LIVE: German Chancellor Friedrich Merz Addresses Parliament on 2027 Budget | AC1B

Yes. Yes.

Good morning, everyone. I warmly welcome you and hereby open our session.

Dear colleagues, we are continuing our budget deliberations, and for today's debate we have agreed on a total speaking time of eight hours. We begin today with the portfolio of the Chancellor and the Chancellery. And the floor goes first, for the AfD parliamentary group, to Member Dr. Alice Weidel. Please proceed.

Madam President, Chancellor, ladies and gentlemen, the voters in Saxony-Anhalt have made it clear to you in the language of the democratic sovereign: black-red is over.

The people finally want a change of policy, and they do not want more of the same. And the budget draft you have submitted today reflects exactly this continued fumbling, and it is a declaration of surrender by your coalition.

Despite record tax revenues, you are unable to manage the citizens' money sensibly. Why? Because you are unwilling to free yourselves from the shackles of green ideology, left-wing mass immigration, and socialist redistribution. Instead of saving, you are bloating this budget to almost 600 billion euros. And for that, you want to take on more than one trillion euros in debt by 2030 — that is, more than 1,000 billion euros. That is a gigantic figure and unprecedented in the history of the Federal Republic of Germany.

In fact, your finance minister — who, by the way, did not manage to come up with a single figure in yesterday's finance debate. He did not cite a single figure in a finance debate. That too speaks volumes. And this very Mr. Klingbeil wants to raise 500 billion euros in new borrowing on the capital market next year alone. And with that, dear friends of the SPD and the CDU, your budget draft is clearly unconstitutional.

The Federal Court of Auditors, which you want to punish with cuts for its candid words, urgently warns that your financial planning leads directly into a debt trap. You have already so badly damaged state finances that by the end of the legislative period — if you are even still in office that long, I doubt it — all tax revenues will go solely and exclusively toward interest and social spending. Just imagine that. All tax revenues, record tax revenues, only for social spending and for paying off interest. That is not sound budget policy. It is the opposite — it is unserious budget management on the part of this coalition.

But it goes further. With this, you are destroying all political room for maneuver and leaving scorched earth behind. And to put it in one sentence: yes, they say 'oui' — if they could count, they would know that it is so. In one sentence: you are driving Germany, in record time, into state bankruptcy. That is what you are doing, and meanwhile deindustrialization is sweeping across our country with growing momentum. Germany is losing — that's not right. Can you listen for a moment to what the numbers say? Germany is losing 12,000 industrial jobs every month. Last year, 190,000 companies in Germany gave up. Every third German mid-sized company is planning to relocate abroad. The number of unemployed is rising again above the three million mark. Retail sales are collapsing to the level of the corona lockdowns. The state sector and the asylum industry are the only remaining growth sectors in Germany. That is what you have made of our country.

And dear colleagues from the CDU, I can see you from here, and there are interjections and protests coming from over there. Let me tell you one thing. Look at the colleagues sitting to your left and to your right. One of the two will no longer be sitting here in the next legislative period once Friedrich Merz is finished with you. And you know that.

You declare the migration crisis to be over. Yet every year a six-figure number of migrants enters the country through the asylum back door, and another large city through family reunification. Most of them from Muslim tribal cultures. Germany is, after Colombia — Germany is, after Colombia, the country worldwide that has taken in the most refugees, with 2.7 million — more than Colombia worldwide. I ask myself, why is that actually so? Why have you taken in the most refugees worldwide? Why do you do that? You don't need any of this at all. And in Germany there live — these are facts — and in Germany, and in Germany, it goes on, more than one million refugees whose asylum application has been rejected more than once. What are these people actually still doing in this country? They should be deported.

You claim that migration no longer plays a role in the election campaign. The citizens see it differently, because they have to live day in, day out with the consequences of mass migration: with unsafe streets and rising crime, with the massive increase in sexual and violent offenses, with over 750 gang rapes a year, with everyday knife violence and assaults in trains and train stations, with dilapidated and threatening cityscapes, with violence in our schools and on our streets. — Madam, with the house — you want to raise a point of order? No, you know that is unusual. The colleague from the CDU knows that too. Not in front of you.

...continue reading, because they have to deal day in, day out with the consequences of mass migration, with the hatred of foreign groups of people toward what is our own, with hatred of Christians, with hatred of Germans, with hatred of Germany — and you even fund these people. That must finally come to an end.

And while the USA makes another attempt to end the murderous war in Ukraine, you are intensifying war propaganda, the confrontation with Russia, and are also burning the last bridges in order to distract from your own catastrophic political record. Finally commit yourself to peace negotiations, as the USA is doing.

The so-called energy transition is the greatest millstone crushing our economy and dragging it into the abyss. The energy transition is lost, burnt money. Nothing productive is created with it. Costly, dysfunctional parallel structures are subsidized, while proven and cost-effective infrastructure is systematically destroyed. Germany's most modern and cleanest coal-fired power plant in Moorburg was deliberately destroyed, without it ever having been on the grid for a single hour. Our nuclear power plants, the safest in the world, which had supplied around-the-clock, inexpensive and additionally CO2-neutral electricity, were shut down one after another and blown up by you.

While you blindly continue this energy-policy ghost ride, China is moving into the future of energy supply with innovative nuclear technologies that were conceived and tested in Germany but never operated. For the insane sums you demand from citizens and businesses, Germans receive the highest energy prices of any industrialized nation, a crumbling infrastructure, and an increasingly dysfunctional state. And they get an economy that is being squeezed between crushing costs, crushing taxes and levies, and rampant bureaucracy to its knees, and a rapidly advancing deindustrialization. Long since, it is eating into the substance at BASF.

You find this funny. The voters out there see that the SPD finds this funny, that deindustrialization is rampant in this country. And I would now like to name an example, and let's see whether you still find it so funny then — because these were, at some point, your voters whom you have so thoroughly abandoned. These former voters of the former workers' party are now our voters, and they want political change. And I am naming this dramatic example now because you are snickering there at BASF. In Ludwigshafen, fewer than 30,000 people work. That is as few as in 1954. Every month, 300 jobs are lost there. And that is the result of your policy. So stop laughing.

The German automotive industry is dying. The decline of Volkswagen is a headline: 50,000 positions on the chopping block, four plants facing closure — in Emden, Zwickau, Hannover, and Neckarsulm. The savings and cutback programs of the automotive corporations are sending shockwaves through the entire country. It affects service providers who are no longer needed and car dealerships that have to close one after another. And it affects skilled workers all over the country who are losing their jobs because their companies no longer receive orders and they therefore do not know how they are supposed to keep paying the installments on their own homes. The German Mittelstand and the German middle class are dying quietly, and behind that stand family destinies — and behind that stand people.

Management errors also play a role. The greatest management error is and remains the complacency with which certain corporate leaders parrot the greatest political nonsense instead of defending themselves against the economy-hostile energy transition, the internal combustion engine ban, EV central planning, the Building Energy Act, the Green Deal — that is, against the collected dull works of the Green folly.

Instead, production capacities were quietly and massively shifted abroad, while people here are losing their work. To this day, most remain silent and thereby share in the responsibility. On top of the permanent blackout danger that we owe to the failed energy transition, an existential gas supply crisis also threatens in the coming winter. You want to do without inexpensive pipeline gas from Russia. You let the Nord Stream pipeline be blown up right under your nose without a word or action. Instead of setting the course for a future resumption of deliveries through the intact pipeline strands, you reward the presumed masterminds of the attack in Kyiv with billions in payments at Germany's expense. If you have not yet noticed: our gas storage levels are at a record low. Storing gas should therefore be the top priority.

If the winter turns cold, price-driving purchases at astronomical prices or rationing threaten — which would take the last remaining strength from our economy and private households. And in this situation — Ms. Reiche knows this, by the way; she has to know it. I would be surprised if she did not know it. Listen to your colleague, Ms. Reiche. In this situation, gas should now be being 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 open eyes into a catastrophic supply crisis in the winter — yet another total failure of this government.

Whoever works, pays taxes, and provides for themselves and their family is being plundered and taken for a fool. Whoever drives to work every morning bleeds at the fuel pump because of the far too high taxes at the tank. Whoever instead migrates into the social systems and lives at the expense of the general public is coddled and provided for in every way — even if they are wanted under an arrest warrant. The Syrian in Witten who annoys people day after day with Islamist chants is financed by the job center without any questions asked. Just the same for the Syrian clan leader with his 32 children, some of whom are serious repeat offenders. But what if an ordinary citizen — an ordinary citizen who has become unemployed — misses an appointment at the job center? Then all hell breaks loose. Around three quarters of citizen's income recipients are foreigners or have a migration background. The costs are rising to astronomical heights. Why should the shrinking, working, and tax-paying population — the 'Einheitsbraunen', as your social minister, the SPD social minister, likes to denigrate them — pay for this without limit and work themselves to exhaustion, while others spread themselves out here at their expense and live a life of ease?

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 unjust tax system takes everything away from them. Of one earned euro, only 46 cents remain, and that is robbery. Above all, however, people notice when they are being taken for a ride and cheated left, right, and center. In Saxony-Anhalt, the citizens did not just punish you — they pulverized your party, the CDU. In Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, you are already a minor party, and at the federal level you are well on your way to becoming one. Justifiably so.

Because a denied political change has long been overdue, and it is possible. We must abolish unnecessary state spending and subsidies across the board. By cutting unnecessary climate protection and transformation programs alone, as well as payments to politically promoted NGOs, double-digit billion amounts can be saved. We must immediately and drastically cut development aid and payments for global climate protection. With a total of 26 billion euros in development aid, Germany ranks ahead of even the USA. I ask myself, why is that actually so? For the world there is all this money; for its own people and citizens there is not.

We must significantly limit payments to the EU. Almost one 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 — that is, rigorously scale back — the state apparatus and the public sector that you have so brazenly bloated. And we must stop mass migration into the social systems, put a stop to the systematic abuse of social benefits, and above all deport illegal immigrants and criminal offenders. They have no business in our country.

We must end the failed energy transition and take up the return to nuclear power. Keyword: resilience of our energy supply. The SPD is laughing again. For that, we also need inexpensive natural gas from Russia. We will work toward that for the German economy. We must use the room for maneuver we have gained to lower the far too high energy prices and abolish the CO2 levy, reduce energy taxes, and push through a reform of corporate and income taxes that brings genuine relief — and above all, drastically lower the taxes on petrol 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, peculiar 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 has run out in any case. The citizens want a change of policy, 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 different policies possible. And we will take that mandate seriously and we will accept it, to lead this country into a better future. Because Germany deserves it, the Germans deserve it, to be well governed. Thank you very much.

For the Federal Government, the Chancellor now has the floor: Mr. Friedrich Merz. Please proceed.

Excuse me, Mr. Chancellor, that I briefly interrupt you, but this is addressed to all — to the AfD. Just now, your party chair spoke, and everyone listened. And I ask — yes, that also has to be endured, when you are shown a mirror. It will also have to be borne by you to listen to others. Opinions may differ here, and it is part of the rules to then also listen. The AfD will have speaking time later. You can put in everything you are now calling out. Mr. Chancellor, please.

Mr. Chancellor, excuse me as well — there is whistling going on here. It will keep coming. No, now it is my turn. You will have the chance shortly in your own speech contributions to convince. Calling out interjections is part of parliamentary business, but it is not part of it to permanently interrupt a speaker. One must also tolerate that there are other opinions. What one demands for oneself, one should also be prepared to offer to others. Please proceed, Mr. Chancellor.

Now, we are not on a football pitch here. Save that for the weekend. If this kind of behavior happens again here, I will throw you out. That is enough for me now.

For the Alliance 90/The Greens parliamentary group, Member Katharina Drüge has the floor. Please.

Madam President, dear colleagues, dear Mr. Merz — I want to tell you quite personally: I take your dismay and shock over this terrible election result in Saxony-Anhalt as genuine. We have often spoken with each other about this, and I know how terrible and dangerous you find this party. And that is precisely why I think it is expressly right that you went into this confrontation with the AfD today in the way you did. But at the same time I have to tell you: that alone is not enough. That alone is not enough, because many people in this country are now expecting answers from you — answers as to what comes now, what comes now, after 44 percent of right-wing extremists were elected to an East German state parliament, and how dangerous this party is. We heard that once again today in the speech by Alice Weidel. I have to say quite honestly, in the end that was not a speech. That was more like a scripted screenplay delivered at half speed. They always do that, Ms. Weidel, so that people do not quite catch on how full of hate and rage they truly are. It is always hard for her to control that. A scripted screenplay of rage, of agitation, of the distortion of facts. A screenplay that was staged so embarrassingly that they even invented interjections for themselves that did not exist in this room at all — just because the script said at that point that they were supposed to be outraged. The Bundestag is for...

There is the free speech, Ms. Weidel. You should try that once, and not simply read out what someone has written down for you. We are in a situation where an absolute political disaster has happened, and there are people in Saxony-Anhalt who are now afraid. There is a democratic civil society asking itself what repressions are coming their way if the AfD really should govern in this state. There are people with a migration background asking themselves whether they can still let their children play outside safely. There are queer people asking themselves whether they can still walk down the street holding hands. And to all of them, Mr. Merz — and this is what I would have expected from you — we now have to give answers. Do you now have to 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 organizations that have so bravely fought for civil society and for democracy: we tell them that if the AfD cuts their funding, then we will create something like a democracy emergency fund at the federal level, and we will step in to some extent. 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 the far right and by the Russians? We have been calling on you to act for a long time. What kind of security are you providing for the universities in Saxony-Anhalt? Can you not at least ensure that Saxony-Anhalt cannot use its veto power to block university funding in all the 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 right now. It is urgently time for you to act here. And the second thing — and this is honestly what I expect from all of us as democratic parties in the German Bundestag — I would have wished for a serious struggle over the question of how could this go so wrong and what is our own share of the responsibility. I believe we all have that job now, and the answers to these 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 resurgent far-right 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 and a struggle over what the solutions can be. That has to take place here. We are the German Bundestag. We were elected to give the 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 far-right extremism that obviously did not work. We went out onto 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 itself lost its frightening effect 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 to us Greens that, in our efforts to protect what we consider so worth protecting — the rule of law, freedom, human dignity and also democracy — we 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 that differently. And I would expect this confrontation with ourselves and the answers to it from everyone else. We have to get into the question of why and where people are voting for the far right in such high percentages. And I say very clearly: far-right extremism in Germany is not an eastern problem. Anyone who tries to conduct this debate that way is conducting it wrongly. And yet there are regional differences. It is the regions undergoing structural change and the structurally weak regions where the AfD was particularly strongly elected. Where industry has moved abroad and the jobs have been lost, and also where no bus comes and the last pub has closed. Whether you speak to people in Gelsenkirchen or in Ohio in the USA or in rural Saxony-Anhalt, the issues are similar. These have become places where people feel left behind, left behind by a politics that they think has forgotten them. And that is exactly where the AfD goes in. That is exactly where right-wing populists and radicals go in all over the world. They focus precisely here. With the toxic slogans of nationalism and national isolation. With the longing for a yesterday that they create and that never existed. "Take back control," said Brexit. "Make America great again." Going back to the past is what Donald Trump propagated. And that is what we have to give answers to as democrats. We have to give answers on how the infrastructure on the ground can function again. And you had a tremendous chance with the special fund to make something better in this country. It is so tragic, honestly, in the time our democracy is in, that you did not use it better. But we also have to give an answer to the methods that Ms. Weidel has just demonstrated here in perfection. The AfD's method is to incite anger. To incite anger against minorities as a distraction debate. Anger and frustration are redirected into anger against the unemployed and people with a migration background. And we have to counter that with something. Explaining and changing politics alone is not enough. And I do not want to be misunderstood. There is not one single reason why people vote for the far right. Many people simply vote for the far right because they want to vote for a radical right-wing party. That is also part of the truth. That has to be said here. And at the same time, a sensible strategy against the anger is needed. The anger is incited by the accelerants of social media, by algorithms designed by men like Elon Musk or Peter Thiel, whose stated goal is to destroy democracies. And that is why hatred is fuelled, agitation is fuelled, disinformation and false information. And if we do not manage to change the 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 the second thing, I am personally convinced — we have to counter the spirals of anger incited by the AfD with our determination. And I think — I cannot spare you this now — it is one of the greatest mistakes that the Union under your leadership, Mr. Merz, has made in recent years: that you allowed yourselves to be infected by the temptations of populism, that you did not keep your distance. Take, for example, the debate about citizen's income in the last federal election campaign. You promised people the moon. It was supposed to bring more than 10 billion euros in cuts, or five, or three, or two. The numbers kept getting smaller, because in truth everyone who knew the subject — and there are such people on your side too — knew from the outset that it was completely impossible to push through these cuts to the citizen's income. And for a few cheap clicks, for a bit of incitement against foreigners, against the unemployed, for the sake of riding the wave that exploits our system, you ended up risking one thing: your own credibility. Because unlike the far right, who never want to act, who never want to shape things — and they are trying to get around it in Saxony-Anhalt too, so that they cannot be shown to be incapable — unlike the far right, you will be measured by reality. You have to deliver, and that is the greatest trap you set for yourselves when you knowingly make claims in order to ride the waves of populism that you cannot deliver. That creates frustration. That creates political exhaustion, that creates distance between voters and you. We must not make these mistakes. And the same, honestly, applies to the issue of migration. I know that many of you in the Union believed that if you pursued the toughest possible asylum policy, you would shrink the AfD, because you would in a way deal with their core issue. But you have to admit that this idea has obviously failed spectacularly. Alexander Dobrindt has been interior minister for more than a year now. He pushed through the greatest possible toughness in asylum policy, including breaking the law at Germany's borders, including cooperating with the Taliban criminals, and yet it has achieved nothing in terms of the AfD election results. It has achieved nothing. On the contrary, they have become even stronger. That is why we can argue among 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. Go into the confrontation, especially in the issues where it hurts. That is the job against populism. And at the same time, we have now reached a point in our democracy where political confrontation alone may no longer be enough. And our Basic Law provides 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 now have to set in motion an application to examine an AfD ban. It is time. I can only appeal to you. I can only ask you, as members of the German Bundestag, to examine your own conscience. In the end, you are bound by that, and we need you for a majority. And at the same time — and this is 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 so stably uphold this society. Let us not forget those who commit themselves every day to holding our country together. We have to take care of them. And I would wish, Mr. Merz, that you as Chancellor could acknowledge and appreciate that more, that you would not constantly nag at people in such a condescending way, that you would not lecture them, that you would not express it. Somehow nothing is ever enough. The people in Germany — that is the wrong expectation. That is wrong. With that, you are getting even the most well-meaning people in this country properly worked up. The staff of the healthcare system are not profiteers. These are people who work to the limit every day so that we can all do well. And they would deserve it if we not only said thank you from the heart, but also simply supported them more. 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 parents' wallets are so decisive for children's educational success. It should be about giving every child fair chances in our country. And on the subject of 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 emergency services here, but you said one sentence in the forest by which the country will judge you. 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 are to be taken seriously, you have to 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 withdraw the cuts in the climate protection area from this federal budget. You could act very concretely there. You could stop the laws of Katharina Reiche — all of them. These are climate crisis tightening laws. At the very least, you would have to do that if you mean your own words. And on the subject of the people in our country who deserve appreciation and support, that includes above all families with children. And against this background — and I say this to the Social Democrats too, I say this to Lars Klingbeil too — this federal budget is a disaster, it is a catastrophe, and you would have to completely revise it. You have decided in this federal budget to cut first of all from families, first of all from children. You are cutting housing benefit, and that affects 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 reconcile work 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 thing for me — the 25 euros that the federal government spends to support children in poverty. You are cutting first of all from the poorest children in our society. I can only say that such austerity policy is really socially unjust and shameful. And you would have alternatives. You would have alternatives if you decided to start with the richest rather than the poorest people in our country when it comes to levying burdens. You could ensure that people who inherit 300 apartments also pay inheritance tax. Why are you sparing them? You could ensure that the company car privilege is reformed. Why are you subsidising company cars and cutting for children? You could ensure that flight tickets are not subsidised and that, on the contrary, child poverty is combated there. 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. 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 radicals together. We take responsibility for our country. We also find compromises when it is difficult. And perhaps we have to succeed, especially in this time, in reinventing the political compromise to some extent. Let us campaign for that together. That is our job now.

For the AfD faction, Member Tino Chrupalla now has the floor.

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 unequivocal terms 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 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, as a master craftsman: a botcher remains a botcher. He will never 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.

It has not even taken a decade for it to become completely normal to cover the federal budget's basic expenditures with debt. Like the traffic-light government, you too fail to manage sensibly with the tax revenues collected. And it is definitely not because, Ms. Weidel, too little in taxes is paid. We have no revenue problem — I think we 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 found a company. And it is becoming increasingly difficult to keep a business running and, on top of that, to generate profits. Corporate and consumer insolvencies have also reached new highs in the current 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. That is what your growth is built on.

Germany's key industries — in machine 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 by now no one denies anymore, and which we warned about four years ago.

Mr. Merz, this has nothing to do with talking things down. But I personally do not believe you either that you gave any thought before taking office to what you could achieve as chancellor and, above all, what you wanted to achieve. You promised a great deal. The biggest disinformation apparatus was this federal government. You have kept none of it — none. Tax and further relief in the area of social insurance costs for business and industry, but also for the individual citizen. Retirees were supposed to be able to earn additional income more easily and cost-neutrally, and so on and so forth. Out of the grey autumn of the reforms — and after the snow had melted — came the dreary early days of reform, and both the economy and the pensioners went into summer unreformed. In the end, you have so far produced nothing substantive, nothing at all. And you are not delivering anything today in your government statement either, apart from cost increases.

The number of civil servants is still rising, and the pension burden weighs on the taxpayer. There are still no solutions and no deadlines ensuring that at least new civil servants — and we members of the Bundestag as well — pay into the statutory pension system. That still does not exist, Mr. Mirsch. You continue to produce social injustices and explain them away at the end with geopolitical developments. These explanations are convenient 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 heard that from you today in series.

But you are supposed to shape the future of the German state. That is what you were elected for. You are supposed to set reasonable frameworks, for example, within whose limits companies can settle and, above all, survive. We do need 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 using the example of the automotive industry.

Your predecessor government pushed through the phase-out of combustion engine technology at breakneck speed. The majorities for it were there. This militant intervention in Germany's backbone economic sector has sustainably weakened its competitiveness. For ideological reasons and under the influence of a strong environmental lobby financed with tax money, from then on one produced and invested almost exclusively in electric mobility at the remaining German automotive locations.

So with this absolute decision, one rang the death knell several times over. On the one hand, one gave up — including the carmakers themselves — on further developing the combustion engine. These engines are now even being produced in China for German carmakers. On the other hand, electric vehicles require other supplier industries that we no longer have here 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, one 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 to make the state-ordained transition visible. None of these are success stories, ladies and gentlemen.

Your predecessors in office turned Germany from an export world champion into an import world champion. You are diligently continuing that, 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 supported by the Union — carried by Ursula von der Leyen, who 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 excessively high unit labor costs and the resulting lack of competitiveness of Germany. So you simply pass the problem on to the workers who have to worry about their jobs. Take the impending closure of the Volkswagen plant in Zwickau. Electric 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, 100,000 when it comes to suppliers. The Saxon Ministry of Economy even speaks of 100,000 dependent jobs there alone. However, the Volkswagen 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 is being deindustrialized — starting with car manufacturing, down to the crafts and medium-sized businesses whose orders 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 surely not in this way. The root cause analysis must eventually arrive at the point that it is the completely exorbitant energy costs, Mr. Merz, that make production in Germany uneconomic. We now have four times the energy, gas, and electricity prices of the USA, of China, of Hungary, of Poland. You can pick virtually any country in Europe — we are the absolute front-runner. And then the circle closes back to sanctions and the self-imposed restrictions on energy generation.

The ever-rising energy demand cannot be met 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, do you not see how your bans harm 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 already collected 394.7 billion euros in taxes and still fail to manage adequately for the citizens. Instead, you burden future generations with special funds for infrastructure, for climate neutrality, for the Climate and Transformation Fund, and for the Bundeswehr. Yet this money does not benefit the Bundeswehr at all, nor national and alliance defense.

The total expenditures of the federal budget amount to 669.3 billion euros in 2026, for which you must take out loans of 203 billion euros. That means, as of the cut-off date in July 2026, 3,187 euros of debt on the back of every citizen. Interest payments alone will quadruple in the coming years. That is no serious budget policy. That is truly robbery of the citizens and, above all, a sin against our children and grandchildren.

And Mr. Mirsch, you spoke of fidelity to the constitution. This budget is unconstitutional. Look at the Basic Law you held up. In a parliament, both the governing coalition and the opposition bear a responsibility to this very constitution. And that is why I call on all of you to join us in filing a norm control action at the Federal Constitutional Court. A quarter of all members of this parliament must co-sign it. I appeal to all of you. It is a decision of conscience for our country and for our citizens.

Dear colleagues, you are not only placing unimaginable financial burdens on the shoulders of our children and grandchildren — far worse, you are actively investing German tax money in the continuation of the war in Ukraine. The Süddeutsche Zeitung, note well, described your Ukraine aid on July 29 of this year as a black box, because parliament was not informed in full about the use of the funds and will not be. The Merz government, for example, invests in Ukrainian arms companies. You are thereby feeding the war and the deaths of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers.

If you truly want change, then finally actively commit yourself to peace and to negotiations — in Ukraine, in Europe, and in the regions of the Middle East where terror and crime are still the order of the day. Enter into talks 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.

But instead, you are ensuring that the weapons and war industry becomes established in Germany again. 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 glad when this war-readiness that Mr. Pistorius is conjuring up is pursued. That is truly unbearable, and that is exactly what the people in our country do not want either.

And far more reprehensible is that with the arms purchases in the USA you support their war business and contribute to bailing out their dilapidated state economy. All with German tax money and with special debts. Dear colleagues, these 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 together 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 long-term care.

The German population is fortunately growing older, and it is precisely these people to whom we must grant social security and good medical care. They have earned that in their 45 years of insurance and working life. Dear friends, furthermore, we must limit access to our social security systems. And I want to make something clear once more: through a regulated and profitable migration policy, the AfD gains nothing — but neither does anyone else. Still, the immediate deportation of criminals and those not entitled to stay must finally stand at the very top of the priorities. The special financial status of Ukrainians in Germany must come to an end.

And Mr. Merz, even if you no longer want to listen — if you no longer want to listen because you spoke about the trades and addressed me on that — just look into the vocational school classes, where by now 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 to preserve future life in this country. And above all, we must end the situation of able-bodied citizens who are in basic social security — because then we can achieve more together as a community. That is the task a federal government must set itself. But I know full well that this federal government will no longer manage it, ladies and gentlemen. That is why there will be no social security based on a healthy, growing economy — only with a new federal government, and precisely with a federal government led by the AfD. Thank you very much.

The next speaker in this debate is Dr. Wiebke Ester for the SPD faction.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, the AfD stands here shouting about record debt, and I would like to put that into 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 creating the impression here that we are facing a debt collapse is simply wrong. In international comparison, among the G7 states we are by far the country with the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio, and in historical comparison there is no problem at all.

What is far more interesting, though, is when you look at the AfD's alternative budget. It says: everything must become cheaper, everything must go down, no debt — and it is not financed at all. That is like walking into a restaurant and ordering a three-course meal, but slipping out the back before the bill arrives. That is the AfD's fiscal policy. And I tell you, we will be completely honest with people about what it costs to put our country back in order, and we will ensure that they may order the meal, but will not be able to finish it.

Ladies and gentlemen, many people we spoke with during the summer recess are worried. Worried because the world has become more confusing and more threatening, because jobs are being cut, because they are being called into question, because artificial intelligence changes 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 saying that this uncertainty is currently being amplified, because many people wonder whether the resulting tasks can be mastered 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 times of change. Willy Brandt once said that every age wants its own answers and that one must be at the level of the age if good is to be achieved. And we have to work on being at the level of the age in all these fields that are undergoing change. Too often we are not.

That applies to the area of safeguarding 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 provided for 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 so that our democracy remains stable and our freedom is preserved.

Being at the level of the age also applies to strengthening the economic situation and to future-proof jobs, on which we are working. Here too there is enormous change. Due to geopolitical upheavals, our export model no longer works, and that is why we finally need a European coordinated, open but strategic trade policy. We need a policy that supports how we can use the technological revolutions — above all artificial intelligence — for greater productivity and value creation in order to preserve our economic location and our prosperity. We need an active industrial policy that secures jobs.

Those are three courses of action in economic policy. But beyond that, I also want to draw a clear line. Because we have uncertainty in change and would provide security in change, it will not be possible with the SPD to disparage employees or to degrade their work performance — saying that they work too little or that they take sick leave too often. Respect for people's life achievements comes first for us when it comes to economic policy.

And I say this quite clearly: we cannot expect more work to be done in the engine room of the MS Deutschland while corks are popping on deck. We must bring the ship to the level of the age together — and that also includes large tech corporations and multimillionaires contributing so that we can finance, for example, more investment in education. And that the PISA results have clearly shown this, we all heard yesterday. We have therefore presented a concept for the inheritance tax, and I am counting on us addressing that topic when the Constitutional Court ruling comes this winter.

Ladies and gentlemen, in conclusion I want to say that we are very much at the level of the age when it comes to investments in our country. Schools, railways, and roads are being invested in — thank you. We have a lot ahead of us, but we are on a good path. Thank you very much.

The next speaker in this debate is Claudia Müller for the Alliance 90/The Greens faction.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, it must be said once and for all. The Chancellor, Mr. Merz, sold people short during the election campaign when he kept saying that one only had to do a proper audit of the accounts and reform the citizen's income. That way, one could simply save the budget and dissolve the restructuring tax. You all knew that this would never be enough. And that is voter deception, and the people know it — and for that, they and actually all of us are getting the bill right now, and not only in Saxony-Anhalt. And just as brazenly, the coalition is now handling the special fund. You are gambling away our country's future opportunities — and yet you ran with the announcement that you were the last bullet of democracy. Quite honestly, I hope that really was not the last one.

But the Chancellor and many here have said today that we need a positive narrative, so let me propose one. Let us become a country where we come together again and have a shared future project. A country that seizes the opportunities of the special fund and turns it into a project: Livable Homeland 2040. And we involve the people in it. We draw this vision of the future together and do not govern from on high, but with empathy.

Let us become a country where parties, government, and a constructive opposition agree on political goals across electoral terms and then implement them reliably and predictably. Let us become a country where we meet the world's challenges positively and full of drive, instead of constantly brooding about the past. A country where climate protection is finally understood as an opportunity, where renewable energies are used as an engine of jobs and a guarantor of 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 opportunity and community arise.

Because this country — this country we can be, and we can start right now. And in 11 days in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, you can also elect it.

The next speaker in this debate is for The Left faction, Heidi Reichinnek.

Madam President, dear colleagues, dear Mr. Merz, who will surely be back right away. 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 further 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 & 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: you were elected by the people in this country. So for once, orient your policy toward them and not toward the big corporations.

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 people way out on the far right are not elected because they have such great concepts or such brilliant minds. I mean, we just noticed that from the two speeches — your speeches, which drip with contempt for humanity and racism. Either you deliberately lined up one lie after another — which I would of course never accuse you of — or not a single person on your team can operate a search engine. But that is probably what happens when you hire people by degree of kinship rather than competence.

Dear colleagues, that this brown seed still thrives is because your policy of social cuts creates the fertile ground for it. But you are not only leaving people in despair — the economy is also sinking ever deeper into crisis, because your perspective is not that of the economy as a whole, 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 companies, not about secure jobs, not about climate-compatible production, and not about anchoring firms in the regions. You still really believe that if multimillionaires and billionaires only get richer, everything will be great — then for some reason we will do good things.

That children believe in Santa Claus is quite sweet, but that adults seriously think trickle-down effects would increase the prosperity of the masses is rather embarrassing.

Volkswagen, for example, collected short-time work allowance, paid out fat returns — almost 30 billion in the last 5 years — and now plant closures and mass layoffs loom. In the city of peace, 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 it for a long time. Maybe just stop following the lobbyists who advise you or who sit at your government table. Maybe then your policy will get a bit better.

Then perhaps you would also drop the mantra that one can cut one's way out of a crisis, because under this guise of saving, you are truly taking the shirt off people's backs. In the Family Ministry alone, 1.19 billion euros are being cut, of which 470 million from statutory benefits for families. The war chest grows in the same year by 31.4 billion — 26 times as much. Your priorities are clear.

It starts with the advance maintenance payment — the plan to scrap it for children aged 16 and over. 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 for whom a second parent pays no maintenance, even though he is actually obligated to. And now you 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. That is just pathetic.

And the next example is just as cruel. The children's allowance supplement was once intended to support particularly poor families until there is a children's basic income. Well, that is of course not coming now, and then you thought, then we can scrap 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 a warm, balanced lunch on the table, or whether the child can at least go to the swimming pool with friends once. These 25 euros mean participation for many — and you are taking that away from these children.

And then someone from your faction stands in front of the camera this morning and says: well, but we are also cutting our own — this time we did not raise our salaries. Do you actually listen to yourselves when you say such things? 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. Great. But in return, parental allowance is only paid for 12 instead of 14 months. Do you really think parents are so stupid that they believe they cannot do the math? At minimum parental allowance, 240 euros are missing; at the maximum, 2,400 euros. That is brazen.

And you also continue your vendetta against queer people. First your family minister stomped flat the ongoing projects in the Democracy Live program. Then the Action Plan for Queer Life was abolished entirely. And now you are also terminating a framework agreement that has existed for 8 years with the LSVD association, which provides young people with the counseling and support that you do not give them. It is unbelievable.

And for affordable housing, one of the central social issues of our time, you have no answer either. The budget draft provides a mere 5 billion for social housing. In this rent crisis, that simply is not enough. We need 25 billion per year for social housing. That would really make a difference — it would help the struggling construction industry and thereby boost the economy. A nationwide rent cap is also long overdue, so that the brazen rent mafia led by Vonovia can no longer squeeze people for its returns. Just like a tenancy protection law that truly deserves its name and finally sanctions this practice.

And do you know why I advocate for this so convincedly? 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. Well, he was right about that. Could you please take a look at the house where I live — a Vonovia house? And I really thought I would fall off my faith. The partition walls had been ripped out for months. All the cable conduits 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 through which a small child could have fallen. There was water damage in the basement and in the apartment. And Vonovia had not budged for months — only when I wrote a letter with the federal eagle on it, which apparently makes the difference as to whether help exists or not.

Yes, you can now — I know you are not so much into social issues, but just listen for once. Only then did Vonovia react. But it cannot be that this depends on me and my people. There has to be a systemic change. We have to ensure that such things cannot happen at all. We have to do genuine social housing policy — and you say 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, closing the inheritance tax exemptions.

Mr. Weidel, the majority must be relieved — I agree with you there. But that only works if multimillionaires and billionaires are finally made to contribute fairly to financing it, if we create social systems that everyone really pays into. That is the right path. And it would also be long overdue that you take bold steps toward a climate-neutral future, instead of orienting your policy after the fossil lobby at the cabinet table, which chains us ever more firmly to fossil energies and the dictatorships that produce them.

Since you have been in office, the budget contains 15 billion in new climate-damaging subsidies on top of the existing 26 billion. If you finally scrapped those, 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 support those who still need one with a premium for buying used electric cars and by expanding the 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. Families should just send the children to school with a bottle of water. That cannot be your intention. We need a real heat plan, and the federal level must finally invest. More than 16,000 people died from the heat in this year alone. You cannot simply say we will cheerfully carry on as before.

And that is why, Mr. Merz, if I hear from you one more time — if you even show up, that would already be something — but if I hear from you one more time that you simply have to explain your policy better: I forget it, the people notice exactly what you are doing. That is the problem. When you stand here and say we have implemented a reform of the statutory health insurers so that contributions do not rise, but next year they do rise — the people notice that. When they suddenly have to pay more for their medications — the people notice that. When care collapses because emergency services, psychotherapists, and general practitioners say we can no longer manage it — the people notice that. They are not going to be fooled, and for this policy the people are punishing you.

Saxony-Anhalt was not a warning shot. It was a massive attack on our democracy, our Basic Law, and our social cohesion. So spare us your useless and dangerous keep-carrying-on rhetoric and finally do a social economic policy oriented toward the people. Finally make the course change we so urgently need — because I do not want to sit through any more of this from you here.

So, dear colleagues, with all due understanding for the emotionality in these budget debates, I would be grateful if we could maintain a certain standard of language and simply refrain from words like "fooling" 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 Alexander Hoffmann for the Union faction.

Madam President, esteemed colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, allow me first of all two preliminary remarks. Ms. Weidel remains true to her line. She delivers a fact-free, hate-filled speech here, allows no supplementary questions. And when it comes to the echo, when it comes to taking reactions on board, she is not there. But perhaps you will have the opportunity to pass that on to her. Ms. Weidel speaks of facts here, then does not have the strength to allow my supplementary question. That is not only a sign of weakness, but a sign that she evidently does not trust her own facts.

What is far worse, though, is that facts are being twisted here. Literally, the speech spoke of hundreds of thousands who continue to come into this country via asylum. I looked up the numbers. First half of 2026: 39,000 first-time asylum applications. That is a magnitude we last saw in 2012. That is an achievement of this federal government, an achievement of this federal minister of the interior — and we will not let you talk that down.

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 the migration that was triggered by the war in Ukraine. And that is why it is a falsehood of the highest order.

And Ms. Drüge, I cannot spare you my second preliminary remark. Because you see, fundamentally I claim that I treat and perceive the Greens differently than the fringes, because I initially assume that you fundamentally mean well for this country. But in reply to your speech today, Ms. Drüge, I want to say: then please also behave accordingly, because for the repeated time today you delivered a speech that is nothing other than a most undignified campaign against the German Chancellor. Things are claimed here that he never said. And that is why my request, between democrats: please just stop doing that.

Dear colleagues, Saturday was a great day for this country. For the first time, it succeeded in sending a European launch vehicle successfully into orbit. The message — a company from Bavaria, from the Federal Republic of Germany, standing behind it — is quite simple and good for our country. Bavaria can do spaceflight, and Germany can do spaceflight. And the topic of spaceflight is exemplary.

Because if we make the right decisions today in the field of spaceflight, we are deciding today whether we will be technological front-runners in 10 or 20 years. And the same applies to many other questions in the country.

It is symptomatic, though, and I do want to address 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 truly successful second attempt — which was epochal for the German technology location — actually received far too little notice.

Ladies and gentlemen, we are modernizing this country, and anyone who has ever modernized a house knows 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 and record investments. And a great deal has already been achieved in this area. A high-tech agenda with a volume of 18 billion up to 2029. On July 1, the new basic income support came into force — promoting and demanding finally reunited again — and we are now getting to work on combating welfare fraud in a second package. The migration turnaround — I just cited the numbers — has been successfully implemented. Our country will become capable of defense with billions.

The next speaker in this debate is Jörn König for the AfD faction.

Madam President, esteemed 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 under this government.

Yet spending on sport would be a huge lever, for example for health. Studies say 1 euro spent on sport saves 4 euros in health expenditure. Beyond that, sport conveys the classic virtues such as honesty, discipline, punctuality, a sense of order, diligence, willingness to perform, and a 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, particularly footballers, would have reached their current income through a conventional path? Almost none. Advancement opportunities are fundamental to the success and stability of a society. So success and stability are worth a mere 60 cents per 1,000 euros to you, the grand coalition. No wonder you are surprised by election results.

Of course, sport is fundamentally a matter for the states. Yes, but so is culture. The government commissioner 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%. Notice anything? You have neglected sport once again. There is a 10 million increase, but there is also 6 million euros of new bureaucracy — namely the new sports agency and the Safe Sport center. 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, gets them off the street, and pays for itself many times over through better health. A system that does not motivate greater performance is guaranteed to fail. That is why you too will fail, because unlimited money printing and sanction-free basic security — even for illegal immigrants — is the guaranteed path to ruin. Performance must finally pay off again, in sport as in life.

We sports enthusiasts from the AfD will introduce several amendment motions, primarily to improve athlete funding. Many athletes in Germany are still lost in the transition from school to vocational training 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 in 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 to the next agenda item too quickly. When I listen to the speeches and consider how we are starting again, even among the democratic factions, to indulge in petty squabbles and to go for short-term gains, then I think we have not learned much from the election result in Saxony-Anhalt three days ago.

I want to make clear — and Ms. Weidel, you are still here — where I believe a great deal distinguishes us, and that is all factions, from the Left through the SPD and the Greens to the Union, what distinguishes us from you. In your speech you speak of Muslim tribes. You do not say that by accident. You speak of tribes in order to suggest, from the very 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 this 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 carry this equation further. 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 chamber. That makes a difference whether they are people of the Islamic faith who have integrated into this country, who are an integral part of it, or whether they are the ones who commit these violent crimes and whom we must also name.

And this mechanism of guilt — you do nothing but assign blame. And you do that in every debate here, in every single debate. Whether it is about sport, as we just heard the example from Mr. König again, whether it is about the economy or 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.

For human dignity is inviolable. And it is precisely with such statements as you make here that you attack dignity. You attack human dignity. It has been said here many times: it does not say in the Basic Law that the dignity of Germans is inviolable, but the dignity of human beings. And that also applies to all those who have migrated to us.

But I also want to express some self-criticism at this point — a mechanism that I myself use. When we talk about migration, we often come with the argument: well, but these people are needed in individual sectors. What happens if they are possibly no longer needed at some point? Let us think about whether we too have not already made the mistake, and allowed ourselves to be led into this way of thinking, of judging people by an argument of utility. I think that also belongs in the debate, to reflect on that ourselves.

And I do believe that today is also the time to talk about self-criticism. You did not win because you have the best programme. You also 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 we too, today in this debate, are again starting to present lists of measures. What we have done, which laws — that is no answer to emotions. The answer to emotions is to provide a sense of belonging ourselves, to provide a sense of security ourselves, to convey the impression ourselves that we are not doing politics against the people, but with the people. And that is also a mandate for us that we must take up, a lesson that must come from this election result.

And of course that can be underpinned with measures. And I do think that the PISA result from yesterday in particular is a point we need to talk about. We ourselves — and I am not talking at all about what you are proposing, none of that is usable — but I am talking about us. I am talking about the proposals we make. We as the SPD print 'best education' on every poster in every election campaign, and we are in government, and at the same time the quality of education in Germany is getting worse.

Then we cannot say we don't need you as a source of input. Now just hold your tongue. Really, we can discuss this among 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 get wrong? Why does it stay at Sunday speeches, and why do we not manage to get better here? And there are individual signs that things are moving. For example, in Saarland, where fee-free day-care centres are being introduced from next year. Those are the right steps, but it must not stop there. That is why I campaign for us to take much, much stronger care of education policy in this country, even if it is not primarily our responsibility, and for it not to fade away again that we say this from the lectern here, but that we really make concrete efforts.

And of course it also has to do with fairness. A value that shocked me particularly is dependence on the family of origin, dependence on material background. 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 that we also levy a tax on the largest inheritances in this country, so that this money can finally be invested to compensate for these injustices passed on by the family of origin, for which no child in this country is to blame.

And the same applies, by the way, to the concept of reform overall. We too started in recent months to keep talking about reforms that make people's lives better. If I really sum up what reforms we have carried out that have structurally changed something in this country, we are still a long way from the goal we share. Of course, it also involved savings measures for the things we got through before the summer, with the statutory health insurance stabilisation act, and we should stop throwing sand in people's eyes, because they notice exactly that, and we cannot go on like this.

And that is why let us together talk about how we really design reform — and our country needs reform — so that it makes people's lives better, and so that it is not just savings measures, so that people do not equate reform with cuts, because we urgently 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 over there, and that must also become clear here. Thank you very much for your attention.

Mr. Reichardt now has the opportunity for a short intervention. Well, not 'no' — rather, 'yes' is what our system here says. If I do not allow a question from the floor, then there is the possibility of a short intervention. And we are enabling exactly that here. Please.

Mr. Klüssendorf, I would like to preface this. Your party has 9% in Saxony-Anhalt, and it has that because it is represented here in the Bundestag by people like you — by people who have never done value-creating work in their lives, and that you present yourselves here as workers is an affront. But I will tell you the next thing. You stood here and said we would discriminate against people of the Islamic faith. You rolled that out at length and said we were generalizing. Your party, in connection with group rapes — crimes that occur tens of thousands of times in Germany — never talks about which groups commit them, but talks about a huge group; you always only talk about men. I ask myself how you can stand here and accuse anyone of making attributions, when you place half the population under general suspicion of any crimes. That is the truth, and that is also the lack of credibility you represent here, and the lack of credibility your party has brought to where it is today. Thank you.

So, Mr. Reichardt remains standing. Mr. Klüssendorf may reply. I would only say, though, hopefully they did not mean the women when they just referred to the men. So, Mr. Klüssendorf, please.

The very fact that you make exactly this point — the very fact that you bring my carefully chosen words, where I spoke very, very clearly about the tribes that Ms. Weidel raised — together in your very first argument with group rape. The millions of people of the Islamic faith in this country: that in your first argument you immediately raise the issue of group rape. That confirms my thesis: you are creating a climate.

You are creating a climate in which people — and I am not only talking about people of the Islamic faith, but all people who look different, who are walking down the streets in Saxony-Anhalt right now and are afraid — a climate in which these people are no longer safe. And you do exactly that with this language, with these arguments. And that is why I thought it was exactly right to note that here.

And I want to tell you something else: why do we talk about men? Because far beyond the criminal offences of group rape, child pornography, domestic violence, violence against women, femicides — it is only ever men. And you cannot deny that either. And in doing so, unlike you, we are not placing men under general suspicion, but we are making clear where the problem lies, and it is frequently a problem caused by men, and not by people of the Islamic faith.

The next speaker in this debate is Andreas Audretsch for the Alliance 90/The Greens faction.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Reichardt was astonished at how touched you were, and how, quite tearfully to be honest, you reacted to criticism being levelled at the politics you make. I consider that very appropriate. We are here to say what is. And the first point is: I believe — and I take this from the Chancellor — that the result in Saxony-Anhalt shocked him. I believe, and I take it from the Chancellor, that he sees the threat from outside, from Elon Musk, from Vladimir Putin, from Donald Trump, from others being carried in here, and that he sees that the AfD is an extended arm of exactly that. And at those points he deserves praise, and it is good that he sees it and that he names it.

And at the same time one must say, Mr. Merz, you bear responsibility for the fact that in our society more and more anger is gradually spreading, and that the division in our society is becoming ever stronger. What you are doing at the moment — what is a family in Germany supposed to think? What is a family supposed to think when housing benefit is halved? Children live in 70% of those families. What is a family supposed to think when the advance maintenance payment for 16 and 17-year-olds is simply abolished? As if children cost nothing more when they turn 16, when they turn 17? What is a family supposed to think when parental allowance is cut in parallel? What is a family supposed to think when the child benefit supplement is cut, is abolished? What is a family supposed to think when crisis relief is cut?

And on the other hand you are not willing — not you, Mr. Reichardt, not you, Mr. Merz — to close even a single fairness gap in the tax system, so that the richest, who exploit exactly these gaps, contribute a little bit more. You are not willing. That divides society. And that is exactly what must be said to you. And it would be time for you to understand that you do not need a different narrative. People are not being taken for fools in such situations. They notice. You need different politics. That divides society. Different politics would bring society together.

And what also belongs to it is that people can no longer bear being constantly berated from above. Lazy, freeloader, always ill, little pasha spending it all on new teeth. That opens the door a little further every single day for exactly the actors I named at the beginning, which you have recognised — for the Vladimir Putins, who only want discord, and for an Alice Weidel, who is trying precisely at that point to divide the country. You should do the opposite and not be part of this division of the country.

And the attacks from Saxony-Anhalt are going to get harder. You can count on that. Beatrix von Storch has called cultural workers 'Müll' on ZDF and, just one day after the election, concretely threatened them. Everyone who is not active in value creation, everyone who in their interpretation is superfluous — they should be worried now. That is a very concrete threat against cultural workers in Saxony-Anhalt, and we know this script. We know what happens. From Poland we know the script, from the USA we know the script. In the end, history is rewritten. In the end, museums are placed under censorship.

And whoever is to receive funding — and it is written quite concretely in black and white already in what the AfD now proposes — whoever is to be funded in future will have to sign a declaration of allegiance to German national culture. One could ask, if one wanted to look at it amusingly, what that would mean for all the Italian operas performed here — but that is not what the AfD is about. The AfD is about — and I see you grinning — that is exactly what you intend. Cultural policy, Ms. Weidel, you want to turn cultural policy into an instrument of power here in Germany, and what you intend with that is also clear. You speak of a culture of guilt. It heralds what we see in all authoritarian, dictatorial states in this world. Cultural policy is to become a party-political loyalty test.

Defending freedom of expression is, in this phase, what we democrats must do. Mr. Weimar, you have a mandate. That is exactly your mandate: to promote culture broadly. Not now to cut culture broadly. To ensure that culture in Saxony-Anhalt has a future — free culture, free expression of opinion — and you have a task. We will judge you by how far you ensure exactly that. That is your mandate, Mr. Weimar.

The next speaker in this debate is Christian Görke for The Left faction.

Madam President, dear colleagues, esteemed Mr. Chancellor, it is good that you are back, because this is about the sports budget of the Federal Chancellery, and you celebrated this budget this year as a record. 360 million euros out of a total budget volume of 555 billion. By my reckoning, that is 0.06%.

Ladies and gentlemen, and everyone here who can put these figures in context: that is not a record figure, ladies and gentlemen, that is a confession of sporting-policy poverty. Let us look at further realities of your splendid budget, where by comparison a single university in the USA spends 400 million more than we in Germany spend on the entire sports federation. One really has to let that sink in. Or take your special programme for renovating municipal sports facilities: 333 million application volume with 7.5 billion euros — 22 times oversubscribed. The same with the swimming pool programme — oversubscribed. More clearly, ladies and gentlemen, a budget cannot be planned further away from actual need.

And the finance minister then grandly promises a financing guarantee for the Olympics. But let us be clear: Olympic dreams do not begin with a letter of intent or glossy brochures, but they begin now in the municipal swimming pool, in the club, in the school, or with the athletes who — one has to imagine this — half of those who are currently sports soldiers have to scrape by at minimum wage level.

And it gets even better, ladies and gentlemen: you really want to play among the great sporting nations, but your only guarantors of success, you simply put them out on the street. Yes, I mean the BAS and the IAT — these are our technical and scientific medal factories. For years, millions have been missing in this budget again to be able to pay the staff according to the collective bargaining agreement. One really has to imagine that. And the consequence is that these top people leave for the private sector. And as I said, that is unprecedented.

Unprecedented, Mr. Chancellor, was also this stalemate in appointing the state minister for sport and volunteering, and that really also shows what status sport and volunteering have for you. And we know each other, Mr. State Minister Rau, quite well, and so congratulations on this new challenge. But let me give you a few tips right away for next year, a to-do list — this is concrete and costed.

First, enshrine sport and culture in the Basic Law as state duties, long-term financing, multi-year funding, and above all the protection of all squad athletes and not just the sports soldiers. Immediate collective bargaining coverage of coach training, including pay according to the collective agreement. It cannot be that we as the federal government undercut the collective agreement here. That is completely unacceptable. And above all, immediate equal treatment of disabled sport — and that does not require huge sums, 10% more every year. That is feasible, and that would be a contribution.

Ladies and gentlemen, I come to my conclusion with — No, you have to finish now. Then I thank you for your attention.

So, I was somewhat more lenient with the last speakers. I simply ask future speakers to mind the speaking time again. Well, that would be very kind. Now, for the Federal Government, we come to the next speaker in this debate, and that is Ronald Rau, Minister of State at the Federal Chancellery. This is his first speech. Sworn in just now, and straight away it begins. Congratulations once again from this side on your new role. Thank you.

Madam President, ladies and gentlemen, members of parliament, dear friends of sport. This moment is a very special one for me. In my life I have stood at many starting lines, at world championships, at Olympic Games, but today I am standing for the first time here at the lectern of the German Bundestag.

And of course this place is new to me, but one thing feels very familiar: it is about responsibility. Back then, about giving everything for my country. Today, about jointly creating the conditions so that others can seize their chance.

When we talk about a budget today, we are of course talking about numbers. We are talking about more than 360 million euros for sport and around 27 million euros for volunteering. Ladies and gentlemen, the Federal Government is thereby raising sport and volunteering to a new record level. For this tailwind at the start of my new office I am very grateful.

But behind these numbers, for me, are above all people: the child holding a ball for the first time and perhaps not yet knowing what talent lies within. That is the athlete who trains early in the morning while everyone else is still asleep. That is the coach who believes in them, perhaps even at a moment when they doubt themselves. And of course the volunteer who stands on the sports field at the weekend, who turns out with the fire brigade or looks after people in their neighbourhood. It is precisely these people we invest in, and that is why I am convinced: investments in sport and volunteering are investments in the strength of our country.

Ladies and gentlemen, three things are particularly close to my heart. We want to bring Olympic and Paralympic Games back to Germany, and for that I will work with all my strength. I know what Olympic and Paralympic Games can unleash, and that is exactly what I wish for our country again: a generation of Olympians with children who have role models, with children who dare to do something, and with children who above all are allowed to dream big.

But for that, a German bid must become more than the bid of a city or a government. It must become our shared bid, a movement behind which sport, politics, business, and above all the people in our country stand.

Second, Germany is to belong again among the most successful sporting nations in the world. I know from my own experience that a medal is not created first in the final. It is created years earlier in training halls, on sports fields, and on the water. It is created by coaches who encourage, demand, and sometimes believe in an athlete more than the athlete themselves. And it is created by framework conditions that make top performance possible. That is why we will consistently implement the elite sport reform — with the Sport Promotion Act, with the elite sport agency, and with better conditions and more recognition for our coaches, so that talent can once again become gold.

I want athletes who are successful, but also athletes who say with conviction: I am proud to compete for Germany, and I am proud to carry our flag.

And my third point is at least as close to my heart: volunteering. For millions of people in our country take on responsibility for others every day, whether in a sports club, in the fire brigade, or in the neighbourhood. Often without a big stage, often without applause, but never without effect. These people organise training, help when help is needed, create community, and take on responsibility without first asking: what do I actually get for it? These people hold our country together, and if we want that to remain so, we must give something back to them: less bureaucracy, more support, and above all the appreciation you deserve.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have spent a large part of my life fighting for medals for Germany in sport. Today I may take on responsibility for this country in a different place, and perhaps this responsibility is a different one, but the conviction behind it is the same. Great goals are never achieved alone. They are achieved together. So let us jointly ensure that children can dream again, that performance is possible in our country, and that those who take on responsibility for others know: this country sees you, this country needs you, and this country stands behind you. Sport and volunteering can make our country stronger. I will work for that. For sport, for volunteering, for our country.

And I see that time has run out. Perhaps we may still allow a personal word at this point. If there is one thing I learned in 25 years at the very top of world sport, it is that if you want to be sustainably successful, you need two things above all, and that is humility and fairness. Thank you very much.

The next speaker in this debate is Dr. Götz Fröming for the AfD faction.

Thank you very much, Madam President. Ladies and gentlemen. We too, as the AfD faction, wish the new state minister for sport, Mr. Rau, all the best for his task. You served our country as an athlete. Thank you for that.

But we miss the state minister for culture and media on the speakers' list. There are, after all, as we have already heard the figure, around 2.5 billion euros that he can distribute in the culture and art scene. And yet he has managed to be unpopular with everyone there. Mr. Weimar, you were supposed to be a figurehead of this Federal Government. Your personal friend, Mr. Merz, is not here right now. Why are you not speaking in this debate? Last year you were still allowed to have your say in both rounds. Well, perhaps that will come later.

It seems to be a kind of law that in a Western democracy the cultural scene is left-wing, and that this partly even far-left cultural scene is then funded with citizens' money even when so-called bourgeois parties govern. Why that is so is best described by a neologism of the journalist Ulf Poschert. He speaks of the 'Bückbürger' — the bowing citizens. By that he means, supposedly, conservatives who always bow before the left because they greatly fear otherwise being considered dusty, prudish, old-fashioned, or — an absolutely terrible word — right-wing.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have to get back to saying that it is okay to be right-wing. It is okay to sit on the right in a democracy. Here in the middle there is only one line — you cannot all pile up on it.

Mr. State Minister, some associations pinned their hopes on a conservative turn with your taking office. After all, a man took over the culture portfolio who had written a conservative manifesto that in places reads like an addendum to the AfD's party programme. And precisely for that reason you eagerly distanced yourself from your own text, because the left-wing ideological press showed you the instruments of torture. And it is precisely this cowardice that the citizens punished in the election campaign in Saxony-Anhalt. You also involved yourselves there, and you got your just deserts. And that is a good thing, ladies and gentlemen.

A cultural scene, ladies and gentlemen, that is paid by the state in order to confirm to the state how important its own independence from the state is — that has a certain entertainment value. And precisely here a conservative culture minister should have sat. Mr. Weimar could have said: enough of the notion that culture must politically educate the citizens in the name of the state. Enough of a funding system in which the right worldview opens up better career chances than actual artistic talent. Enough of the confusion of art with the pedagogical care of the population. He could have said all that. That would have been conservative, that would have been liberal, that would have been courageous. Unfortunately, you were not.

Instead, you yourself have become the subject of parliamentary debates. There was talk of your business connections, possible conflicts of interest, and so on. None of that has really been cleared up yet. Mr. State Minister, if one wanted to summarise the 16 months of your term of office so far — you began with a somewhat grandiose introduction that you were in love with success — then, alongside the exposure of the private affairs mentioned, there is really only hot air. In this whole time you have actually only managed one bold action: the exclusion of three far-left bookshops from the German Bookshop Prize. That is not enough for us, ladies and gentlemen. This whole Bookshop Prize, and by the way also the Publisher's Prize — that is several million — needs to be put under review completely. We will take the red pencil to it, ladies and gentlemen.

We will also take the red pencil to the so-called Cultural Council, which receives over half a million euros — an unnecessary umbrella association paid for with tax money that tells the Federal Government what culture is. We do not need that, ladies and gentlemen, all of that can go. Mr. Weimar, just as your friend Friedrich Merz wanted to be Chancellor, you wanted to become a state minister for your ego, for your biography, for your business card, for all the lovely invitations to the parties — but not for the citizens, not for Germany. That is why the distancing from your own earlier conservative statements flows so smoothly off your lips, and that is why you too are only a mosaic tile in the great panorama picture titled: the decline of the one-time proud catch-all party CDU into a party of bowing citizens. I thank you.

The next speaker in this debate is Dr. Karl Lauterbach for the SPD faction.

Madam President, my dear colleagues, first of all I would like to point out that there is a division of this parliament here. There are the democratic parties, and the democratic parties are presenting a budget here, or discussing a budget critically, that does not function in a parallel world, but that also addresses the actual challenges of our time. Namely, that our economic model has to change. It is dishonourable, naive, and wrong to continue and once again rely on Russian gas. We were dependent on it for far too long. It brought us into the problems we are now in, which we have to solve. That must be recognised.

Secondly, we must also recognise climate change. It is absurd to speak of a climate ideology. 16,000 deaths from heat this summer here with us. The forests are burning. We need the energy transition, and we have to face it together. We can talk about details, but anyone who denies climate change and does not face it lives in a world that is not the one we live in. We owe it to our children to solve these problems.

And we must face demographic change. 6 million employees in Germany do not have a German passport. It will not help to insult people with a migration background, to vilify them, to place more or less all of them under general suspicion of being potential criminals. We need these people, who work here every day, who stand by us as care workers and in the trades. We need them, and we will be more dependent on them. We must not insult and deter these people.

And finally, we must also face the new security situation. The new security situation is a different one. Putin's criminal war of aggression against the Ukrainian people is also an attack on democracy, also on our state. And we have long been in a hybrid war with Putin. It makes no sense that we cannot defend ourselves. Therefore, building up defence spending is right. And it is better that we produce drones, satellite technology, and submarines ourselves than that we have to import them and become dependent again.

This budget takes on those challenges. Increasing defence spending is right. The Climate and Transformation Fund and the special fund are right. New jobs are being created there. China shows us how. China exports photovoltaics, wind energy, electric cars, and battery technology. In all these industries we were once technically leading. We have lost too much time through a pointless back-and-forth about a return to nuclear energy. Let us build these jobs up here. Our technology has been world-leading, and we can regain that lead.

And finally, through the investments we are now making in research and technology — and the BMFDR budget is being increased — in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, microelectronics, mobility research, we are making investments that will increase the productivity of German jobs. That is how we can meet demographic change and create jobs. Let us look forward together. The democratic parties will show that democracy can solve these problems. And that, in the end, is our best answer to the threats of fascism that we must face in these hours.

The next speaker in this debate is Tina Winkelmann for the Alliance 90/The Greens faction.

Madam President, colleagues, dear State Minister for Sport and Volunteering, welcome to the High House. I look forward to working together. We know each other, we have a lot to do, and we will tackle that together. Unfortunately, the stalemate caused by the Chancellor really did not have to happen. It was never sport's fault. Sport was ready. It just took a bit too long. Sport did not feel quite seen. And it was right about that. So, now to the budget.

Sport thrives on us living integration. Integration strengthens the diversity of this country and of sport. And therefore every penny, every cent in sport is important, important for integration, and that makes us strong. And the same goes for the fight against extremism and misanthropy. And in this budget, this is reflected...

Program by 25%. That cannot be. We will continue to fight for this. Nothing will be cut here. The State Minister knows it: talent alone will not make a great elite athlete. It takes the infrastructure, it takes the good conditions, it takes the increase in competitive sport. Yes, we find that in the House of Sport. We are glad that we have a starting point here. But the sports facilities, the municipalities don't know when the program is coming, how much is in the program. We have to give the municipalities planning security.

And then my colleague Görke just mentioned it, IAT and FS, that is our forge, that is innovation from our country. This is where what we need is made, and that is celebrating success together. This is produced here and we are not making it. There is another zero round on the increase. That means they have to lay people off if this continues. We are losing skilled workers who work in this forge. That must not happen. IAT and FS need an increase. And now I would say there is a lot to do. Whoever wants to bring games has to do something. We want to bring games. Let's get to it.

The next speaker in this debate is for the Union faction, Dr. Otilie Klein.

Madam President, dear colleagues, as the coalition we stand for a strong and diverse culture. Even in times of financial challenges, we are committed to ensuring that Germany remains a beacon of cultural excellence in the world. That is the clear message of this draft budget, and there is really a lot of good in this draft for culture. To name just a few examples, the Federal Archives and the Stasi Records Archive will be significantly strengthened financially. For Thuringia, it is an important symbol that federal funding for the preservation of the Wartburg is to be doubled. After all, it is a central place in German religious history. And also for the 200th anniversary of Ludwig van Beethoven's death, the federal budget is to provide up to 2.3 million euros for the Beethoven House in Bonn and further projects.

And I am particularly pleased that the culture of remembrance is to be significantly strengthened financially. 10 million euros additional for the memorials. That is a clear and unequivocal sign that we want a strong and broad landscape of remembrance. And especially after the election in Saxony-Anhalt, it must be clear that remembrance of the victims of the Holocaust and then the victims of the two German dictatorships are part of the foundation of our country. And if the AfD wants to downplay this part of history, then that is nothing less than a slap in the face to the victims who suffered under the two German dictatorships. It is an attack on our culture of remembrance and it is an attack on a foundation of our democracy and society. And we will not allow the AfD to whitewash our history, because whoever does not learn from history cannot shape the present and the future. Never again means never again, that is non-negotiable.

Dear colleagues, part of our country's historical responsibility is also the fight against antisemitism. In Germany, hatred of Jews must have no place, whether it is right-wing, left-wing, or Islamist antisemitism. This task goes far beyond the debates around the federal budget, and we will not accept that parts of the political spectrum simply look the other way on the issue of hatred of Jews.

We will not accept that The Left welcomes Jew-haters and antisemitic convictions in its ranks. When the Berlin Left organizes concerts at which violence and murder against Jews are openly called for, that is more than a breach of taboos. Under the guise of freedom of art, hatred is being spread, and on top of that people are dancing and cheering. Ladies and gentlemen, The Left, The Left and its accomplices are creating a climate in which our Jewish fellow citizens have to live in fear. And they don't even find that uncomfortable. That is absolutely unacceptable, and we will oppose it with all our strength.

Dear colleagues, the past months were marked by debates about change and upheaval in our country, and last Sunday will undoubtedly remain in memory as such an upheaval and a low point. But that is not all. Now before us lies the danger that, 81 years after the end of the Holocaust, right-wing extremists and antisemites could once again take on political responsibility in Germany. As democrats and parties of the political centre, we must oppose this with all our strength. With clear priorities in this budget, with a consistent policy of the centre and a clear commitment against every form of extremism. Thank you very much.

The next speaker in this debate is Lars Schieske for the AfD faction.

Ladies and gentlemen of the Presidium, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Merz, yes, the Chancellor's seat is unoccupied. 5 weeks. The post of State Sports Minister was also unoccupied for that long in this country, and that in the middle of the final phase of the Olympic bid. The President of the Berlin Sports Federation called that publicly scandalous. He is right, that man. Christiane Schenderlein, the first State Sports Minister of this republic, axed after 14 months. She found out by phone. She was surprised and disappointed. Probably as disappointed as over 80% of Germans are with the Chancellor. He said he wanted someone with a certain level of public recognition. So those are the requirements profiles. Not expertise, not experience, recognition.

Then Kessler, World Footballer of the Year, UEFA Director and in 2009 a member of the Federal Convention for the Saarland SPD. She didn't come. In the end it was Ronald Raue, a deserving Olympic champion, no question, but not the first choice, but the Chancellor knows about that. Mr. Raue also ran for the SPD in my federal state, for the Brandenburg state parliament. He said in 2019 that he had been more or less talked into it. Honestly, he imagined politics to be more honest. Mr. Raue, you were right. The representatives of the cartel parties here are not so honest about that. And about a return to politics he said back then, I quote him, 'Politics was an excursion that I no longer see for myself.' And now, 7 years later, welcome back to politics.

That's enough on honesty, but we still extend a hand to you for substantive policy that really benefits our athletes, and that is sincerely meant. We are not prepared to stand for ideology. With this whole carousel of posts, one thing was not considered. Mr. Merz, the best sports politician of this house sat the whole time in your own ranks. Stefan Meier, CSU, in the Bundestag since 2002, former parliamentary state secretary in the Interior Ministry, speaker for sport and volunteering of his faction, experienced, well-connected, knowledgeable, someone who knows what he is talking about. He talks a lot and gladly, but a CSU man in the Chancellery is unthinkable, better someone with an SPD past. A party that got 16.4% in the federal election and behaves as if it were a 30% party.

While they are handing out posts, a 25-year-old from Rostock in Birmingham turns herself into a volunteer. Julia Ulbricht. Removed from the federal squad, funding cut, a minijob to pay the rent in the best Germany of all time. With us it works differently. We applied to raise athlete funding to 17.8 million euros. You all rejected that back then. You had nothing for the athletes back then. And I can tell you one thing, we will submit this motion again in the 2027 budget. Sport free and thank you very much.

The next speaker in this debate is Katrin Cau for the SPD faction.

Madam President, dear colleagues, thank you once again for yesterday's welcome, back here again returned to parliament. I succeeded Frank Junge as a member of parliament. Frank Junge won the mayoral election in Wismar with 68% against the AfD, and that shows what is possible when democratic parties and civil society, yes, and culture stand together. And what we just heard from the last speaker, and also what was said about culture before, offered no substantive debate whatsoever, but rather in the usual manner shooting at one person, discrediting them, investigating this person, but that is what one knows from your party, which we can follow in the media. Rostock, for example, the direct candidate for the state elections used to be a bank robber. Maybe you should look more closely at yourselves.

The elections in Saxony-Anhalt are a watershed. That a party has become so strong whose state association is classified by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution as right-wing extremist is shaking many people. And I share the concern that something has slipped in our country. Something that can only be stopped if we radically rethink the way and content of how we make politics. We cannot simply move on to the next agenda item. At the same time, we must not draw the wrong conclusions. A right-wing extremist electoral success needs and demands an explanation. One explanation is not 'the East'. Hardly any region has managed as much change as Eastern Germany. The consequences of these upheavals were very different, and the experiences with them shape people's views to this day.

They shape how changes are judged, whether they provide security, open up opportunities, whether burdens and gains are fairly distributed, and whether the state remains reliable even when things get difficult. And a concrete yardstick for that is young people. We talk a lot here about needing skilled workers, about needing the young generation to carry our economy and our welfare state. On top of that, they are supposed to defend our country. Then we also have to create the conditions for that today. And the PISA results show again dramatically, and it hurts, how big this task is. Too many young people do not even achieve basic competencies. The elite performance is very narrow, and educational success in Germany still depends heavily on social background.

The state opportunity programme is one instrument, just one instrument, I want to emphasize, that addresses exactly this structural problem. The federal government and the states are strengthening schools in challenging social situations together, and the same must now apply to childcare. Not every school, not every kindergarten needs the same, every child needs a fair chance, and this idea goes far beyond education policy. Equal opportunities arise when different starting points are taken into account, and that also applies regionally. MV is a rural state. Accessibility practically decides there whether public services are actually available. At the same time, we as a state bring in our strengths. Ports, maritime economy, renewable energies, culture and research, and for that we need the skilled workers, the modern infrastructure and faster procedures. And this government draft provides important answers to that.

But what will be decisive is what arrives on the ground, that investments are visible, that changes are socially sustainable. People have to notice more from the decisions than from the arguments about them. And our politics has to show what our country should look like in the future. For young people in Eastern Germany, that means very concretely being able to learn well here, doing an apprenticeship or studying, finding work you can live on, having the freedom to stay here or to come back and build something. Thank you very much. Excuse me.

The next speaker in this debate is for the Alliance 90/The Greens faction, Marlene Schönberger.

Madam President, Mr. State Minister for Culture, dear colleagues, we asked the federal government what it knows about antisemitism in the cultural sector and what it is doing about cancelled concerts, non-renewed contracts and the silent boycott of Israeli artists who are supposedly too critical in Israel and too Israeli in the rest of the world. The answer is remarkable. It has no figures. But it refers to the Institute for New Social Plastics. Jewish and antisemitism-critical artists who support those affected, advise cultural institutions and create culture themselves. They do irreplaceable work. Thank you very much for that.

Dear colleagues from the Union and SPD, how on earth do you explain that federal funding for the institute is being cut with this budget? The situation of Jewish and Israeli artists is desperate, and you are leaving these people out in the cold. The State Minister for Culture carries the fight against antisemitism before him, but he does not act. Correct that. Secure this funding.

We also asked what the federal government knows about the increasing attacks on Nazi remembrance sites. The answer was that it had heard of them, but had no concrete data. So, dear colleagues, we are leaving the employees in the memorials alone. We demand an office for the Association of Memorial Sites for networking, for recording needs, for nationwide monitoring of attacks. What already exists for the SED dictatorship with the Federal Foundation for the Reappraisal must also be possible for remembrance of the Nazi crimes.

Dear colleagues, antisemitism in this country threatens freedom of art, and rarely has the question of remembrance of National Socialism been so serious. We have the responsibility to act and the possibility to use it. Thank you very much.

The next speaker in this debate is Kerstin Radomski for the Union faction.

Madam President, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, a budget is effective for one year. Reforms have an impact for a decade, and what it is ultimately about are changes that enable prosperity for all generations, including the future ones. Many of our grandparents rarely talked about what they experienced and achieved during the war and reconstruction. They achieved a lot for this country because they wanted their children to have it better one day. We can hardly understand today where they got their optimism from under those difficult circumstances. They worked reliably and were proud that they could settle things themselves in their family, their company, their club. We are not lacking foundations, we are sometimes lacking confidence.

We have a middle class that has produced world market leaders for generations, often in places you have to look for on the map. We have a craft whose quality is a byword. We have research that belongs to the world's top. We have millions of people who volunteer without anyone obliging them to. Our voluntary work is recognized worldwide and decisively shapes our society. These are just exemplary examples. We have a lot worth preserving, developing and passing on. That is our starting point.

But success is not a solo effort. Even the best company depends on people who were well trained and can do something. I won't go into the PISA results now, but 12.5% of 18 to 24-year-olds in this country have no qualification, and around 2.8 million people between 20 and 34 have no completed vocational training and no university degree. That is almost one in five of that age group. These young people may not lack the will, but they definitely lack the start. And when young people stop believing that effort brings something, we lose more than growth. We lose the cohesion that our democracy also lives on.

And willingness to perform does not fall from the sky. It is learned, and it is learned early, from people who demand something of you and at the same time trust you, a teacher, a trainer, parents who stuck with it, someone in the club who said, you can do it. That is the point where this budget line comes into play. Because culture, sport and volunteering create exactly these places. Places where people meet each other who might otherwise never meet. In a club you learn both, that you have to train if you want to get better, and that a team only works if everyone contributes their part. Courage and confidence then usually come automatically when you celebrate successes together.

We cannot create this trust by law. We also cannot order community in this country. But we can strengthen the places where both arise. Take sport. Of the millions provided for, part goes to raising athlete funding. Anyone working their way to the world top for Germany gives up a great deal for it, and it makes a difference whether a young person can pursue their talent or has to give it up.

This summer I met many people who are involved with the DLRG, the Red Cross, in swimming clubs. Certainly like many colleagues sitting here. What struck me? These people hardly talk about themselves. They talk about their work, about the members, about the children they train, about their worries about the next generation. But they also convey one thing, how much joy it brings to get involved, how much positive experience they have when they use their free time for others. This is our country, and it works because people get involved in their family, their job, their club and their neighbourhood. A community does not come from above. It arises where people stand up for each other, voluntarily, without a mandate and without anything in return.

Sometimes individuals feel they cannot contribute much to prosperity and freedom. But only if everyone contributes according to their possibilities can a society live in freedom and prosperity. This budget line can support sport, volunteering and culture, and I look forward to the deliberations with my colleagues and perhaps to making one or two more changes. Thank you very much.

The next speaker in this debate is Derya Türk-Nachbauer for the SPD faction.

Madam President, dear colleagues and others, Tim Klüssendorf is right. Katrin Cau also said it, we cannot simply move on to the next agenda item, especially when you have a biography like mine. I saw the first projections on Sunday on my laptop on the train on the way to Berlin. The train conductor, who was just walking by as those bars shot up, stood there shocked and said he was worried about his children. And that was someone who does not have blue eyes and blond hair, similar to me and many millions of other people. I too worry about my children, my friends and my relatives, because this tectonic shift does something to Germany, not just to Saxony-Anhalt, this tectonic shift does something to Germany.

And because this watershed affects us all, it belongs in this general debate during a budget week, in my view. Because a budget is not a set of numbers far removed from reality. It is a statement of who this country values. And that is why today I am talking about people who have been afraid since Sunday. The Nigerian nurse who wonders whether she can still take her children to the playground without being insulted. The wheelchair user who knows that a party is sitting in the state parliament that openly mocks inclusion as ideology. The Jewish neighbour who now has to think three times, maybe more, a day about whether the kippah stays under the cap or not. The queer couple who wonders whether their tenancy agreement, their marriage, their child, whether that is as secure in 5 years as it is today.

I am thinking of the committed teachers who are afraid of being denounced on some portal. These people want to know, will you democrats stand by our side when it gets tough, will you stand by our side when we need you? These people are afraid of the return of the baseball bat years, and a democracy that does not put the protection of the weakest first is merely the administration of its own failure. Protecting, however, does not only mean taking our fears seriously. Protecting also means countering lies with facts and not taking over their narrative and joining in when the old song about migrants as a burden is sung again.

One in six economically active people in Germany has a migration background. Their companies secure 2.3 million jobs in this country. In food production, more than half of the employees have a history of immigration. Without them, the shelves would be empty. You would have to look for your sauerkraut for a long time. And these are just the entrepreneurs. Currently, almost 6 million people without a German passport work in social insurance-covered jobs in this country. I won't even talk about naturalized Germans. They nurse, they deliver, they work on the assembly line. In the current debate, they simply do not appear. Migrants are not the scapegoats and the burden of this country. They are part of this balance sheet, and on the credit side at that.

And I find it very strange when you talk about value creation. My parents, like many others of their generation, worked in three-shift operations on the assembly line and created value for this country, while others absconded to Switzerland. And whoever ignores these facts harms not only cohesion, they harm the country concretely. You are not only a security risk for this country, you are also an economic risk. Thank you very much.

The next speaker in this debate is the non-affiliated colleague Stefan Seidler.

Thank you, Madam President. Hello, dear colleagues. For me too, as the only representative of a national minority party in the German Bundestag, it is clear that the political events of the past few days are another heavy blow to our democracy. Whoever tried to chase the right-wing in terms of content has failed. Because many people do not vote for populists because of their solutions. They vote for them because they gloss over the problems, like the climate crisis. They vote for them because of their strongly simplified promises for complex challenges in a tense security situation, a weak economy and crumbling infrastructure. But that is dishonest, and we democrats know that we cannot make it so easy for ourselves, and that is why fundamental reforms are still necessary. But we have to stop selling cuts in the social sector or in civil society as reforms. Because if cuts mainly affect those who already have little, we should not be surprised by the growing frustration. And then it does not help either if we reverse gear on transparency, for example with the Freedom of Information Act.

In a democracy we have to be able to withstand uncomfortable questions. We have to face criticism to win the trust of the people in democratic processes and compromises. The federal budget in particular shows whether we are serious about this. It is the most honest expression of our politics. It shows where we set priorities and where we don't. There is a lot to catch up on. Every day people write to me who are worried because fuel prices are too high, because they worry about cuts in housing benefit, advance maintenance payments or free dependent insurance. Not because they want to rest in the welfare state, but because the money at the end of the month often simply isn't enough.

And as a member of parliament for the SSW, I naturally look to Scandinavia. There, democratic parties manage to build trust through political cooperation that concretely improves people's everyday lives with affordable public transport, a strong tax-funded healthcare system, affordable healthy food and clean energy that permanently lowers electricity costs. We must be able to do that too. We need politics. We need politics that convinces people of the democratic offer, without mistrust and debates about lifestyle part-time work, benefit tourism or telephone sick notes. Whoever wants to offer an alternative to the populists must democratically deliver on the promises of social and inner security, a strong domestic economy and a more affordable life.

That is what this budget must stand for. The road there is still long, and that is why it is good that we will continue to deliberate on the federal government's priorities here in parliament in the coming months. Thank you very much.

Closing the debate on this budget line for the SPD faction is Martin Rabanus.