saxony-Anhalt, the citizens did not just punish you, but pulverized your party, the CDU. In Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, you are already a small party, and at the federal level, you are well on your way to becoming one. Justifiably.
Because a political change that has been refused for far too long is overdue, and it is possible. We must ruthlessly abolish unnecessary state spending and subsidies. By cutting unnecessary climate protection and transformation programs as well as payments to politically promoted NGOs, double-digit billions can be saved. We must immediately and drastically cut development aid and payments for global climate protection. Germany, with a total of 26 billion euros in development aid, is still ahead of the USA. I ask myself, why is that? For the world, all the money is there; for our own people and citizens, it is not.
We must clearly limit payments to the EU. Almost a billion flows to Brussels every week, but only a fraction of it comes back. We want our money back, dear friends.
We must rigorously rebuild the state apparatus and the public sector, which you have so brazenly inflated. And we must stop mass migration into the social systems, put an end to the systematic abuse of social benefits, and above all, deport illegal immigrants and criminal offenders. They have no business being in our country.
We must end the failed energy transition and tackle the return to nuclear power. Keyword: resilience of our energy supply. The SPD is laughing again. But that is why we also need cheap natural gas from Russia. We will work towards that for the German economy. We must use the levers we have gained to lower the far too high energy prices, abolish the CO2 levy, lower energy taxes, and push through a reform of corporate and income taxes that brings real relief, and above all, drastically lower the taxes on gasoline and diesel. That would be a sensible government program for the people in this country. Mr. Merz, you have made it clear that you did not understand the message in your tragic, bizarre press conference on Monday. You did not understand the message that the voters in Saxony-Anhalt sent you last Sunday. That is no longer relevant because your time is up anyway. The citizens want a political change, and they will get it. In the next elections, the people will give the AfD — that is, us, the Alternative for Germany — a clear mandate to govern, in order to make a different policy possible. And we will take this mandate seriously, and we will accept it to lead this country into a better future. Because Germany deserves it. The Germans deserve to be well governed. Thank you very much.
For the Federal Government, the Federal Chancellor now has the floor, Mr. Friedrich Merz. Please go ahead.
Madam President, dear colleagues, yes, Ms. Weidel, today you can barely contain yourself with excitement. And you have achieved a remarkable election result in Saxony-Anhalt in every respect, and no one can accuse you of hiding the true intentions you attach to it. But I would like to point out that your actual electoral goal in Saxony-Anhalt — to win the majority of the seats — you did not achieve. 56% of the voters in Saxony-Anhalt did not vote for you, ladies and gentlemen. And the polling stations had not even been closed for six hours. Then you called on your top candidate in Saxony-Anhalt to commit electoral fraud for the first time when you told him he should look for a majority, even though he had made the election promise to govern only with the absolute majority of the seats. Ms. Weidel, yes, it could even be more than just a happy coincidence of fate that you did not achieve exactly this electoral goal. The voters have spoken quite clearly. They have also given me a clear message. But you do not have the absolute majority, and you will not achieve it in Germany either. Nowhere in Germany will you achieve majorities with this policy. You are and you remain, Ms. Weidel, a destructive force. And how far that goes, you have just made clear again in your contribution on Ukraine. Ladies and gentlemen, for four and a half years, this country has been fighting for survival, and no one — yes, no one — has threatened Russia.
Excuse me, Mr. Chancellor, that I interrupt you briefly, but this is directed at the AfD. Their chairwoman has just spoken, and everyone listened. And I also ask — one has to endure that when one is shown the mirror. You will also have to listen to others. Opinions can differ here, and it is part of the rules here to listen. The AfD will have speaking time afterwards. You can put in everything you are now calling out. Mr. Chancellor, please.
Thank you very much, Madam President. Let me say this once again in all calm. We support Ukraine, and we will continue to support it because it is also defending our freedom, right here in the middle of our European continent. And your reactions, ladies and gentlemen, your reactions show only that you obviously intend to continue the grotesque reversal of perpetrator and victim. It is a grotesque reversal of perpetrator and victim. No one has threatened Russia. Not NATO, not the European Union, not Germany. And your reactions show exactly how you think. Ladies and gentlemen, the only thing that really threatens Russia and Putin is the radiance of democracy. Ukraine was on its way into the European democratic family, and that is precisely the real danger for Putin's regime in Russia. And you know this in the AfD, that it is so. And yet you are obviously still standing on Russia's side when it comes to defending our freedom here as well. And that is exactly where the deep rift between you and us lies — the deep rift in foreign policy, the deep rift in European policy, and also the deep rift in social policy and in peace policy. Ladies and gentlemen, the path you are charting here is not one that the majority in the German Bundestag will follow, nor is it one that the majority of the population of the Federal Republic of Germany will follow. We will continue to defend our freedom in the future, and that we must do so — not only throughout Europe, but also here in Germany. We learned this, at the latest, in a whole new dimension on August 4th. Not a word from you, Ms. Weidel, about what happened on August 4th at Leipzig Airport. You are laughing about it. There is a clear attribution that you know: this attack in Russia was planned for months and was directed specifically against Germany, and only by pure chance was greater material damage and personal injury prevented. You are laughing about it, ladies and gentlemen. That shows how you think and where you stand. Not a word from you about the massive threat to our data networks, our cybersecurity. Not a word from you about the disinformation campaigns that, from Russia and with your support, have been trying for weeks, months, and years to destabilize our country, our society, and our democracy. Ladies and gentlemen, you are part of this problem that we have in Germany, and we will resist with everything we have at our disposal to prevent you from continuing down this path here in Germany. And that we must become more resilient, more capable of defense, that we must better protect our security. We see this right up to the most recent days in the massive attacks also against our digital infrastructure in Germany, up to what happened here in Berlin just a few days ago. Not a word from you about what is currently happening here in Germany, ladies and gentlemen. But that is also the reality of life for the people, the institutions, the authorities in our country. What characterizes you is a contempt for our democratic institutions and a permanent personal attack on the representatives of our state. That is the hallmark of your politics, and that is the hallmark of your political action, ladies and gentlemen. Yes, we will have to continue to protect ourselves. We will also have to better protect our people, the people in Germany, the population. Civil protection, disaster protection — these are topics that have also occupied and challenged us intensely this summer. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we have set up a special fund for investments and climate protection. We have promised the federal states in Germany 100 billion euros, 8 billion euros every year, so that civil protection, population protection, and disaster protection can also be implemented in the states. And that this is necessary, we have seen not least from the numerous forest fires this summer. Not a word from you, Ms. Weidel, about what was going on in this country this year. Not a word from you about the causes. These causes are, of course, the climate change that you deny. These are the causes that the population is feeling exactly today and that they notice. Not a word from you either about the fate of the people who were affected by these fires.
Yes, there has been criticism that I did not immediately go to one of the large — that was four weeks, that cannot be true — that I did not immediately go to one of the places where there was such a large fire. Ladies and gentlemen, let me say this clearly once again. I did this in the days in mid-August, from the 13th, 14th, 15th, closely coordinated with the North Rhine-Westphalian Minister-President, with the local district administrator, who explicitly asked me not to come there during the ongoing firefighting operations, but who also asked me to come there a few days later and see for myself what had happened there. Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to take this opportunity once again to thank, from the bottom of my heart, the emergency services who did their work there and elsewhere this year — the fire brigade, the Bundeswehr, the Federal Agency for Technical Relief, the German Red Cross, agriculture, forestry, and many volunteers who helped there. What we saw in our country was truly something great. But I would also like to add that we will do more in the coming years in the area of population protection — and that is the civil protection that the federal government is primarily responsible for, and the disaster protection that the states co-responsible for. We must do more in this area in the coming years, and we are doing that. We want to do it. We must do it so that our society as a whole becomes safer. Because that is what the people in Germany rightly expect from politics: security. They want security against external threats. They want security against internal threats. But they also want security against events like the ones we have seen this year. We can only solve all these tasks if we once again have a strong economy. Only then, if there is growth in Germany. And on that too, from you, Ms. Weidel, not a word. I personally had actually only expected growth of over 1% for next year. We have already achieved it this year. 1.3% economic growth for the year 2026 shows that our first measures are helping, that we are on the right track, that we have made decisions that make economic growth in Germany possible again. But it is also true that this will only last if we initiate further reforms in Germany, if we implement further reforms, and if we ensure that our economy as a whole can keep pace with the rapid structural change in the world. Only then will we succeed. We must be a modern country, have a modern industry, and we must regain economic growth. And ladies and gentlemen, yes, we have made the first decisions, mostly against your bitter resistance. We have pushed through a statutory health insurance reform. It has been decided. Part two will follow in the autumn. We have received proposals for a comprehensive reform of the pension security systems in Germany, and yes, of course there will be discussions about it, and of course we will have to look at the details. Quite concretely, how we deal with people who have worked for 45 years and paid into the pension insurance is, of course, a topic we will talk about. But ladies and gentlemen, the most important goal is that we establish a pension insurance that, in the longer perspective, gives the younger generation the opportunity to also build up wealth. And that is the real core of the proposals we have seen from the pension reform commission. Comprehensive wealth building for the younger generations, which can only be made possible if we really implement these reforms in this way. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, you raised the issue of energy supply, Ms. Weidel. It is true, and I have no reservations about admitting this here, that serious mistakes were made in energy policy in Germany in the past. Serious mistakes were made. The shutdown of power plants in Germany, especially nuclear power plants, at a time when the reserve capacities were not yet available, was at least the wrong sequence. Yes, that is true. But ladies and gentlemen, you completely overlook that we are doing exactly the right thing today to ensure the energy supply of our country. We are correcting misdevelopments in energy policy. We are ensuring that we can build gas power plants in Germany. The tenders are underway. The permits have been granted. We will ensure that Germany has a secure energy supply in the future as well, and that with renewable energies, and not without them or even against them, as you constantly claim that it is supposedly possible. And let us also say something about the gas supply. We are of course keeping an eye on the fill level of the storage facilities, and of course we are talking with those who fill the gas storage facilities, and of course we are looking at the winter and the coming year. Assume that the Federal Minister of Economic Affairs, in coordination with the members of the Federal Government, is doing exactly the right thing to ensure the gas supply in the winter. Triggering hectic purchasing actions publicly, as you want, Ms. Weidel, would only lead to prices on the gas markets rising so sharply that we can no longer afford them. And not only the public budgets cannot, but the consumers in Germany cannot either. What you are demanding here is the opposite of what is right for the consumers in Germany. We are getting clear indications that the energy supply, and in particular the gas supply, will be secured in Germany over the course of the winter, and it is precisely on this that the Federal Government is basing its supply strategy. However, we are not doing this the way you are, with public theater, but we are doing it the way responsible households and public budgets do it. That is how we are doing it, and not otherwise. Only, ladies and gentlemen, we are working intensively on a strategy for the use of artificial intelligence. We have held a cabinet retreat — yes, above all, how is that supposed to work without any natural intelligence? That is also true. I could quote Dieter now, but I will refrain from doing so. Read it for yourself. Ladies and gentlemen, we have set up a task force in the Federal Government that has just presented proposals for a strategy in Germany on the use of artificial intelligence. We want to implement this. We will decide on it in the cabinet in a few days, but we also know that decisions of the Federal Government alone are not yet implementation in practice. All companies in Germany — services, crafts, trade, industry, the middle class — all will be affected by this fourth industrial revolution. We want Germany to be at the forefront of technological development in this technology as well. That is why we have already ensured in Germany that we are building data centers on a large scale. We want to build these data centers so that we have the necessary energy and the necessary storage capacity available. And yet we continue to take seriously what comes from the companies. And I would like to quote in particular the person who represents the largest part of our economy, namely the president of the Central Association of German Crafts, Jörg Dietrich. He told us yesterday, at the cabinet retreat and again yesterday, very clearly where the problems lie in the crafts: namely in bureaucracy, in the high costs of labor, in the high energy costs, and in the high taxes. We are working every day to reduce this heavy burden on companies, and especially on the middle class. But ladies and gentlemen, millions of people with a migration background also work in the crafts. And if what you are propagating here were to become reality — namely remigration, which is nothing other than an ethnic cleansing by craft, by skin color and origin, nothing else. Ladies and gentlemen, the word remigration is nothing other than a synonym for ethnic cleansing by origin and skin color. Mr. Koppler, you yourself come from the crafts. If what you want becomes reality — in a constitutional state — every sixth employee in the crafts has a foreign passport. If those who work in Germany have to leave the country again because you put remigration on your banner, then the crafts in Germany can no longer work. Then not a single nursing home will operate. Then not a single hospital in Germany will operate. Then not a single restaurant can be operated in Germany. That would be the result of your remigration policy. Ladies and gentlemen, that is exactly what divides our society so deeply that we have problems in the area of migration, that we still have many people who are not allowed to stay in Germany permanently, that we must deport more. That is the consensus in the coalition, but we carefully differentiate between those who work in Germany, who contribute to our prosperity, who are welcome in Germany, and those who do not have a permanent residence in Germany and must leave our country again. We make this distinction very carefully, unlike you, ladies and gentlemen. And let me also say a word, on this occasion, about the studies on the educational level in our schools. We received another PISA study yesterday. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the results we saw there are sobering, and we know that we need another really great effort in education policy. I want to expressly offer the federal states in Germany that we here — I want to expressly offer the states that we once again find a great effort together to improve the situation of education in Germany. Ladies and gentlemen, one thing must also be said: education and upbringing cannot be outsourced to the state. The families, the parents also have a responsibility. If we take this on together, we can solve the problem. But if we do it the way you always want, the way you propose, it will not be solvable. I expressly offer it to the states and say it for the Federal Government as well: yes, we know this is one of the central tasks of our country, to ensure that children and young people have a chance. And with that, I come to what we are often told, what is asked, what is also told to me: why all this? What is, so to speak, the superstructure, or what is the narrative? What is the meaning of reforms? Well, ladies and gentlemen, that is perhaps the answer we have owed the most so far. I do not exclude myself from that. We will have to give an answer that especially the younger generation in Germany — and the young voters are the ones who voted for their party in the largest numbers — we must give the younger generation a convincing answer as to what our country stands for and where our society is heading. I want to put it this way, Mr. Chancellor — excuse me, there is whistling going on here. It will keep coming. No, now it is my turn. You will have the chance in your own speeches to convince people that there is shouting going on here. Interjections are part of parliamentary business, but it is not part of it to permanently interrupt a speaker. One must also endure that there are different opinions. What one claims for oneself, one should also be willing to offer to others. Please go ahead, Mr. Chancellor. That is very kind of you, Madam President, but it will still fall on deaf ears, and this faction will continue to try not only to disturb here. You see, it is about to start again. Listening is not your strong suit. You want to destabilize our country. Your entire contempt for the German Bundestag is also expressed in this behavior here. You see, it is starting again. It is exactly as we have always said. You do not want dialogue here. What you keep saying with an outstretched hand — look at that. Look. Look. So, we are not on a football pitch here. Save that for the weekend. If this happens again here, such behavior, I will throw you out. I have had enough of this here. I wanted to spare you the quote, but your state chairman, Ms. Weidel in Saxony-Anhalt, spoke about Germany a few days before the election to the youth organization — the country that they supposedly love so much. And the sentence was the following about Germany: Germany is, he says, a stinking, rotten country after dope. He said that about Germany. He said that about Germany, and that shows how you think and talk about our country. And there was no contradiction from you to this sentence anywhere. But ladies and gentlemen, back to what our task will be. Three generations in Germany were able to rely on the fact that the prosperity promise of the market economic order was fulfilled after the Second World War. Three generations. Germany had the great fortune to live for almost 80 years in freedom, in peace, in prosperity, and in ever greater social justice. The younger generation today doubts this prosperity promise, and that is precisely why we must renew this prosperity promise. We must give the younger generation the perspective that at least three generations before them had in Germany. That is the meaning of our politics. That is the task we face together today, ladies and gentlemen. And taking on this task must be expressed more in everything we do than we perhaps have done in the past. Reforms are not a textbook of economics, and they are not just mathematics. Reforms serve cohesion, progress, and the further development of our country in freedom and in peace. And ladies and gentlemen, I would like to conclude by quoting from a letter that I received a few days ago from the rector of the theological college in Giessen, who wrote to me very thoughtfully, very earnestly, full of concern about the state of our country. But he also writes that there are still inventions made in Germany, model companies, people who strive for social cohesion, club activities, neighborhood help, children's choirs, food banks, and so on and so forth. Despite all the problems, he writes, Germany still has so many opportunities and possibilities. And then he concludes with the words: only if we stick together, tackle things together, also make mistakes together — in brackets — and admit them, forgive, get up again, only then do we have a future. Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, I am moved by this, I am motivated by this: make mistakes, forgive, get up again, shape the future for our country. Ladies and gentlemen, that is our task: get up, forgive mistakes, and shape the future for Germany, even against your resistance. We will take the future of our country into our own hands, shape it, make it better than in the last months, and we will ensure that our children and grandchildren once again have hope for the future, that they once again have a perspective, that they see the promise of advancement and prosperity of our country not only in retrospect after 80 years, but also in the years and decades to come, looking forward. And that is where our common gaze is directed. I thank you.
For the Alliance 90/The Greens faction, Ms. Katharina Drüge has the floor. Please.
Madam President, dear colleagues, dear Mr. Merz, I want to tell you personally that I take your dismay and shock over this terrible election result in Saxony-Anhalt seriously. We have often talked about it together, and I know how terrible and dangerous you find this party, and that is why I think it is absolutely right that you have taken on the AfD in this confrontation today. But at the same time, I have to tell you that this alone is not enough. This alone is not enough, because many people in this country are now expecting answers from you — answers as to what comes now, now that 44% of right-wing extremists have been elected to an East German state parliament, and how dangerous this party is. We heard this once again today in Alice Weidel's speech. I have to say quite honestly that in the end it was not really a speech. It was more like a scripted screenplay delivered at half speed. They always do that, Ms. Weidel, so that people do not quite notice how full of hate and anger they really are. It is always difficult for you to control that. A scripted screenplay of anger, of agitation, of twisting facts. A screenplay that was staged so embarrassingly that you even invented interjections that did not exist in this room at all, just because your manuscript said that you were supposed to be outraged. The Bundestag is for free speech, Ms. Weidel. You should try that once instead of just reading out what someone has written down for you. So, we are in a state where an absolute disaster has happened politically, and there are people in Saxony-Anhalt who are now afraid. There is a democratic civil society that is asking what repressions are coming their way if the AfD really governs in this federal state. There are people with a migration history who are asking whether they can still let their children play outside safely. There are queer people who are asking whether they can still walk down the street holding hands. And to all of them, Mr. Merz — and I would have expected this from you — we must now give answers. You must now give answers. What are you doing to protect the people in Saxony-Anhalt? Do you really have no plan? I am asking the SPD this too. Did you really not prepare this? I would have wished that you had stood up here today and said to the associations and clubs that have so bravely fought for civil society and for democracy: if the AfD cuts their funding, then we will do something at the federal level like a democracy emergency fund, and we will step in a bit. What do you say to the people who are worried that an AfD interior minister might get hold of their most sensitive data? Could you not at least ensure that intelligence information is protected from access by right-wing extremists and the Russians? We have long been calling on you to act. What security do you give the universities in Saxony-Anhalt? Could you not at least ensure that Saxony-Anhalt cannot use its veto power to block university funding in all federal states? These are things you could have prepared. These are things you should have prepared, because the people need some form of security and support now. It is urgently time for you to act here. And the second thing — and I honestly expect this from all of us as democratic parties in the German Bundestag — I would have wished for a serious struggle over the question of how this could have gone so wrong and what our share in it is. I believe we all have that job now, and the answers to the questions are not easy. There is no Plan A. Democracies all over the world are currently struggling with these questions, whether in France, Poland, Hungary, the USA, Italy, or Great Britain. Everywhere, democrats are fighting against the strengthened right-wing extremism. That is why, yes, it is an extremely difficult question that we all have to solve together, but at least an honest search together, a struggle over what the solutions can be. That must happen here. We are the German Bundestag. We were elected to give people an answer to this. And I think everyone has to start with themselves. We Greens too. Yes, we Greens also tried a whole range of things in the fight against right-wing extremism that obviously did not work. We went out into the streets for too long with the message of saving democracy, without noticing that the warning about the destruction of democracy by the AfD had lost its terror for many people, because democracy itself is no longer the value that many people attribute to it. We were too far away from the people, and that is why it happened that we Greens, in our efforts to protect what we find so worth protecting — the rule of law, freedom, human dignity, and democracy — were suddenly perceived by some as defenders of a status quo in our country, a status quo that simply no longer worked for many people. And we want to and will do things differently. And I would like this confrontation with ourselves and the answers to it — what is now expected from all the others. We have to get into the question of why and where people are voting for right-wing extremists in such large percentages. And I say quite clearly: right-wing extremism in Germany is not an East problem. Anyone who tries to conduct this debate that way is conducting it wrongly. And yet there are regional differences. It is the structural change regions and the structurally weak regions where the AfD was particularly strongly elected. Where industry has moved abroad and jobs have been lost, and also where no bus comes and the last pub has closed. Whether you talk to people in Gelsenkirchen or in Ohio in the USA or in rural Saxony-Anhalt, these are similar topics. These are places where people feel left behind, abandoned by a policy that they think has forgotten them. And that is exactly where the AfD goes in. That is exactly where right-wing populists and right-wing radicals go in all over the world. They start right here. With the toxic slogans of nationalism and national isolation. With the longing for a yesterday that they create, that never existed. Take back control, said Brexit. Make America great again. Back to the past is what Donald Trump propagated. And that is what we must answer as democrats. We must answer how the infrastructure on the ground can function again. And you had with the special fund such a great chance to make something better in this country. It is so tragic, honestly, in this time in which our democracy is stuck, that you did not use it better. But we must also give an answer to the methods that Ms. Weidel has just presented here in perfection again. The method of the AfD is the incitement of anger. The incitement of anger against minorities as a distraction debate. Anger and frustration are redirected into anger against the unemployed and people with a migration history. And we must counter that. Explaining and changing politics alone is not enough. And I do not want to be misunderstood: there is not one reason why people vote for right-wing extremists. Many people simply vote for right-wing extremists because they want to vote for a right-wing radical party. That is also part of the truth. That has to be said here. And at the same time, a sensible strategy against anger is needed. The anger is incited by the accelerators of social media, by algorithms that were devised by men like Elon Musk or Peter Thiel, whose declared goal is to destroy democracies. And that is why hate is fueled, agitation is fueled, disinformation and false information. And if we do not manage to change these rules of the game on the internet, then we will be playing a game that we cannot win, because the rules of the game are set for us to lose. We have to act here. And the second thing — and I am personally convinced of this — we must counter the spirals of anger that are incited by the AfD with our determination. And I think it is one of the biggest mistakes that the Union under your leadership, Mr. Merz, has made in recent years, that you let yourselves be tempted by populism, that you did not keep the distance. Let us take, for example, the debate about the citizens' benefit in the last federal election campaign. They promised people the moon. More than 10 billion euros in cuts was supposed to be the result, or five, or three, or two. It kept getting less, because in truth everyone who knew the subject — and there are people like that in your party too — knew from the start that it was completely impossible to push through this cut in the citizens' benefit. And for a few cheap clicks, for a bit of incitement against foreigners, against the unemployed, for riding the wave a little, they exploited our system. In the end, they risked one thing, and that is their own credibility, because unlike the right-wing extremists, who never want to act, who never want to shape, who are trying to get around it in Saxony-Anhalt so that they cannot prove that they cannot manage it — unlike the right-wing extremists, you will be measured by reality, you have to deliver.
And that is the greatest trap they set for themselves when they knowingly make claims in order to ride the waves of populism that they cannot deliver. That creates frustration. That creates political cynicism, that creates distance between voters and them. [applause] We must not make these mistakes. And the same, honestly, applies to the topic of migration. I know that many of you in the Union believed that if you pursue the hardest possible asylum policy, you would shrink the AfD, because you would somehow deal with their core issue. But you have to admit, this idea has obviously failed spectacularly. Alexander Dobrindt has now been interior minister for more than a year. He has pushed through the greatest possible hardness in asylum policy, including breaking the law at Germany's borders, including cooperation with the criminals of the Taliban, and yet it has achieved nothing with regard to the AfD election result. Nothing has been achieved. On the contrary, they have become even stronger. That is why we can argue with each other as democrats about the right asylum policy, but your job is to explain where the difference lies between the Union and the AfD. I know there is one. Just be Christian democrats. Engage in the debate, especially in the topics where it matters. That is the job against populism.
And at the same time, we have reached a point in our democracy where political debate alone may no longer be enough. And our Basic Law has provided for the banning of parties as a last resort. And I can only appeal to you, to all democratic members of the German Bundestag. We must now set in motion an application to examine a ban on the AfD. It is time. I can only appeal to you. [applause] I can only ask you, as members of the German Bundestag, to examine your own conscience. In the end, you are committed to that, and we need you for a majority.
And at the same time, and this is also incredibly important to me today, let us not forget, amid all this, the great majority of people in our country who are democrats and who keep this society so stable. Let us not forget those who work every day to keep our country together. We need to take care of them. And I would wish, Mr. Merz, that you, as Chancellor, could recognize and appreciate that more, that you would not constantly nag people in such a condescending way, that you would not lecture them, that you would not express yourself that way. Somehow nothing is ever enough. The people in Germany, the expectation... That is wrong. With that, you are currently driving even the most well-meaning people in this country up the wall. The staff of the health system are not a burden. They are people who work to the limit every day so that we can all do well. And they deserve more than just a heartfelt thank you — they deserve more support. That is what good politics is about. And the young people in our country, Mr. Merz, are not simply lazy or chilling in work-life balance. They have worries about the future. And if you look at the current PISA study, it is a declaration of bankruptcy by such a rich country that educational inequality in Germany is so high. It cannot be true that the parents' wallet is so decisive for children's educational success. It should be about giving every child fair chances in our country. And regarding worries about the future, Mr. Merz, you spoke about Hürtgenwald, and it was good that you were there. It is also important that you thanked the firefighters and all the rescue workers here, but you said one sentence in Hürtgenwald that the country will judge you by. You said you want to do everything to combat the climate crisis. And I ask you, what follows from that? What follows from that? If you want to be taken seriously, you must stand by such words. And we and the people in our country will judge you by that. The first thing you could do would be to reverse the cuts in the climate protection area in this federal budget. You could act very concretely there. You could stop all of Katharina Reichel's laws. These are climate crisis tightening laws. At the very least, you would have to do that if you mean your own words. And regarding the people in our country who deserve appreciation and support, above all families with children. And against this background, and I say this to the Social Democrats as well, I say this to Lars Klingbeil as well, this federal budget is a disaster, it is a catastrophe, and you would have to completely revise it. [applause] You have decided in this federal budget to cut first of all at families, first of all at children. You are cutting housing allowance, and that hits exactly the families with children who go to work and still can no longer afford the exploding rents. With that, you are driving families into poverty. You are cutting parental allowance, making it even harder for young parents to combine job and family planning. You are cutting advance maintenance payments for the many single parents who need them to get by, and you are cutting — and this is the bitterest part for me — the 25 euros that the federal government spends to support children in poverty. You are cutting first of all at the poorest children in our society. I can only say, such austerity policy is really socially unjust and shameful. [applause] And you had alternatives. You had alternatives if you decided to start with the richest instead of the poorest people in our country when it comes to raising taxes. You could ensure that people who inherit 300 apartments also pay inheritance tax. Why do you spare them? You could ensure that the company car privilege is reformed. Why do you subsidize company cars and cut at children? You could ensure that flight tickets are not subsidized and instead that child poverty is combated. And you could finally take effective action against tax fraud. More than 100 billion euros are lost to the country every year through tax fraud. You would have to act here. [applause] And in conclusion, I would like to say, yes, we will continue to argue with each other as democrats. We have to do that in a democracy. But at the same time, we will continue to find compromises. That is what distinguishes us from the right-wing radicals. We take responsibility for our country. We also find compromises when it is difficult. And perhaps we need to succeed, especially in this time, in reinventing political compromise a little. Let us campaign for that together. That is now our job. [applause]
For the SPD parliamentary group, Member of Parliament Dr. Matthias Mirsch now has the floor. Please. [applause]
Madam President, dear colleagues, I believe we all feel that very fundamental matters are being discussed here today. It is far from being only about the federal budget. And Ms. Weidel, when you speak of hatred here, I say to you, take a look in the mirror. How much hatred, how much hatred have you sprayed today from this stage, when you speak of Syrians, how many Syrian women and men are working in this country in care facilities as doctors, who are necessary to keep this country alive? Dear colleagues, [applause] when you speak of the loss of industrial jobs, yes, that is also a major issue for us. But when you equally say that we have to leave the EU or the euro, then there would be many, many more jobs that you would destroy with your policy. [applause] And when you talk about Trump and his peace efforts, then just look at what this Trump has done with Mr. Putin. He let him ride in his car. What has he achieved? Nothing at all. Dear colleagues, [applause] when you say that nuclear power plants are safe around the clock, then please look at France. Look at the countries where nuclear power plants now have to be shut down because the cooling water no longer works. That is the truth, even if you are not interested in it at all. [applause] Yes, and I want to tell you, we still do not have an AfD government in Saxony-Anhalt, and my appeal to all democrats is to prevent that as well. But [applause] but, and dear Katharina Drüge, there are recipes, and the best recipe against your policy is the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany. I say this to you, because all the things you say here violate the constitution. When you [applause] when you, for example, simply tell us here that there are so and so many deportable or rejected asylum seekers, you are concealing, for example, that there are many grounds on which people may stay in this country even if they do not have asylum. That is stated here among other things. When when you talk about the subsistence minimum and the welfare state, these principles are also in this constitution, and fortunately you cannot get around them. Dear colleagues, [applause] yes, and all those who are currently worried in Saxony-Anhalt, and we all have them in view, and Katharina Drüge, I believe a little restraint would be appropriate here to say that this Chancellor, this federal government, this coalition would have no answers to that. With what confidence do you say that? [applause] You are concealing, you are concealing that this discussion has long existed for many months, for example in the Conference of Education Ministers, for example in the Conference of Interior Ministers. Do not pretend that you are the only ones there. No, we democrats from the Left Party, SPD, Greens and CDU/CSU must not allow any doubts about us at this point. That is what it is about. [applause] Yes, and I say to the people who are also worried, this constitution helps here too, because even if a federal state violates the constitution, we still have many, many possibilities. And beyond that, we will of course also discuss in this budget what we can do for cultural funding, for democracy funding, to remain present in Saxony-Anhalt as well. Dear colleagues, but, and now I come to all of us, and I am coming to the budget, do not worry, but the question is indeed, and I ask myself this in many debates: how do we treat each other here when it comes to us and our path? Because one thing must be clear: if we tear ourselves apart here, there is only one group that will be happy. And my request is also, and this is a lesson from what happened in Saxony-Anhalt: we democrats must also return to a culture where there is a firm basis for us that is unshakeable, and from that we must draw strength, and not put the opposition between democrats at the center, despite all the legitimate disputes here. Dear colleagues. [applause] And yes, and then I come to us, to CDU/CSU and SPD, who have taken on responsibility in these times, and Katharina Drüge, who is also trying to find compromises in many places where they have very different opinions, and they can be criticized, they must also be criticized, but it is damn difficult to take responsibility in these times, where it quickly comes down to yes or no, to white or black, and the center does not count. And that is why, dear colleagues, to us who take on responsibility, we must live up to our responsibility, especially in these difficult times. We must strive for the best path, and we must ultimately move this country forward. And that is why, in recent weeks, we have had all kinds of conversations with citizens. We have felt the uncertainty in many, many places, and Mr. Chancellor, I am grateful that you also addressed this, that one cannot simply operate here with the motto 'eyes closed and through'. For example, the question of whether, if I have worked for 45 years, that is not worth more, that apparently speaks against the sense of justice for very many people, that is a circumstance we have to deal with here. This is the place to discuss it, to strive for the best path. When concerns grow regarding housing allowance, parental allowance, but also advance maintenance payments, then these are things we have to discuss with each other here and also lead to a goal on the other side. Because one thing is certain, dear colleagues, we are not making changes for the sake of change. We have to change. We have to adapt to the framework conditions. We have a disastrous budget situation. We have a world that is changing rapidly. We have a demographic development that simply forces us to act. And that is why, yes, we have to change, but we have to make it much, much clearer to the people, in my view, why we are doing it and how we are doing it. A few examples. We are currently talking about pensions, and the goal or question is how we deal with the 45 contribution years. But it is about much, much more. It is about security. It is about whether we have an old-age security in Germany, which is not a matter of course in other countries of this world, that people can continue to rely on. And by the way, this commission report contains a great deal of other things, for example that as many professional groups as possible should pay into the future system, that we will not have retirement at 70 tomorrow, but perhaps at 92. Dear colleagues, this commission report is something that is worth discussing now. And I am very sure that if we, as the democratic center, manage to actually realize this old-age security, then that is proof that the democratic center can move the population forward. Dear colleagues. [applause] And the same applies to health insurance. Mr. Chancellor, you pointed out that it is a reform. It was not really that yet, but it was first of all an attempt to really avoid and prevent contribution increases. Cuts, but also actual cuts in some places, because otherwise everyone would have had to bleed through higher contributions. We want to prevent that, dear colleagues. But it is about much, much more. [applause] It is about much, much more. It is about ultimately having a health system, and that is also by no means a matter of course in this world, where one can rely on solidarity when one needs the general public, when one needs security. And I say we now need structural change, and for example what we have agreed, that a person with statutory health insurance has exactly the same claim to a specialist appointment as a privately insured person, would be a reform that goes in the right direction, because we finally eliminate inequality. That is what it is about, dear colleagues. [applause] And the financial situation is what also concerns us here now in the budget plan deliberations. And Ms. Drüge, when you then say that this state invests too little, I can tell you, please look at this budget now. We have really put together a future package. We have record investments in the future. You cannot just gloss over that. Dear colleagues. [applause] 51 billion have currently flowed into cohesion, into infrastructure, also into important measures, such as, for example, in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, the construction of fire stations, police stations, etc. These are investments in the future that this country has not experienced for a long time, far too long a time. Dear colleagues, [applause] and we are investing at a record level. There is an increase of 60% in the area of research and development, because it is important to us that AI is also made in Germany, that chips are produced here and not elsewhere. Dear colleagues, this budget contains future investments that move this country forward. We must always emphasize that. [applause] And it is also about security, and we simply cannot pretend that we are not threatened. But it is not only about external security, it is also about resilience and independence. And that is why we are certainly also discussing and regulating that it continues, for example with the raw material front, the question of how we equip the THW and all these things. There are also investments in this budget that build security. And let me also say this at this point. Beyond the concept of defense, it is also about security when we invest in economic cooperation, because this globe is damn small and crises elsewhere can be here very quickly. That is why we must also have stability there, also investment security there, dear colleagues. [applause] Yes, and we can continue to argue, and we must continue to argue, and we have different views, and perhaps we could decide quite different things with one or another. I would say the topic of wealth tax or also the topic of inheritance tax, we might get further when the Federal Constitutional Court has decided, but perhaps we will not get further either. And then, ladies and gentlemen, it comes down to the decisive question. Can we manage to come to an agreement together, yes or no? In opposition, I can demand a great deal, and that is also entirely your right. But in the end, in the end, it is about whether the democratic center of this country can move forward through compromises, yes or no. And I say to you [applause] And I say to you as a representative of a party that in over 160 years never had to change its name, that has always stood for this constitution since 1949. A great deal is at stake. The SPD Bundestag parliamentary group knows its responsibility in these times, and it knows its responsibility to move these things forward together with you, dear colleagues of the Union, in the spirit of the Federal Republic of Germany. Thank you for your attention. [applause]
For the Die Linke parliamentary group, Member of Parliament Höhn now has the floor. Please. [applause]
Madam President, dear colleagues, dear Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz, I am impressed. From your speech, I heard line by line self-criticism. However, in its effect and in the reaction, I was surprised, because if you really want us young people of the younger generation, to whom you have made a promise of prosperity, to believe in you, you must now change course and not continue as before. Let that be said to you. [applause] The fact is that with the budget you have submitted, you are continuing where you began. You are acting against the majority of the people in our country. Ever since Agenda 2010, which you are now continuing with Agenda March 2030, it is exactly this social cold shoulder that you are pursuing. Mr. Merz, stop this wrong path. [applause] Do not drive our country further into the abyss. If you do not finally come to your senses, our democracy will suffer serious damage. How does your budget look? In the social area, in very many areas, there are minus signs everywhere. Cuts are only being made in armament. There, every third euro is supposed to flow in perspective. That is guns instead of butter politics. When I look at the 2027 budget plan, 140 billion for defense including special funds. In the perspective planning up to 2030, we are at 183 billion for armament. That is 30% of our core budget. Defense investments have the smallest conceivable economic effect, and that is why we must change it. The scientists at the University of Mannheim have calculated, [applause] in economic return on investment, investment in armament is associated with 50 cents per euro in further follow-up effects. When I look at infrastructure investment, it has further investments of 2 euros as a follow-up, and when I invest in the future of our country in day care centers and schools, it is even up to 3 euros. That is what we need to aim for, dear colleagues. [applause] And let me say a word to the far right, if we are already talking about armament and peace. The AfD, which likes to present itself especially in the east as a peace party, would like to be a peace angel, but especially when it comes to waste of money and armament, they are always the first to raise their hand, and they have said again and again in the committees that armament and militarization are exactly our thing. That is the duplicity with which you operate here, and that also needs to be named here. [applause] What further consequences does the budget have? If you look closely at the numbers, for housing allowance you are planning cuts of 600 million euros. You want to significantly halve the heating cost component. For child benefit, 260 million euros are being cut. For advance maintenance payments, you are worsening the benefit by 400 million euros, and precisely for the program 'Living Democracy', which civil society needs more than ever, you are cutting a further 20 million euros. When you look at the election result from the weekend, that is irresponsible, dear colleagues, and must be corrected. [applause] Another position, when I look at crisis prevention and peace promotion of the Foreign Office, a central building block for combating the central causes of flight. Here too, only the red pencil. A completely wrong signal. And when I look back, Mr. Merz, to the previous legislative period of the Bundestag, a defeated Bundestag is once again tasked with tackling the debt brake, with the exception of defense and intelligence services, above 91% is excluded. For schools, day care centers and housing, it still applies, and that is irresponsible, dear colleagues. And it is also irresponsible to explain poor approval ratings by saying that you have not explained it well enough. You are pursuing an unsocial policy for our country against the majority of the people in the country. And that must change. Dear colleagues, [applause] the families in our country understand all too well that they and their children are not a priority of this government. And what, given the immense sums flowing into the armament sector, is foreseeable from the outset is only one thing: the armament industry will thank you, because they are making the big money at the expense of taxpayers. An example, Rheinmetall, the operating profit rose in the first half of the year by 74%. 74% increase to 786 million. That is redistribution from bottom to top, and we will not go along with that. Dear colleagues. [applause] Because it should not be the families who have to explain that they have to fight for every euro in housing allowance. It should not be children who have to explain their needs when it comes to dilapidated schools. And it should not be the association that has to explain itself when it comes to the daily promotion of our democracy. Those who have to explain themselves are the ones who spend billions on armament and rearmament and still take the red pencil to the welfare state. And then, dear Federal Chancellor Friedrich Merz, you say that the welfare state is no longer economically viable. Mr. Merz, that is called black pedagogy. First the budget is made small, then people are supposed to tighten their belts. The fact is, whoever cuts the welfare state also cuts purchasing power. What people are missing at the end of the month in their wallets, they cannot spend in the cash registers of shops and businesses. Especially when you look at the situation of our municipalities, you have not said a word about that in your speeches so far. What does this budget mean for our municipal families? First the swimming pool faces closure, then the library, then the youth club, and all the other voluntary, municipal, social services that make this society worth living in are on the chopping block. And that is how you bankrupt a country from the bottom up, and we as the Left will not go along with that, dear colleagues, [applause] because that creates frustration and strengthens the feeling that the state is withdrawing from more and more areas of life, and that ultimately endangers our democracy. Dear colleagues, a look at the world of sports. My colleague Gürke will elaborate on this afterwards. Who was actually football world champion in 2006? Perhaps one or the other still knows. I had to look it up too. It was a damn long time ago. It was not Germany, it was Italy. Exactly. In that context, the motorway between Leipzig and Chemnitz was supposed to be finished in 2006. They are still building it today, still drilling and blasting. That says clearly, the railway line between Leipzig and Chemnitz, it looks quite different there. The southern part is supposed to be finished in 2035. The northern part is not even being discussed. On the squares in our republic, I have repeatedly noticed exactly these discordant tones in recent weeks, in different places, in different federal states, heard similar stories, and that is why we as the Left say we need a reconstruction plan now, dear colleagues. And by that I do not mean a policy that only thinks in electoral terms, but at least one that is planned for a perspective of 10 years. Given the scale of the challenge, we need at least 10 years of forward-looking planning. A reconstruction plan starts exactly at the places where we need it most urgently now. In infrastructure, in investment in the future, in rail, in roads, in housing construction, in schools, in securing our jobs, and in ecological transformation. Concretely, we need first more investment in housing construction. Last year, a good 27,000 new apartments were subsidized in social housing. At the same time, 57,000 went out of the binding, making a minus of 20,000. We therefore demand 25 billion per year for new construction and renovation of apartments. That creates apartments, that creates orders for crafts, the construction industry and for our industry. Second focus, Mr. Merz, you addressed it, the situation in our schools. The investment backlog now amounts to 70 billion euros. I have heard your words, but I can say this clearly as a teacher: pupils need warm classrooms in winter and air-conditioned ones in summer. They need schools where windows can be opened, where toilets also work and are usable, where school buildings are planned with perspective and not always housed in makeshift structures. And thirdly, [applause] I would have expected more today, honestly, Mr. Chancellor, our economy needs an active industrial policy. The federal government and corporations have delayed the transformation for far too long. Now jobs in many regions of our country are at risk. We need a comprehensive investment program so that our plants can also produce in the future. Affordable e-cars, e-buses, batteries, microchips and also climate-neutral steel. For that too, there needs to be a plan, which you do not have. But we also say clearly as the Left: subsidies. Subsidies can only exist if there are job and location guarantees, if there is collective bargaining coverage and genuine co-determination of employees, because good industrial work sustains our welfare state. Anyone working on the assembly line, at the machine or in the laboratory must be able to co-decide during the transformation. Yes, this plan costs money, but we are firmly convinced that there is enough money if we only involve everyone according to their income situation. This country needs a reconstruction plan. Mr. Merz, you wanted people to feel that things are moving forward. With what you are presenting here, that will certainly not succeed. Thank you very much. [applause]
For the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, Member of Parliament Torsten Frei now has the floor. Please. [applause]
Madam President, dear colleagues, when you talk to the people in the country, with the employees in the companies, with the entrepreneurs who want to invest, with the families who are worried about their future, you are always met with one question: will Germany still be a country tomorrow in which prosperity is created and in which our children have better chances than we ourselves? And if you have heard Ms. Weidel's speech today, then the answer to this question is a very clear no. The AfD claims at every opportunity that Germany is in decline, and even though there have been so many economic signs of turnaround in recent months, every positive development is played down, every progress is attacked, every problem is declared a catastrophe. And the AfD's political business model is not hope. The AfD's political business model is outrage. And [applause] if you ask the question, will Germany still be a country tomorrow in which prosperity is created, in which our children have better chances than we ourselves? You know, if you have listened to the Chancellor's speech, that we give a different answer to this question than they do. To outrage we oppose responsibility, and to doubt we oppose courage. Dear colleagues. [applause] And for this reason, we are not simply debating a budget today. This budget and the program for upswing and employment are a directional decision, and they decide whether Germany invests or waits. That decides whether Germany meets the challenges of the times or avoids them. And the 2027 budget draft is the expression of our will to move Germany forward again. Our country does not have a problem of understanding. Our country does not suffer from a lack of analyses. The central question of our time is not whether we know the challenges of the country. We know the challenges. The decisive question is: are we prepared to do what is necessary? And even when it is uncomfortable, because the truth is also that Germany has lost economic dynamism in recent years. Too much infrastructure was neglected for too long, too many permits take too long. Our competitiveness has come under pressure, and the dramatically changed security situation demands that we take responsibility, more than ever since the end of the Cold War. And that is why we cannot simply continue as before. And that is why I would like to name four decisive tasks. Germany needs more investments, not at some point, but immediately. We need above all private investments, but we also need public investments. And that is why this budget sets a focus. We invest from the core budget, from the special fund, from the climate and transformation fund, a total of more than 117 billion euros in 2027 for transport routes, for digitalization, for modern energy supply, in short, for the future of our country. And Germany needs strong companies. The prosperity of our country, dear colleagues, is not created in the plenary hall. It is created where people dare, where investment and work take place. That is why we are reducing the tax burden of investing companies. That is why we are abolishing citizen's income. That is why we are passing labor market reforms and keeping wage ancillary costs stable. That is why we are working on permanently lower energy costs. That is why we are strengthening the competitiveness of our country. And because economic success must reach the people, we are relieving families with an adjustment in income tax. Because upswing is not an end in itself. Upswing must serve the people. [applause] And my dear colleagues, upswing will only succeed with comprehensive bureaucracy reduction. Germany must become faster. As mayor, I learned that in the end it does not matter to citizens whether the federal government, the state or the municipality is responsible. They want results. They want the bridge to be built, the road to be repaired, decisions to be implemented. And as minister in the Chancellery, I learned that this problem is not limited to individual municipalities, but that it is a structural problem in our country. Too often [applause] we know in Germany what needs to be done, but too rarely does the action succeed, and it is from this knowledge that this coalition acts. That is why on July 1 we passed the Reporting Burden Act, a real paradigm shift. For too long, anyone who wanted to reduce bureaucracy in Germany had to justify themselves. Too often, bureaucracy was taken for granted. And we are now turning that around, because less bureaucracy creates growth, and growth creates prosperity. [applause] Not freedom, not freedom will have to justify itself in future. It will be the restriction that has to explain itself under this coalition, dear colleagues. [applause] And fourthly, a strong Germany also includes security. Russia's war of aggression against Ukraine shows: freedom and peace are not a matter of course in Europe. Whoever wants peace must arm themselves. We do not belong to those who are from the far right and the far left. We heard that in the two speeches, of which Winston Churchill once said, they are those who feed the crocodile in the hope that they will be eaten last, ladies and gentlemen. And that is why we are investing 140 billion euros in more security for our country. We are protecting our country. With you, it is in danger, ladies and gentlemen. [applause] And we are strengthening our security authorities. We are giving our intelligence services new real powers so that they are able not only to recognize, but also so that they are able to protect us. That was already important to me in the past. Not because I want war, but peace. Not out of a thirst for adventure, but out of responsibility. Responsibility for the security of our children, responsibility for peace in Europe, and responsibility for the freedom in which we live and which we want to preserve. [applause] Dear colleagues, if you have listened to the various speeches of the opposition factions, you have heard very different theories as to why our country will fail under this government. But they all have one thing in common, namely no convincing alternative. The AfD's business model is outrage. And this becomes particularly clear with this budget and this budget speech you have given. You criticize every expenditure. You criticize investments in infrastructure. You criticize investments in security. You create the impression that solid financial policy consists solely of not making expenditures. And at the same time, you demand a pension level of 70%. You promise early and penalty-free retirement. You promise more benefits in care. You promise massive tax relief. Only one simple question regularly remains unanswered: who is actually supposed to pay for this? [applause] And if you look at their economic program and listen to their speeches, exit from the Schengen area, exit from the European Union, that is not a master plan for an export-oriented economy. That is a shredder for prosperity and jobs. [applause] Dear colleagues, you can argue about many things, but the laws of mathematics also apply to the opposition. Less revenue, more expenditure. Whoever puts forward such a program does not need a finance minister, they need a math teacher. Ladies and gentlemen, [applause] and I want to pick up on my colleague Matthias Mirsch, who looked with great surprise at the way the Greens are conducting this debate. Because when you listen to their speeches, Ms. Drüge, you might think they have merely been observers in recent years. In fact, they were a governing party. Yesterday they governed, today they act as if others had carried the responsibility. Yesterday they were responsible for energy policy. Today they complain about high energy prices and a lack of competitiveness. Yesterday they passed new regulations, reporting requirements and conditions, and today they complain about a lack of growth and missing investments. Credibility does not arise from that. You have rather proven that you are well acquainted with populism. And Mr. Pellmann of the Left Party, you have basically given the same answer to every question raised. For every problem in Germany there is a solution, and for you it is more state money. Whether housing is lacking, more state money. When the economy weakens, more state money. When the social systems come under pressure, more state money. But the truth is, there is no state money. There is only the money of the citizens who pay taxes, who earn something here in Germany. And it is the money of the people who get up every day, work and pay taxes. And I think these people deserve more respect than what you have presented here. Our problem, dear colleagues, is not that too little is distributed in Germany. Our problem is that too little is produced. That is what we must focus on. We need economic growth, more investment, more competitiveness, and that is what this coalition and this federal government are concerned with. We want a positive narrative of the future. We are working to make life better for people in Germany. We have a solution for that. We have proposals for that, and above all we have the willingness and the courage not only to do what currently goes down well, but we have the courage to do what is necessary, to take responsibility for it, and we do not run away from this responsibility. Thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. [applause]
For the AfD parliamentary group, Member of Parliament Tino Chrupalla now has the floor. [applause]
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, dear fellow citizens, it is day three after the state elections in Saxony-Anhalt. The citizens have shown you, worthy federal government, in the most solemn way that they no longer believe in more of the same. They voted for a change and against the state bankruptcy into which the Merz government has finally maneuvered us. And Mr. Merz, you quoted the president of the chamber of crafts, Jörg Dietrich. And I sometimes wonder whether you also read all of his quotes, because he recently evaluated the work of your federal government and compared it to the biggest botch job in construction. That was your work. And I can only tell you, [applause] as a master craftsman, a botcher remains a botcher. He will not become an artist. And what do customers or voters do with botchers? They throw them out. And that is exactly what happened in Saxony-Anhalt. [applause] It did not even take a decade for it to become completely normal to cover the federal budget's basic expenditures with debt. Just like the traffic light government, you are also...
It is not possible to manage the available tax revenue sensibly. And it is definitely not the case, Mr. Frei, that so few taxes are paid. We do not have a revenue problem. I think we can at least agree on that.
Through the overall package of tax burden and unaffordable social contributions, it is hardly attractive in Germany in 2026 to start a company. And it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep one's own business alive and, on top of that, to generate profits. Corporate and consumer insolvencies have also reached new highs this year, and that really surprises no one anymore. In the last seven years, we have lost almost 350,000 industrial jobs in Germany. This no longer affects only the automotive industry. So much for your growth figures, Mr. Merz. The only thing that is growing is the war industry, which is subsidized by the state. Your growth is built on that. [applause]
Germany's key industries in mechanical and drive technology, in the chemical and steel industries, are in retreat or no longer exist. This situation describes the continuous deindustrialization of Germany, which is now no longer denied by anyone, and which we warned about four years ago.
Mr. Merz, this has nothing to do with talking something down. However, I personally do not believe you either that you thought at all before taking office about what you as Chancellor could achieve and, above all, what you wanted. You promised a lot. The biggest disinformation apparatus was this federal government. You have kept none of it — no tax relief and further relief in the area of social insurance costs for business and industry, but also for the individual citizen. Pensioners were supposed to be able to earn additional income more easily and cost-neutrally, and so on and so forth. Out of the gray autumn of reforms, and after the snow had melted, came the dreary autumn of reform, and reformless, both the economy and the pensioners went into the summer. In the end, you have so far been able to present nothing substantial, nothing at all. And you are not putting that right today in your government statement either, apart from cost increases.
The number of civil servants is still increasing, and the pension burden is weighing on the taxpayer. There are still no solutions and deadlines that at least the new civil servants and also we members of the Bundestag pay into the statutory pension. There is none yet, Mr. Merz. You continue to produce social injustices and explain them at the end with geopolitical developments. These explanations are also simple and cheap, so that you as the German federal government can cover up your lack of courage to change. It has really become a sport by now to find the best excuses in order not to have to take responsibility for political failures. And we have heard that from you in a row today. But you are supposed to shape the future of the German state. That is what you were elected for. You are supposed, for example, to set sensible frameworks within whose limits companies can settle and, above all, survive. We have to talk about that. Without them, there will be no welfare state and thus no social justice for those who work here creating value or who have worked for over 45 years. Let me illustrate this with the example of the automotive industry.
Your predecessor government pushed through the phase-out of combustion engine technology at breakneck speed. The majorities were there for it. This militant intervention in the backbone of the German economy has permanently weakened its competitiveness. For ideological reasons and under the influence of a strong environmental lobby financed with tax money, production and investment at the remaining German automotive sites were henceforth almost exclusively in electromobility. With this absolute decision, you therefore rang the death knell several times over. On the one hand, you announced that the further development of the combustion engine drive would be abandoned, even by the car manufacturers. These are now even being produced in China for German car manufacturers. On the other hand, electric vehicles require other supplier industries that we no longer have or never had, for example battery production.
And that is definitely not an innovation, but a return to the past. With the technology openness we demand, you could have done the one without giving up the other. Instead, tax money was once again spent in the form of subsidies for electric cars in order to make the state-ordered change visible. These are all no success stories. Ladies and gentlemen, [applause] your predecessors in office have turned Germany from the world export champion into the world import champion. You are diligently continuing this, and the costs keep rising. With the votes of the already ousted Bundestag, Friedrich Merz organized the majority for the chancellorship. It cost the taxpayer 50 billion euros, which disappeared into the Climate and Transformation Fund. On top of that comes a European economic policy, also carried by the Union, led by Ursula von der Leyen, which concludes one-sided agreements with foreign partners. Industrial jobs are leaving Germany for low-wage countries. The analysis of the federal government and its experts blames the excessively high unit labor costs and the resulting lack of competitiveness of Germany. You are simply passing the problem on to the workers who have to worry about their jobs. Take the impending closure of the Volkswagen plant in Zwickau. E-cars were and are being produced there, but the economic attractiveness was rated so poorly that the end of production was decided, and we are talking about 8,000 jobs at the site, 20,000, 1,000. As far as suppliers are concerned, the Saxon Ministry of the Economy even speaks of 100,000 dependent jobs there alone. [cough] However, the VW Group built new production sites both in the USA and here in China. The market and subsidy conditions there are clearly better. So another region in Saxony will be affected, starting from car manufacturing to craft and medium-sized businesses, where orders will dry up. And what is your solution? Further sanctions and import restrictions against China. It is important to put one's own market at the center, but not in this way. The root cause analysis must eventually come to the point that it is the completely inflated energy costs, Mr. Merz, that make production in Germany uneconomical. We now have four times the energy, gas and electricity prices here as in the USA, as in China, as in Hungary, as in Poland. You can take any country in Europe. We are the absolute front-runner. And then the circle closes again to sanctions and the self-imposed restrictions on energy generation. The ever-increasing energy demand cannot be covered affordably without coal, gas and nuclear energy. We must make these energy sources usable again for German industry and, above all, for German citizens. And that is why you must finally put an end to the economic sanctions. Ladies and gentlemen, [applause] do you not see how your bans are harming our country? They destroy markets and industries, weaken the economy and cause special debts in the billions. And do you know what is completely incomprehensible to me? You have again collected 394.7 billion euros in taxes and still cannot manage to budget adequately for the citizens. Instead, you are burdening future generations with special assets for infrastructure, for climate neutrality, for the Climate and Transformation Fund and for the Bundeswehr. But this money does not benefit the Bundeswehr at all for national and alliance defense. The total expenditure of the federal budget amounts to 669.3 billion euros in 2026, for which you have to take out loans of 203 billion euros. This means that as of July 2026, every citizen will bear 3,187 euros in debt per capita. Interest payments alone will quadruple in the coming years. This is not serious budgetary policy. This is really robbery of the citizens and, above all, a sin against our children and grandchildren. [applause] And Mr. Merz, you spoke of constitutional loyalty. This budget is unconstitutional. Look at your Basic Law, which you held up. In a parliament, both the governing coalition and the opposition have a responsibility to this constitution. And that is why I call on you all to join us in filing a constitutional complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court. A quarter of all members of this parliament must co-sign it. I appeal to you all. It is a matter of conscience for our country and for our citizens. Dear colleagues, [applause] dear colleagues, you are not only placing unimaginable financial burdens on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren, but even worse, you are actively investing German tax money in the continuation of the war in Ukraine. The Süddeutsche Zeitung, mind you, described your Ukraine aid on July 29 of this year as a black box, because parliament was not fully informed about the use of the funds and will not be. The Merz government, for example, invests in Ukrainian arms companies. You are thereby nourishing the war and the deaths of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers. If you really want change, then finally actively stand up for peace and for negotiations in Ukraine and in Europe and in the regions of the Middle East, where terror and crime are still the order of the day. Come into conversation with all sides. Form your own picture and actively pursue diplomacy. As a middle power, we would be in a comfortable mediator position. That would be in Germany's interest. [applause] But instead, you are ensuring that the arms and war industry becomes domestic again in Germany. In my constituency, rail vehicles have been produced since 1849. The manufacturing plant in Görlitz was sold to an arms company in 2025. You, Mr. Merz, and your Union state premier Kretschmer are even happy when they pursue this war readiness that Mr. Pistorius is conjuring up. This is really unbearable, and that is exactly what the people in our country do not want. And much more reprehensible, [applause] much more reprehensible is that you support America's war business with arms purchases and contribute to the rehabilitation of their dilapidated state economy. All with German tax money and with special debts. Dear colleagues, war games do not suit us, and it comes at the expense of everyone in our country. Already next year, the expenditure items for social affairs, defense and interest will account for 64% of the core budget. We must urgently change course, in favor of a genuine social market economy. Instead of weapons and war readiness, we need investment in energy infrastructure, in health, in education and in care. The German population is fortunately getting older and older, and it is precisely these people who must be granted social security and good medical care. They have earned that over their 45 years of work and insurance contributions. Dear friends, [applause] furthermore, we must limit access to our social funds. And I want to make something clear again. Through a regulated and profitable migration policy, no one from our side, from the AfD, gains anything. But also the immediate deportation, the immediate deportation of criminals and those not entitled to stay must finally be at the very top of the priorities. The special financial status of Ukrainians in Germany must be ended. And Mr. Merz, even if you no longer want to listen, [applause] if you no longer want to listen, because you spoke about the craft sector and addressed me on that, just look at the vocational school classes, where nowadays only two Germans sit in these classes. They are afraid to go to school. Finally talk to these schools, to these citizens. That is the reality. That is the reality. We must finally put the welfare state back in focus in order to preserve the future life in this country. And [cough] above all, we must end the Grundsicherung for able-bodied citizens who are not young, because then we can also achieve more together in the community. That is the task a federal government must set. But I know very well that this federal government will no longer manage it, ladies and gentlemen. That is why social security on the basis of a healthy, growing economy can only exist with a new federal government, and indeed with a federal government led by the AfD. Thank you very much. [applause]
The next speaker in this debate is Dr. Wiebke Ester for the SPD parliamentary group. [applause]
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the AfD is standing here shouting about record debts, and I would like to put that in perspective once more. First, it was a deliberate decision to put our country in order and therefore to invest in infrastructure. You do not have to share that. But to give the impression here that we are facing a debt collapse is simply wrong. In international comparison, we are, [applause] with a clear margin, the country with the lowest national debt ratio, and in historical comparison there is no problem at all. What is much more interesting, however, is when you look at the AfD's alternative budget, because it says: "Everything must become cheaper, everything must go down, no debts, and it is not financed at all." That is as if you walk into a restaurant and order a three-course meal, but before the bill comes, you sneak out the back. That is the AfD's fiscal policy. And I tell you, we will [applause][cheering] tell the people honestly what it costs to put our country back in order, and we will make sure that they may order the meal but will not be able to eat it all.
Ladies and gentlemen, many people we spoke to during the summer recess are worried. Worried because the world has become more confusing and threatening, because jobs are being cut, because they are being questioned, because artificial intelligence is changing so much not only in the workplace but also in everyday life, because we are in a profound transformation, and this transformation leads to uncertainty. That is understandable. But honesty also requires acknowledging that this uncertainty is currently being intensified, because many people are asking whether the resulting tasks will be handled by politics, and because they too often come to the conclusion that we cannot do it. That is exactly what we have to work on. Our task is to provide security in transformation. Willy Brandt once said that every era wants its own answers and that one must be at the height of the times if good is to be achieved. And we have to work on being at the height of the times in all these areas that are undergoing transformation. So often we are not. That applies [applause] to the area of securing our democracy, because it is being attacked as never before in the history of the Federal Republic. From the Kremlin with propaganda from outside, but also from within. We had to listen to the examples of that here in the plenary today. Inciting anger is not an instrument that democracy relies on or that is envisaged in a democracy. But because there are destructive forces in our democracy, we, who weigh arguments and want to make rational decisions, must find answers to ensure that our democracy remains so stable and our freedom preserved.
Being at the height of the times also applies to strengthening the economic situation and to future-proof jobs, on which we are. Here too there is great change. Due to geopolitical upheavals, our export model no longer works, and that is why we finally need a coordinated European, open but strategic trade policy. We need a policy that supports how we can use the technological revolutions, above all artificial intelligence, for more productivity and value creation in order to preserve our economic location and our prosperity. We need an active industrial policy, [applause] one that secures jobs. These are three courses of action in the area of economic policy, but I also want to make a clear demarcation beyond that. Because we have uncertainty in transformation and would provide security in transformation, it will not be possible for the SPD to insult employees or to devalue their work performance, saying that they work too little or that they are sick too often. Respect for people's life achievements comes first for us when it comes to economic policy. [applause] And I say this quite clearly: we cannot expect more work to be done in the engine room of the MS Germany while the corks are popping on deck. We have to bring the ship to the height of the times together, and that also means that large tech corporations and multimillionaires contribute to financing it, for example when more needs to be invested in education. And that the PISA results clearly showed, we all heard yesterday. We have therefore presented a concept for the inheritance tax, and I am counting on the fact that when the Constitutional Court ruling comes this winter, we will tackle the topic. Ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion I want to say that we are very much at the height of the times when it comes to investments in our country. Schools, railways and roads are being invested in. We have a lot ahead of us, but we are on a good path. Thank you very much. [applause]
The next speaker in this debate is Claudia Müller for the Alliance 90/The Greens parliamentary group. [applause]
Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it must be said once and for all. The Chancellor, Mr. Merz, sold the people short during the election campaign when he kept saying that one only had to do a proper audit and reform the citizen's income. That way, one could simply save the budget and dissolve the consolidation tax. They all knew that would never be enough. And that is voter deception, and the people know it, and for that they — and actually all of us — are now getting the bill, and not only in Saxony-Anhalt. And just as brazenly, the coalition is now dealing with the special fund. They are gambling away the future opportunities of our country, [applause] and yet they ran with the announcement that they were the last bullet of democracy. Honestly, I hope that this really was not it. [applause] But the Chancellor and many here have said today that we need a positive narrative, and so let me propose one. Let us become a country where we come together again and have a common future project. A country that uses the opportunities of the special fund and turns it into a project "Livable Homeland 2040". And in doing so, we involve the people, define this future image together, and govern not from above but with empathy. [applause] Let us become a country where parties, government and constructive opposition agree on political goals across electoral terms and then implement them in a planned and reliable manner. [applause] Let us become a country where we meet the challenges of the world positively and full of drive, and do not constantly look back with regret. A country where climate protection is finally understood as an opportunity, where renewable energies are used as a job engine and a guarantee for freedom, security and affordability. A country with buses and trains that run reliably, with schools, day-care centers, sports halls and libraries that become favorite places where opportunities and community arise. [applause] Because this country — this country we can be, and we can start now. And in 11 days in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, you can also elect it. [applause]
The next speaker in this debate is for the Left Party parliamentary group, Heidi Reichinik. [applause]
Madam President, dear colleagues, dear Mr. Merz, who will certainly be back shortly. Your budget once again shows that you have no plan for how you can change life in this country for the better for the people. On the contrary, the welfare state and labor rights are being hollowed out. The country is being handed over to the fossil fuel corporations. Exploding prices are met with a shrug of the shoulders. Only at the stock exchanges the cash registers are ringing. BlackRock, RWE, Rheinmetall and Co. They are rubbing their hands, and every donation to you and every former employment relationship has really paid off for them. But I am happy to remind you that you were elected by the people in this country. So align your politics for once with them and not with the large corporations. [applause] But what do the people in this country get, the ones who keep this place running? Insults, pressure, higher costs, less support. The balance sheet of your government is social coldness and despair, anger and powerlessness. Those on the far right are not elected because they have such great concepts or such clever heads. I mean, we just noticed that again in the two speeches. Their speeches, which drip with contempt for humanity and racism. Either they deliberately told one lie after another — I would never accuse them of that — or really not a single person on their teams can use a search engine. But that probably comes from hiring people according to their degree of kinship rather than their competence. [applause] Dear colleagues, that this brown seed still thrives is because you are creating the breeding ground for it with your policy of social coldness. But you are not only leaving people in despair; the economy is also sinking deeper into crisis, because your perspective is not that of the overall economy, but that of managers and bosses. And for them it is only about short-term profits, fat dividends for a few, and their own bonuses. Not about the long-term success of the companies, not about secure jobs, not about climate-compatible production, and not about anchoring the firms in the regions. You still really think that if multimillionaires and billionaires only get richer, then everything is super, then we will do good things for some reason. Children believing in Santa Claus is quite sweet, but adults seriously thinking that the trickle-down effect would increase the prosperity of the masses is rather embarrassing. [applause] Volkswagen, for example, Volkswagen, for example, received short-time work allowance, [applause] paid out fat returns, almost 30 billion in the last 5 years, and now plant closures and mass layoffs are looming. In the peace city of Osnabrück, VW is becoming an arms factory. The bosses are happy about their tax gifts, but they will not invest in the location because of that for a long time. Maybe they should just stop following the lobbyists who advise them or who sit at their government table. Maybe then their politics will get a little better. Then maybe they will also stop with the mantra that one can save one's way out of a crisis, because under this cloak of saving, people are really being stripped of their last shirt. In the Ministry of Family Affairs alone, 1.19 billion euros are being cut, of which 470 million are statutory benefits for families. The debt grows by 31.4 billion in the same year, 26 times as much. Your priorities are clear. It starts with the advance maintenance payment, which you plan to cut for children from the age of 16. And it may surprise you, but these children also have to eat. They need clothes, they have hobbies, they want to meet friends, maybe get a driver's license, and 114,000 children will be affected by your plans. 114,000 children whose second parent does not pay maintenance for them, even though he is actually obliged to. And now you also want to punish these children twice and say, well, we won't support them either. Put pressure on the parent who does not pay, instead of simply cutting 30% across the board and celebrating because the numbers look so good. [applause] That is just pathetic. And the next example is just as cruel. The child benefit supplement was once intended to support particularly poor families until there is a child basic income. Well, that is not coming now, and then you thought, then we can cut the 25 euros too. 25 euros may not seem like much to some of you in government, but for 1.9 million families these 25 euros decide whether at the end of the month there is still a warm, balanced lunch on the table, or whether the child can at least go to the swimming pool once with their friends. [applause] These 25 euros mean participation for many, which you are taking away from these children. And then someone from your parliamentary group stands in front of the camera this morning and says: "Well, but we are also cutting our own. We didn't raise our allowances this time." Do you actually listen to yourselves when you say things like that? The people are completely mocked by that. That really cannot be your intention, but your goal seems to be that no one wants to have children anymore, because you are cutting not only at the children but also massively at parental allowance. And then you want to sell us this cut — and I find that really brazen — as an increase, because the minimum and maximum amounts are rising. Yes, great. But for that, parental allowance is only paid for 12 instead of 14 months. Do you really think parents are so stupid that they believe they cannot calculate that? At the minimum parental allowance, 240 euros are missing. At the maximum, 2,400 euros. That is brazen. [applause] And you are also continuing your vendetta against queer people. First, your family minister stamped out the ongoing projects in the Democracy Alive program. Then the Queer Life action plan was completely abolished. And now you are also ending a framework agreement that has existed for 8 years with the Lambda association, which provides young people with the advice and support that you do not provide. It is unbelievable. And for affordable housing, one of the central social questions of our time, you have no answer either. In your draft budget, only 5 billion is earmarked for social housing. With this housing crisis, that simply is not enough. We need 25 billion per year for social housing. That would really make a difference, help the struggling construction industry, and thus kick-start the economy. [applause] A nationwide rent cap is also long overdue, so that the brazen rent mafia, led by Vonovia, can no longer squeeze people for their returns. Just like a rent fraud law that really deserves its name and finally sanctions this practice. And do you know why I am so convinced of this? Because I have been at people's doors. I was in Reinickendorf again this time, and a tenant came up to me and said, you are from The Left, you are the ones who always help us. Yes, he was right at first. Could you please look at the house where I live, a Vonovia house? Yes, and I really thought I would fall off my chair. The partition walls had been removed for months. All the cable runs exposed, a fuse box with which you could switch off the electricity in the whole house. Anyone could get to it. There were holes in the floor, a small child could have fallen through. There was water damage in the basement and in the apartment. And Vonovia had not moved for months, only when I wrote a letter with the federal eagle, which apparently makes the difference whether there is help or not. Yes, you can now say, I know you are not so much into social issues, but just listen for once. Only then [applause] did Vonovia react. But it cannot be that this depends on me and my people. There must finally be a change in the system. [applause] We have to make sure that such things cannot happen at all. We have to do real social housing policy, and that it cannot be financed. You know yourselves that that is not true. Finally get rid of the debt brake. With armaments, you are not so squeamish either. A wealth tax, a financial transaction tax, abolish the inheritance tax exemption. Mr. Frei, one must relieve the majority, I agree with you. But that only works if multimillionaires and billionaires are finally involved fairly in financing it, if we create social systems into which everyone really pays in. [applause] That is the right way. And it would also be long overdue that you take bold steps towards a climate-neutral future, instead of orienting your politics after the gas lobby at the cabinet table, which chains us even more firmly to fossil fuels and the dictatorships that produce them. Since you have been in office, there are 15 billion in new climate-damaging subsidies on top of the existing 26 billion. If you finally abolished them, you would have money to invest in renewable energies. You could simultaneously relieve people, for example through a climate dividend. You could strengthen public transport, cycling and walking, so that fewer people are dependent on cars, and those who still need them could be supported with a premium for buying used e-cars and with the expansion of charging infrastructure. That way you would also have money to finally help the municipalities. It cannot be that sick, elderly people and children suffer in hospitals, nursing homes and schools in the summer at 35 degrees, while you sit here in air-conditioned offices and wonder where the problem is. The families should just give the children a bottle of water. That really cannot be your intention. We need a proper heat plan, and the federal level must finally invest too. [applause] More than 16,000 people died from the heat alone this year. You cannot simply say we will just keep going merrily. And that is why, Mr. Merz, if I hear from you once more — well, if you are ever there at all, that would already be something — but if I hear from you once more that you just have to explain your politics better. I forget myself, the people notice exactly what you are doing. That is the problem. If you stand here and say we have implemented a reform of the statutory health insurance funds so that contributions do not rise, but next year they do rise, then the people notice that. If they suddenly have to pay more for their medication, then the people notice that. If care collapses because emergency services, psychotherapists and general practitioners say we can no longer manage this, then the people do notice that. They are not being fooled, and for this politics the people are punishing you. [applause] What happened in Saxony-Anhalt was not a warning shot. It was a major attack on our democracy, our Basic Law and our social cohesion. So spare us your useless and dangerous hold-out parades and finally do a social economic policy that is oriented towards the people. Finally make the change of course that we so urgently need, because I do not want to hear any more of this from the people here. [applause]
So, dear colleagues, [applause] with all understanding for the emotionality in these budget debates, I would be grateful if we could maintain a certain language and simply refrain from words like "being fooled" and the like. I do not think that is very parliamentary, and it does not belong to our conventions. Everyone should ask themselves whether that is the right style of language for this parliament. I do not believe it is. And the next speaker in this debate is for the Union parliamentary group, Alexander Hoffmann. [applause]
Madam President, esteemed colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, allow me first of all to make two preliminary remarks. Ms. Weidel remains true to her line. She delivers a fact-free, hate-filled speech here, allows no interjections. And when it comes to the echo, when it comes to taking the reaction, she is not there. But perhaps you will have the opportunity to pass that on to her. Ms. Weidel speaks of facts here, but then does not have the strength to allow my interjection. That is not only a sign of weakness, but a sign that she obviously does not trust her own facts. What is much worse, however, is that facts are being twisted here. [applause] Literally, the speech was about hundreds of thousands who are still coming into the country via asylum. I looked up the figures. First half of 2026, 39,000 first-time asylum applications. That is a magnitude like we last had in 2012. That is an achievement of this federal government, an achievement of this federal interior minister, and we will not let you talk that down. [applause] And then you always talk about migration. The fixed building block of every one of your speeches is migration. Here you always talk about migration, but in the Russian embassy you do not talk about migration or migration as a weapon. In Moscow you do not talk about migration either. You do not talk about migration that was triggered by the war in Ukraine. And that is why it is a lie of the highest order. [applause] And Ms. Drüge, I cannot spare you my second preliminary remark. Because you know, fundamentally I have the claim that I treat the Greens differently and perceive them differently than the fringes, because I initially assume that they fundamentally mean well for this country. But I want to say in reply to your speech today, Ms. Drüge, that you should then also behave accordingly, because today you have once again given a speech that is nothing other than a highly inflammatory campaign against the German Chancellor. Things are being claimed that he never said. And that is why my request among democrats would be: please just refrain from that. [applause] Dear colleagues, Saturday was a great day for this country. For the first time, it has been possible to successfully send a European launch vehicle into orbit. The message, a company from Bavaria, from the Federal Republic of Germany, that is behind it, is quite simple and good for our country. Bavaria can do space travel, and Germany can do space travel. And the topic of space travel [applause] is exemplary. Because if we make the right decisions in the area of space travel today, we are deciding today whether we will be technological front-runners in 10 or 20 years. And that applies to many other issues in the country in the same way. But it is symptomatic, and I want to address that, of another phenomenon, because the truth is, there were two attempts. Elon Musk needed four attempts, and the first failed attempt was reported and discussed at great length. And the really successful second attempt, which was an epochal event for the German technology location, received far too little attention. Ladies and gentlemen, we [applause] are modernizing this country, and anyone who has ever modernized a house knows that it does not happen overnight. It takes strength, patience, it takes money, and sometimes doubts arise. We are flanking this modernization of our country with this record budget 2027 with record investments. And in this area a great deal has been achieved. A high-tech agenda with a volume of 18 billion until 2029. On July 17, the new basic income support came into force, promoting and demanding finally united again, and we are now tackling the fight against social fraud in a second package. The migration turnaround, the figures I just mentioned, has been successfully implemented. Our country will be defense-capable with billions of investments in defense capability, in the new military service. And I do not want to make a virtue of the fact that we in the coalition would wish it were different, but the times are just like that. And before the summer recess, we implemented the statutory health insurance reform. A major reform project such as this country has not seen in over 20 years, and of course also with savings measures. But dear colleagues, the art was that we must succeed in ensuring top-class medicine in Germany for everyone at stable contributions, and that is the real success of this reform. And if you see today what is possible in the area of cancer treatment, what was possible 10 or 20 years ago, then this statement is true, and it is good news. And at the same time we are stabilizing the non-wage labor costs, because we know that non-wage labor costs ultimately determine the attractiveness of an economic location. That is part of it, and the next steps are already casting their shadows. We are flexibilizing the labor market with many measures that we agreed in the coalition committee. We are reforming care, and we are reforming pensions. And with a view to Sunday and with a view to Saxony-Anhalt, I want above all to state one thing in the name of this coalition. Saxony-Anhalt changes nothing. It changes nothing about the need for reform, about the need for modernization of this country, dear colleagues. And that is similar to when you modernize a house and at the end leave the damp basement alone and only do a partial modernization, because the whole thing is now a bit more difficult. The decisive question, the decisive question that we must be able to answer, is: which measures are necessary and which measures are effective. And that must be the sole criterion. And this question can certainly be answered. If we had not done the statutory health insurance reform, health insurance contributions would climb to 19%. No answer on pensions. If we did not tackle the care reform, we would eventually reach a care contribution of about 5%. No answer on pensions. And if we did not reform pensions, we would already have a federal subsidy to the pension fund of about 137 billion in 2027. No answer on pensions. And that is why I say to you from the SPD, we have a historic chance here, especially when we talk about the topic of pensions, a historic chance for our country, a historic chance for the young generation, and let us use this historic chance together. Dear colleagues, [applause] and while we face this challenge of modernizing our country, we are exposed to a considerable threat, a considerable threat from outside. The events in
shown in Leipzig. And I want to turn once again in your direction, from the AfD, because I honestly have to say, your behavior fills me with astonishment. Because the truth is, when a chewing gum machine is broken into next to an asylum seeker shelter, you demand an inquiry committee here. When drones fly in Leipzig packed with Russian explosives, you stand there shrugging your shoulders in silence. That is your problem.
But even more than that, if that were all, but like Putin's puppets, you end up reading out the talking points from the Kremlin. And that is why I say to you, you know, there is the Augsburger Puppenkiste, which comes from Bavaria and which people like. You are the Moscow Puppenkiste, and you are dangerous for our country.
Dear colleagues, I do not want to make a big deal out of it. We from CDU/CSU and SPD know that this is a rocky, a challenging path. But the first indicators show us that we are on the right path. Several research institutes have now revised their economic forecast upwards. That is a sign that should give us courage, and that is why let us continue exactly this path.
The next speaker in this debate is for the AfD faction, Jörn König.
Madam President, dear colleagues, dear athletes, sport and elite sport have been consistently neglected for decades. The numbers speak a clear language. 362 million euros are earmarked for elite sport. For comparison, that is roughly as much as Germany spent in 2024 on cycle paths in Peru. 25 billion euros, roughly 70 times as much, goes to foreigners as citizen's income. 362 million corresponds to a miserable 60 cents per 1,000 euros of the budget. That says everything about the status of German sport in this government.
Yet spending on sport would be a huge lever, for example for health. Studies say that 1 euro spent on sport saves 4 euros in health expenditure. In addition, sport conveys the classic virtues such as honesty, discipline, punctuality, sense of order, diligence, willingness to perform, and sense of duty. These are virtues without which you cannot build a successful country.
Furthermore, sport stands for social advancement. How many successful elite athletes, especially footballers, would have reached their current income through conventional means? Almost none. Advancement opportunities are fundamental to the success and stability of a society. Success and stability are therefore worth a mere 60 cents per 1,000 euros to the grand coalition. No wonder you are surprised by election results.
Of course, sport is fundamentally a matter for the states. Yes, but culture is too. The State Secretary for Culture and Media has a budget of 2.1 billion euros. The State Minister for Sport and Volunteering, however, has only the aforementioned 362 million, one sixth. So there is still plenty of room for improvement for sport. The 362 million include an increase of 10 million, so not even 3%. The core budget rose by 6%. Do you notice something? You have neglected sport again.
There are 10 million euros in additional funding, but there is also 6 million euros in new bureaucracy, namely the new Sports Agency and the Center for Sport. There is always money for new officials. So it runs as it does every year. Sport and elite sport are merely an annoying accessory to you. Yet every euro invested in sport helps young people in their personal development, keeps them off the streets, and pays for itself many times over through better health. A system that does not motivate more performance is guaranteed to fail. That is why you will also fail, because unlimited money printing and unconditional basic security even for illegal immigrants is the guaranteed path to ruin. Performance must finally pay off again in sport as well as in life.
We sports friends from the AfD will introduce several amendment motions, primarily to improve athlete funding. Many athletes in Germany are still lost during the transition from school to professional life, or from vocational training into the profession. We wish the new State Minister for Sport and Volunteering every success and hope for good cooperation. But I fear the term of office will be short, because this government is already finished. Thank you very much and sport frei.
The next speaker in this debate is Tim Klüssendorf for the SPD faction.
Madam President, dear colleagues, I must first share an impression with you that has become very clear to me in this debate. I think we are moving on to the agenda too quickly. When I listen to the speeches and also consider how we are starting again, even among the democratic factions, to indulge in small quibbles and to want to make short-term gains, I think we have not learned much from what happened in the election results in Saxony-Anhalt three days ago.
I want to make it clear, and Ms. Weidel, you are still here, where I believe a great deal distinguishes us, and indeed all factions from the Left, through the SPD, the Greens, to the Union, what distinguishes us from you. You speak in your speech of Muslim tribes. You do not say that by accident. You speak of tribes in order to suggest, right from the first word, that one society stands above another, that another society is not civilized, lives by old standards, and is not equal to ours. And you do that quite deliberately. You speak of tribes because you want to signal to the people that these people are worth less. That is the message you convey with such statements.
And you continue this equation. You then speak about Islam. You speak about the fact that there are violent crimes in Germany. You generalize, you bring together what does not belong together. Islam is not inherently violent, and one must distinguish, especially when one carries responsibility in this country, especially when one sits in this plenary. It makes a difference whether these are people of the Islamic faith who have integrated into this country, who are an integral part of this country, or whether they are those who commit these violent crimes and whom we must also name. And this mechanism of guilt, you do nothing but assign guilt. And you do that in every debate here, in every single debate. Whether it is about sport, we just heard the example from König again, whether it is about the economy, whether it is about culture, you bring every political question back to this question of guilt and offload it onto individual population groups. And that is the mechanism that distinguishes us from you, and the mechanism that leads us to draw this line from you. That is the mechanism that leads us to the fact that nobody wants to govern with you, because we stand on the ground of the Basic Law and you do not.
Because human dignity is inviolable. And it is precisely with such statements that you make here that you attack dignity. You attack human dignity. It has been said many times here that it is not the dignity of Germans that is inviolable in the Basic Law, but the dignity of human beings. And that also applies to all those who have migrated to us.
But I also want to point out at this point, colleague Klüssendorf, there is a supplementary question. No, do not allow it. You generally do not allow supplementary questions. I will think about that, but okay, all right. Just so that is clear.
They are still laughing. I am not afraid of you, and I know that many others here are not afraid of you either. You can shout as much as you want. That will not make us small. That will not make us small.
But I also want to express some self-criticism, and that is a mechanism that I also use. When we talk about migration, we often come with the argument that, well, these people are needed in individual sectors. What if they are possibly no longer needed at some point? Let us think about whether we have not also made the mistake and been led into this way of thinking of evaluating people from a utility argument. I think that also belongs to the debate, to reflect on that for ourselves.
And I believe that today is also the time to talk about self-criticism. You did not win because you have the best program. You did not win because you propose great measures to get Germany back on track. You won, and one must concede that to you, because you appeal to emotions. And even we today in the debate are starting again to present lists of measures. What we have all done, which laws, that is not an answer to emotions. The answer to emotions is to give belonging ourselves, to give security ourselves, to convey the impression ourselves. We do not make politics against the people, but we make politics with the people. And that is also a mandate for us that we must take up, that must be a lesson from this election result.
And of course that can also be underpinned with measures. And I think that the PISA result from yesterday in particular is a point that we must talk about. We are talking ourselves, and I am not talking at all about what you are proposing. That is all unusable. But I am talking about ourselves. I am talking about what proposals we make. We also as the SPD, we print on every poster in every election campaign best education, and we govern, and at the same time the quality of education in Germany is getting worse. Then we cannot say we do not need you as a source of information.
Now just hold your tongue. Really, we can discuss that ourselves. Nobody needs you for this criticism. Nobody, because you have no answers. But it must be part of it that we question ourselves: what did we do wrong? Why does it stay at Sunday speeches and why do we not manage to do better here? And there are individual symbols where we see that something is moving. For example, in Saarland, where contribution-free daycare centers will be introduced from next year. Those are the right steps, but it must not stop there. That is why I advocate that we also, even if it is not primarily our responsibility, take much, much stronger care of education policy in this country, and that it must not again be left to echo here at the lectern, but that we really make a concrete effort.
And of course it also has to do with justice. A value that shocked me particularly is the dependence on the parental home, the dependence on material origin. And when I look at how unjust the educational path in this country is, even compared to other countries, then it must be high time that we do not shut ourselves off any further and must also levy a tax on the highest inheritances in this country, so that this money can finally be invested to compensate for these injustices that are passed on from the parental home, for which no child in this country is responsible.
And it is the same, by the way, with the concept of reform overall. We also started in recent months to keep talking about reforms that make people's lives better. If I really summarize what reforms we have made that have structurally changed something in this country, then we are still far from the goal we have together. Of course, it was also about austerity measures for the things we got on the way before the summer, with the GKV Stabilization Act, and we should stop throwing sand in people's eyes, because they notice exactly that and we cannot continue like that. And that is why let us together, let us talk together about how we really shape reform, and our country needs reform, so that it makes people's lives better and that it is not just austerity measures, so that people do not equate reform with cuts, because we absolutely need it and because otherwise we will not have the acceptance of the people in this country, which we urgently need, the acceptance to push this reform through.
And one last sentence: we all have to work together, in conflict, in confrontation, but the opponent is standing there, and that must also become clear here. Thank you very much for your attention.
The colleague Reichardt now has the opportunity for a short intervention. Well, no, rather yes, because our system here says that if I do not allow a supplementary question, then there is the possibility of a short intervention. And we are enabling exactly that here.
Please.
Mr. Klüssendorf, I would like to preface. Your party has 9% in Saxony-Anhalt, and it has that because it is also represented here in the Bundestag by people like you, because it is represented by people who have never done value-creating work in their lives, and that they present themselves here as workers is an outrage. But I will tell you the next thing. You talked here about us discriminating against people of the Islamic faith. You rolled that out broadly and said that we were generalizing. Your party, in connection with group rapes, with crimes tens of thousands of times in Germany, never talks about which groups are involved, but it talks about a huge group, it always only talks about men. I ask myself how you can stand here and accuse anyone of any attributions, where you put half the population under general suspicion for any crimes. That is the truth, and that is also the lack of credibility that you represent here, and that is the lack of credibility that your party has brought to where it is today. Thank you very much.
So, Mr. Reichardt remains standing. Mr. Klüssendorf may reply. I will only say now that hopefully you did not mean the women when you just addressed the men. It was a... So, Mr. Klüssendorf, please.
