share Recommend this site to a friend
deutsch deutsch
ALLIANCE FO§ DEMOCRACY
bombLetter to the IMF relation to the
Headbombno-value-ECM - 05/12/16
bombLetter to the CDU Youth Union - 14/11/16 bombLetter to the IDW regarding
Headbombthe EFSF’s Financial
HeadbombStatements – 19/10/16
Headbomb+ Correspondence IDW -> MFD 15/11/16
Headbomband MFD -> IDW 16/11/16
bombLetter to the european Financial
HeadbombSupervision relation to the
Headbombno-value-ECM - 03/10/16
bomb14th Letter to the Parliament for Judicial
HeadbombReview of the Free-Trade
HeadbombAgreements - 27/05/2016
bombApplication to the Constitutional
HeadbombCourt for Judicial Review of the
HeadbombFree-Trade Agreements - 27/05/2016
bombBILD - Pillory of Shame - 21/12/15 bombCriminal charge of making a false
Headbomballegation against netzpolitik.org - 17/09/2015
Headbomb+ response of Public Prosecutor in
HeadbombBerlin - 20/05/2016
bombLetter to the Ifo President - 05/11/14 bombComplaint to the German
HeadbombPress Council - 21/11/13
bombLetter to the IMF - 17/10/13
Headbomb+ Supplementary letter 22/11/13
bombLetter to the EU Commission - 17/10/13 bombLetter to the Presidium of the ECB - 17/10/13 bombAgainst the dismissal of
HeadbombFederal President Wulff - 13/06/13
Headbomb+ Response from the Hannover
HeadbombPublic Prosecutor's Office 25/07/13
Headbomb+ Opinion of the Alliance for
HeadbombDemocracy 21/08/13
Headbomb+ Letter to Celle General State Prosecutor’s
HeadbombOffice 10/10/13
bombPetition for the independence of the
HeadbombJudiciary and State Prosecutor - 06/05/13
Headbomb+ response by the Petitions Committee of
Headbombthe German Bundestag - 08/06/16
bombPetition for the introduction of genuine, direct
Headbombdemocracy - 25/04/13
Headbomb+ reply of the Bundestag - 14/11/16
bombPetition against corruption - 25/03/2013 bombCriminal complaint re. Target 2 10/11/2012 bomb1st Constitutional Complaint - against the
HeadbombFederal Government - 21/03/12
bomb2nd Constitutional Complaint - ESM incl.
Headbombsupplement - 12/06/12
bomb3rd Constitutional Complaint - ESM incl.
Headbombsupplement - 18/09/12
bomb4th Constitutional Complaint - Federal
HeadbombGouvernment against the ECB (by CJEU)
Headbomb27/09/12
Headbomb+ response of Federal
HeadbombConstitutional Court - 06/06/16
bombPress reports 27/6/12 + 24/10/12 bombSpringer complaint 28/09/11 bombDelayed insolvency bombPetition to the German Parliament 31/05/11 bombPetition to the European Parliament 21/06/11 bomb1st Letter to Members of Parliament 23/06/11 bomb2nd Letter to Members of Parliament
Headbomb26/09/11
bomb3rd Letter to Members of Parliament 19/05/12 bomb4th Letter to Members of Parliament 23/05/12 bomb5th Letter to Members of Parliament 20/06/12 bomb6th Letter to Members of Parliament 27/06/12 bomb7th Letter to the Parliament 27/9/12 bomb8th Letter to the Parliament 15/10/12 -
Headbombagainst Corruption 15/10/12 in addition to
HeadbombPetition 25/03/13
bomb9th Letter to the Parliament 24/10/12 bomb10th Letter to the Parliament 05/12/12 bomb11th Letter to the Parliament - 20/05/13 bomb12th Letter to the Parliament - 16/10/13 bomb13th Letter to the Parliament - 10/12/15 bombQuestions to the Bundestag 27/28/06/12 bombTo the members of the Bundesrat 14/06/12 bombTo the minister of finance 12/06/12 bombSecond Letter to the Finance
HeadbombMinister - 27/02/15
bombObjection to Hartz IV - Judicial Review
HeadbombComplaint BVerfG
bomb1st Lawsuit against Federal government
bomb21/03/11
bomb2nd Lawsuit against Federal government
bomb05/10/11
bombOpen letter 16/18/02/11





Readers Corner
On 15th October 2012 the Alliance for Democracy turned to the members of the Bundestag , so that in the debate on the ratification of the UN Convention against Corruption they would at last reach a conclusion which is worthy of German parliamentarians. Our letters have not gone unnoticed – below are the replies of the following parliamentarians:

-------- Original message --------
Date: Fri, 26 Oct. 2012 12:17:17
From: Oppermann Thomas
To: The Alliance for Democracy
CC: Steinmeier Frank-Walter
Re: AW: UN Convention against Corruption

Dear ….,

Our Chairman Dr. Frank-Walter Steinmeier has asked me as the first parliamentary director of the SPD parliamentary group, to respond to your letter regarding the bribery of members of Parliament.

In 1999 and 2003, Germany signed international agreements on global standards for the punishability of corruption and bribery of members of parliament. I share your criticism of the current situation: More than 150 countries have implemented the anti-corruption agreement, although Germany embarrassingly has yet to do so, along with other countries such as Syria, Saudi Arabia and Sudan.

In the 15th electoral term, the SPD parliamentary group in the Red-Green coalition had undertaken a first attempt to ensure the implementation of the UN Convention against Corruption. According to the draft of the SPD faction, the previously unsanctioned acceptance, promising or soliciting of benefits for mandate acts was to become punishable. The early elections however prevented further discussion.

In the 16th electoral term, i.e. at the time of the Grand Coalition, the SPD faction immediately took up the subject again. The discussions with the CDU/CSU faction however stalled, and finally the Union refused to participate in any further discussions on this subject. The SPD faction was unable to proceed with the matter alone, since under the coalition agreement, draft laws can only be submitted jointly.

On 8th February 2012 the SPD Bundestag faction formulated a draft law on the combating of bribery of members, on which a hearing was held this week by the Legal Committee. Our draft law can be found at: http://dipbt.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/086/1708613.pdf

In the interest of the acceptance of the policy as a whole, we need transparency and clear rules against bribery and corruption. The Black-Yellow Coalition must now abandon their opposition to more transparency regarding secondary activities, and against the legislation on the combating of bribery of members.

With kind regards
Thomas Oppermann

-------- Original message --------
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:17:12 +0200
From: "Dr. Eva Högl MdB"
To: "mfd111@gmx.de"
Re: AW: UN Convention against Corruption

Dear Mr. Schuster,

Thank you very much for your e-mail of 15th October 2012. You are quite right: Germany is internationally isolated. It is time to act. The SPD Bundestag faction demands that the UN Convention on the Combating of Corruption is finally implemented. We therefore submitted a draft law at the beginning of the year (Drs. 17/8613), whose aim is the effective combating of bribery of members. Unfortunately, the Government coalition is blocking our proposals.

It is highly embarrassing that Germany still has not implemented this Convention, and in this respect finds itself in company with other countries such as as Syria, Saudi Arabia, Myanmar and Sudan. Our country is losing a great deal of respect amongst our own population and throughout the world. The confidence of citizens and in the integrity of its elected representatives, the organs of state and the political system is not particularly great. We therefore see an urgent need for action. With a clear signal from the German Bundestag by us representatives, we could show that we are serious about the fight against corruption. German politicians must not and may not be corrupt!

I appreciate your involvement in this area and hope that the Coalition finally abandons its blocking tactics and takes appropriate action.

With kind regards
Yours, Eva Högl

Dr. Eva Högl
Member of the German Bundestag
Platz der Republik 1, 11011 Berlin
Visitors’ address: Wilhelmstraße 65
Tel. +49 30 227-79023
Fax +49 30 227-76035
e-mail: eva.hoegl@bundestag.de
Homepage: www.eva-hoegl.de
Twitter: @EvaHoegl

-------- Original message --------
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2012 17:22:29 +0100
From: Willsch Klaus-Peter Employee 01
To:
Re: >Letter No. 108 by Klaus-Peter Willsch MdB

Dear Sirs,

Attached please find the new letter by Klaus-Peter Willsch MdB.

With kind regards
Christian Raap
Office of Klaus-Peter Willsch MdB
Platz der Republik
D-11011 Berlin
Telephone: +49 (30) 22 77 20 95
Telefax: +49 (30) 22 77 61 24
www.klaus-peter-willsch.de

One interesting fact in this connection: The opinion of Mr. Willsch on the visit of Mario Draghi to the Bundestag.




We received the following letter from our reader “HF”:

Hallo,
I am nurse and have for several years been following the activities of Verdi. Basically, it is obviously very desirable if the employees in public service receive higher wages (6.5%, which would be at least € 200). Strictly speaking however, this is not a wage increase, but a “freeze”. Because, if you look at the inflation of the last five years and the associated purchasing power loss curve, there can be no other conclusion.

So in the current negotiations, you should stick to your point of view, and not allow yourself to be negotiated down as is so often the case. Because this is the problem of this trade union. The members are melting away, because one percent of gross salary stands in no proportion to the service previously provided. After all, this means € 20-30 more per month for me as a nurse. This is a lot of money for me and my family. This is what we use to buy food.

One immoral proposal of recent years on the part of the unions was to demand three days more holiday for Verdi members. At whose expense? It was all at the expense of those who are not Verdi members of the, like me. And so it was really clear that this demand should not be met.

It is different in the current case: here, Verdi is calling for a thirteenth month’s salary. The question of financing is quickly answered - Verdi pays the salary. That is fair and equitable. After all, a nurse with about ten years Verdi membership has paid in about € 3,000. Unless Verdi officials see a problem here.

In fact, I find this kind of membership advertising somewhat nauseous. Since young people, students from the school of nursing, etc. can of course easily be taken in by such propaganda. Verdi is like a rat with a flute, young pupils follow the flute playing of the rat.

If this is the only method of stopping the decline in membership, then Verdi and its officials are indeed poor souls.

There is therefore no other alternative than for Verdi to stand fast with regard to future demands, and not allow itself to be negotiated down. If Verdi achieves that, the number of members will also increase, and then perhaps I too will be in a financial position to afford Verdi.

HF

We can only say in reply: You are quite right. The bosses in all sectors are playing this same game with us citizens, whether this be the unions, the parties or the health insurance companies. A sort of elite thuggery is clearly spreading in Germany , which must be brought to an end at all costs.

The unions have come to the end of their tether, just like politics. The result is a downward trend, which no longer justifies either party or trade union dues (in addition, this also concerns mass organisations, such as the Church or the Chambers of Commerce and Industry). The motto must therefore be: to introduce and continuously adjust wages and salaries which more or less keep pace with better income classes. See on this subject the testament of poverty of the Federal Government . Mrs. von der Leyen on the subject: Employees should get “a bite out of the cake”. This should take place by means of wage-scale adjustments. This would lead on balance to a loss of purchasing power of the remaining net income after all adjustments (inflation and taxes); an additional, personal indictment of a Minister who also failed as an aid of the Federal Government.




On 1.10.2012 at 10:47, the Alliance for Democracy wrote the following mail with attached letter to all members of the German Bundestag.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The farce which you have conducted in the Bundestag over the draft of the 2013 budget clearly allows the conclusion not only that national insolvency is being delayed, but also that the Bundestag is actually incapable of action.

The Euro rescue has failed! And it is therefore also of no use if the ECB President Mario Dragi explains to you in the near future his Euro austerity rescue policy.

Will you not finally realise that 80 % of Germans do not now want “the Euro at any price”. This has been confirmed by many surveys. Further information on this point is attached.

With kind regards
The Alliance for Democracy

Herbert Behrens, member of the “Linken”, replied to our letter as follows.
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 13:32:37 +0200
From: Behrens Herbert
To: The Alliance for Democracy
Re: Re: The Alliance for Democracy

Dear Mr. Schuster,
I might have hoped that you would speak to us parliamentarians on a more differentiated level. As a member of the “Left” faction your attack on myself is largely unjustified. I heartily support some, but by no means all of your arguments.

Please take a look at our alternatives to the present bank debt policy of the CDU/CSU, FDP, SPD and Greens. www.linksfraktion.de With kind regards
Herbert Behrens
Member of the Bundestag
www.herbert-behrens.de

… and the Alliance for Democracy replied on 18th October 2012:

Dear Mr. Behrens,

We have read with interest the articles under www.linksfraktion.de. You are right to say that the anti-bank debt programme of the Left reads well, and would be worth a majority, but unfortunately our letter to the members concerned not only the bank debt policy, but mainly the budget adopted for the year 2013, which like the budgets of the last ten years is a doctored budget. The debts of the country (implicit and explicit) are nowhere shown, and new debt will in many cases only be revealed in the coming years. The actual trickery takes the following form: The observation of the Fiscal Pact would be impossible for Germany, as also for other supporting countries, if the support of other countries, as would be right, were financed by national budgets, and if necessary by loans, but not by a construction which circumvents this by the commitment to liabilities, by the abetment of the citizens, instead of the state, by means of their liability for loans, which the insolvent, supported countries (must) take out themselves, and receive from the banks because of the liability of German citizens towards the banks; instead of which the state further burdens the citizens – a national budget must present all matters which concern the citizens – by taking out such loans on behalf of the citizens, and then hands them directly on to the supported countries (unofficial violation of the debt brake, even if this only applies from 2016).

In this way it must be clear to you that Germany, if it had acted realistically, which would cost the citizens lower interest, would not have fulfilled the requirements demanded by the Fiscal Pact for supporting countries, without perpetrating such a lie towards both the supported countries themselves and the German taxpayers. The costs of delaying insolvency, which have to be borne by the citizen, thereby become debts, which are increasing all the time. The interest burden to be borne by the citizen is therefore higher than without such a construction. Had a realistic budget been compiled for 2013, and subsequently disclosed, then citizens would also have been properly informed in accordance with the principle of democratic transparency. Read our statements on this subject. This also relates to previous budgets.

Since the national budget, which in any case is financed on credit, is being eaten up by loans and guarantees for the rescue of the Euro, no budget can be ratified. Nevertheless, all factions passed the budget for the year 2013 almost without discussion. It is proclaimed to the German people that all is going well with the German state; but this is a lie:
Germany is simply delaying insolvency. We have the impression that the “Linken” do not see the situation in this way, but in this they are not alone in the Bundestag. Nevertheless, all factions passed the budget for the year 2013 almost without discussion, including the “Linken”, and this is what we are criticising, in particular that the increased interest costs and the basic fact that insolvency is simply being delayed by the accumulation of further debt are not allowed to play any role in the public debate.

It is proclaimed to the German people that all is going well with the German state; but this is a lie: Germany is simply delaying insolvency. The fate of Germany can be foreseen from the former European holiday countries. Is it possible that the “Linken” are becoming involved and bringing to light truths which might be of assistance to the state? In this way, the citizens of this country, who are financing this Euro madness, and thereby sacrificing their well-being, reforms and self-determination, would at least no longer be deceived, and could then decide whether they are still prepared to support their own national budget in favour of a concept of Europe which is based on false principles.

As a parliamentarian, this concerns you to the same extent as your 619 colleagues.

With kind regards
The Alliance for Democracy




Reactions to the 3rd, 4th and 5th letters to the members of the German Bundestag

On 20th and 22nd/23rd May 2012 and 21st June 2012, the Alliance for Democracy called once again on the members of the German Bundestag to reconsider their agreement to the planned ESM ratification – and ideally to reject it.
Angela Merkel would like to have regarded the vote as settled on 25th May 2012 (and naturally in her favour with the necessary Chancellor’s majority), but this did not happen: On 25th May 2012 the parliamentarians did not vote. Why this did not happen was difficult to explain, no information was forthcoming from the Chancellor’s Office, nor were there any announcements from the Bundestag. The press reported that the French were not prepared to sign any such agreement unless the previous plan was not augmented by a so-called growth pact.
The vote will now take place on 29th June 2012 – one day before the ESM comes into force. The parliamentary members of the CDU/CSU and FDP, like the SPD and the Greens, announced in advance of the vote that they agreed with the plans of the Chancellor. Most probably out of fear of what awaited them if they did not agree: loss of face, loss of office and currency reform. The states gave their votes for commitments to create additional kindergarten places – with empty state coffers, which have so far provided hardly a cent for the coming generation, it is questionable as to where this money is to be found. The money is not available, unless it is obtained by further borrowing. This benefits nobody in this country, except the politicians, who would once again use it to buy more time, to cling on a little longer to the reins of power.
This may be politics, but here we are talking about people, who will have to pay for this coup of the Chancellor, the federal government and the so-called opposition for generations to come, while the purchasing power of the Euro continually declines (if indeed it remains the currency of the country). Nor is it of much help that Federal President Joachim Gauck, because of submitted and expected constitutional complaints, announced in the press that he would not immediately sign these laws, so that the Federal Constitutional Court can review how lawful the ESM and the fiscal pact really are.
For the people, this means: Remain alert and continue to call out against the ESM/fiscal pact, as the Alliance for Democracy has been doing Alliance for Democracy!
There is some encouragement however: Amongst many votes in agreement, there are clearly also critical voices from
all parties who do not want to vote either for the ESM programme or the fiscal pact, such as several representatives of the Greens, but above all the Left, and also representatives of the CDU/CSU, who have also worked out a 10-point plan for overcoming the Euro crisis.
Only the FDP member Stephan Thomae continued to be convinced of having to vote for the ESM/fiscal pact.
Conclusion: The Alliance for Democracy has established that there are clearly still some in politics, at least amongst parliamentarians, who do not want to vote for the ESM/fiscal pact. This is more than encouraging, because we the people depend on the decisions made by Parliament. We have presented the consequences of agreement and introduction of the ESM/fiscal pact frequently in many of our articles. This “Merkel Europe” must not be allowed to come about! Never. Let us hope therefore that the Chancellor’s majority is not achieved, or that the Federal Constitutional Court acknowledges the unconstitutionality of the ESM/fiscal pact.

-------- Original message --------
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 10:31:56 +0200
From: “Info - GRÜNE Bundestagsfraktion”
To: The Alliance for Democracy
Ref.: AW: Ratification of the ESM

Dear Alliance for Democracy,
Thank you very much for your e-mail and the associated interest in our work.
The Government wants to consult with Parliament on the law on the European Stability mechanism ESM and cannot even say how big the rescue package will actually be at the end of the day. It is therefore dishonest for the Finance Minister to put up smoke-screens in the parliamentary debate and say: We have everything under control, everything will be fine; the parallel maintenance of the ESM and EFSF is what we have always wanted. This is not the case. We are experiencing a further act in the shadow play of the CDU/CSU/FDP: the practical increase of the guarantee amount decided in the Bundestag from € 211 billion to € 400 billion by the combination of the EFSF and ESM has been repeatedly rejected with much arm-waving and remains hushed-up today.
The Green faction in the Bundestag has long since spoken out in favour of a decided and transparent increase in the ESM, because the permanent rescue package on the basis of cash inputs has a much better and more stable credit worthiness than the EFSF. But because the CDU/CSU/FDP hope to conceal their blatant breach of promise, they decided in favour of a parallel system. This is not only the way in through the back door, but the wrong way economically, since it is the more expensive way. Once again the federal government is throwing away valuable time, leaving Europe in the dark for months on end, in order simply to do in the end what everyone expected. This is not responsible governance. And Europe will have to foot the bill.
The fiscal pact is intended to ensure that all countries introduce debt brakes, and that deficit transgressors can be brought to book. Only those who implement the fiscal pact can later hope for assistance from the permanent European rescue package of the ESM. It is correct that the reduction of national debt is essential for a stable Europe. But this is only one side of the coin. Because a fiscal pact can easily and quickly be signed by all countries. It only achieves real weight however if it not only establishes rules, but also points out realistic solution concepts. So far however, there is little to be seen of this.
The ratification of the fiscal pact in Germany requires a two-thirds majority in the Bundestag and Bundesrat. The CDU/CSU/FDP is therefore forced to rely on the support of the opposition. There is no hurry, since the national debt brakes do not have to be introduced until the year 2014. The federal government however needs the fiscal pact to obtain a majority in its own ranks for the ESM. We are not however the lapdogs for economically and democratically half-baked agreement simply in order to pacify the colleagues of the coalition. The Green faction in the Bundestag expects that the economic and European policy bias of the fiscal pact will be corrected. We want the fiscal pact to be supplemented by a European investment programme.
We also want the financial markets to assume their share of the costs of the crisis, and that the highly speculative trading in stocks and derivatives is adequately taxed. For this purpose we need a financial transaction tax. Mrs. Merkel must finally become seriously involved in the rapid and comprehensive introduction of this tax, and if necessary implement it with a willing coalition. The financial transaction tax must not be halted by a few blockers – irrespective of whether they are called Philipp Rösler or David Cameron. Part of the revenue should go into a European investment programme. The focus must be placed on sustainable investments in resource efficiency, ecological modernisation, modern infrastructure and training. Although the fiscal pact restricts the increase of new debt, it does not address the repayment of the old debts, which could be financed for example by a wealth tax. The proposal of the Council of Experts to organise the reduction of debt by means of an old debt repayment fund must also finally be discussed seriously.
Democracy is drawing the short straw with the fiscal pact. This may be only right and proper to Merkozy, but not to us. The president of the European Parliament must at least take part in the Euro summits. The European Parliament must also assume a strong role in the course of the intended monitoring and control procedures. At the moment the fiscal pact stands outside the EU agreements. This is no legal technicality, but means that the agreement can neither be reviewed by the European Court of Justice, nor can the EU Commission or the European Parliament play any decisive role. This is detrimental to democracy in Europe, because this approach promotes back-door politics. This shows how the federal government faces up to crisis management: Transparency and democracy are just inconveniences, while those at the top make their decisions behind closed doors. We must defend ourselves against this.
With kind regards
C. Ilawa
Info-Service of the Bundestag Faction
______________________________
Bündnis 90/Die Grünen
im Deutschen Bundestag
11011 Berlin

More information: www.gruene-bundestag.de

-------- Original message --------
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 13:40:01 +0200
From: Willsch Klaus-Peter Staff 01
To: The Alliance for Democracy
Ref.: Alliance against the ESM - 10 points for overcoming the Euro crisis

Alliance against the ESM
Ten CDU/CSU and FDP members, ten points and one objective: The ESM must not come into being! They are supported by the Taxpayers’ Association and the Citizens’ Participation Association and the association YOUNG BUSINESSMEN and FAMILY COMPANIES.
At a press conference today, the members of the Bundestag, including Klaus-Peter Willsch (CDU) and Sylvia Canel (FDP), presented a 10-point paper for overcoming the Euro crisis. It included the clear demand: “The temporary rescue package of the EFSF must run out as planned in 2013. The permanent successor facility of the ESM must not come into being.”
Instead, the CDU/CSU and FDP members call for the establishment of a European Restructuring Mechanism (ERM) instead of the ESM. This would allow the public sector in the crisis countries to finance their core tasks, to preserve national budget sovereignty and negotiate a settlement between creditors and debtors.
The members enjoyed non-parliamentary support from Dr. Karl Heinz Däke, President of the Taxpayers’ Association: “A permanent rescue package manifests the mistakes of the past. The continued support of ailing Euro countries, above all by German taxpayers, cannot be the answer to the debt policy of recent decades. This strategy burdens the taxpayers with incalculable risks. The Taxpayers’ Association therefore says “No” to the ESM. The European Monetary Union can only continue to exist if all Euro members observe the principles of liability and self-responsibility.”
This point was also echoed by Marie-Christine Ostermann, National Chairman of YOUNG BUSINESSMEN: “For we businesspeople, the most important point is ‘risk and liability in the same hands’. For Europe this means: Every member of the Euro zone must be responsible for their own financial obligations. With ever increasing rescue packages, for which others are always to be held liable, Europe is manoeuvring itself deeper and deeper into a dead-end. It is the same as in our companies: If the market players say that our organisation structures are not efficient or the prices are too high, then even support buying does not help in the long term. Applied to politics, this means that reforms cannot be circumvented.”
For Dr. Johannes Huedepohl, first signatory of the Citizens’ Participation Association, there is also no reason to create with the ESM an institution which permanently continues this erroneous policy to the detriment of Germany and its partners. “The over-indebtedness of the southern countries is increasing, their economic performance is shrinking and the crisis is spreading further. We are committed to orderly national insolvencies, a stabilisation of the financial system and a right of withdrawal from the Euro.”
Ten CDU/CSU and FDP members, the Taxpayers’ Association and the Citizens’ Participation Association and the association YOUNG BUSINESSMEN and FAMILY COMPANIES are therefore calling for a change in direction in the European crisis policy and the rejection of the ESM.
Office of Klaus-Peter Willsch MdB
Platz der Republik
D-11011 Berlin
Telephone: +49 (30) 22 77 20 95
Telefax: +49 (30) 22 77 61 24

-------- Original message --------
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 09:24:00 +0200
From: MdB Tackmann Kirsten
To: The Alliance for Democracy
Ref.: AW: Ratification of the ESM

Dear Alliance for Democracy,
Liberal market attempts to rescue the Euro render the economic recovery of indebted countries by their own efforts impossible, and widen the social and economic division within the Euro zone and the EU. The strengthening of populistic and nationalistic parties as a result of the crisis shows that the radical market orientation of the EU is contributing to the political disintegration of Europe. THE LEFT faction therefore rejects the EFSF and the establishment of the ESM and calls for a comprehensive action programme against the Euro crisis:
• Instead of bank rescues and austerity packages, THE LEFT calls for an effective, pan-European future investment programme for social and ecological restructuring, and short-term economic programmes in the crisis countries.
• THE LEFT calls for an EU-wide wealth tax for rich private households for the consolidation of public budgets.
• In order to free national finances from the extortion of the financial markets, THE LEFT calls for the foundation of a European bank for public bonds and the circulation of Euro-bonds. This is also the essential requirement for fair and transparent debt relief procedures.
• THE LEFT wants to close the “casino” of Europe: We call for the transfer of large private banks to public ownership and the foundation of a European public rating agency.
• For the financing of the crisis costs, THE LEFT calls for a genuine bank levy in Europe, and a European financial transaction tax in order to restrict speculation.
• To eliminate the causes of the crisis, the external imbalances must be reduced. THE LEFT wants to establish a European Compensation Union with binding limits for trade surpluses and deficits.
• German trade surplus are the result of wage and social dumping. A legal minimum wage of € 10, of the increase of public investment by € 125 billion annually and the raising of the Hartz IV basic rate to € 500 are therefore not only good for domestic workers and the unemployed, but at the same time contribute to social and economic stability in the Euro zone and the EU.
• The liberal market EU policy has played a decisive role in the euro crisis. The Lisbon Treaty, which prescribes this policy, is no basis for a socially and economically sustainable Europe. THE LEFT therefore calls for the revision of the Lisbon Treaty and a democratic reformation of the EU.
• We also consider the fiscal package to be unconstitutional and are considering legal steps against it.
• The ESM and the fiscal pact are a massive attack on the European social model and undermine democratic participation and the parliamentary rules of the game.
For all these reasons, THE LEFT will reject both the ESM and the fiscal pact.
With kind regards,

Dr. Kirsten Tackmann MdB

_____________________________________________
Office of Dr. Kirsten Tackmann (MdB)
Member of the Faction Committee
Director of the working group Infrastructure and Budget
Agricultural Policy Speaker
THE LEFT Faction
Platz der Republik 1, 11011 Berlin
Tel: 030 - 227 74308
Fax: 030 - 227 76308
mail: kirsten.tackmann@bundestag.de
Homepage: www.kirsten-tackmann.de

-------- Original message --------
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 15:26:02 +0200
From: Thomae Stephan
To: The Alliance for Democracy
Ref.: Your e-mail on the ESM and fiscal pact

Dear Alliance for Democracy,
Thank you very much for your e-mail, in which you call on me to vote against the ESM. The second and third reading of the bills for the implementation of the ESM package (ESM Ratification Law, ESM Financing Law and Law on the Amendment of the German Debt Law on the introduction of the Collective Action Clauses (CAC)) and the fiscal pact will provisionally take place on 25th May 2012. I am happy to explain to you why I will be voting for this law.
I.
The liquidity framework created by the second Greek rescue package is only a quarter of the solution. The other three quarters are that:
1. Greece implements the necessary reforms for the thorough restructuring of its national budget,
2. The Greek economy becomes competitive again, and
3. A type of cushioned insolvency of Greece is instituted by the private sector participation long advocated by the FDP and now finally instituted.

Federal Economics Minister Philipp Rösler had in October 2011 already pressed for rules for the orderly insolvency of highly indebted countries, a so-called “resolvency”. In this resolvency procedure, solvency was to be regained by means of controlled national insolvency. This proposal of Federal Economics Minister Dr. Philipp Rösler is once again high on the agenda. It should not be forgotten however in such a discussion that insolvency also always means restructuring.
II.
At the meeting of the Finance Ministers of the Euro group on Monday 20.02.2012, a private sector participation was decided: The claims of private creditors on Greece amount to around € 200 billion. After deduction of a “selective default” of private creditors in the amount of 53.5 % (€ 107 billion), this leaves claims amounting to around € 93 billion. With the sweeteners of the EFSF in the amount of € 30 billion, the claims default of private creditors falls to € 63 billion. Since an exchange takes place into new 30-year Greek Government bonds at a much lower interest rate, namely on average 3.65%, the actual depreciation requirement to be accounted for by creditor is about 74%!
III.
Against the background of refusing consent to the second Greek rescue package, one must ask the question as to what the alternative to the stabilisation measures and intentions of the Christian-liberal coalition would mean in consequence.
The Bundestag set out two years ago to consolidate the Euro zone with a stabilisation mechanism. This procedure has in the meantime also achieved its first successes: the pressure on Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Spain has been relieved. For this reason, it would be now inconsistent and wrong to change course in mid-stream. The aid package is a risk, but a calculable and measurable one. To reject it however would be an adventure with unpredictable consequences. It is naïve to believe that all Germany’s worries would be over with the departure of Greece from the Euro. The Greek crisis has been developing over a long time, and cannot be solved in the near future.
I hope that the above information has been of assistance to you.
With kind regards
Stephan Thomae, MdB
Member of the Budget Committee
Member of the Legal Committee
German Bundestag
Platz der Republik
11011 Berlin
Tel.: 030/227-75786
Fax: 030/227-76787
E-Mail: stephan.thomae@bundestag.de
WWW: www.stephan-thomae.de

-------- Original message --------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:02:50 +0200
From: “MdB Dr. Dagmar Enkelmann”
To: The Alliance for Democracy
Ref.: AW: Ratification of the ESM

Dear Mr. Schuster,
I will be voting against the ESM and the fiscal pact in its present form.
I also recently had the opportunity, on behalf of my faction THE LEFT, to take part in the discussions of the Government with the opposition in the Chancellor’s Office on the fiscal pact. This meeting also shed no light on how the financial crisis can be resolved. The Federal Government is sticking unswervingly to the anti-social fiscal pact. The proposals for a growth pact are however counteracted by the cutback dictates of the EU and the planned European debt brake. Ultimately they are nothing more than non-binding declarations of intent, which cannot achieve a cohesive Europe. There is still no suggestion of regulation of the financial markets far and wide. The statements of the Government are more than insufficient and show that there is no willingness to negotiate on this matter.
THE LEFT sticks to its call for a European investment programme along the lines of the Marshall plan, for effective support of the fight against unemployment, especially youth unemployment, as well as investments for sustainable economic development. A financial transactions tax must be introduced for the regulation of the financial markets, and the ratification of the fiscal pact must be stopped.
With kind regards
Dr. Dagmar Enkelmann

MdB Dr. Dagmar Enkelmann
1. Parliamentary Director
THE LEFT Faction
Deutscher Bundestag
Phone: 030 – 227 78220
Fax: 030 - 227 76219
www.dagmar-enkelmann.de

-------- Original message --------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 14:02:24 +0200
From: Caren Lay
To: The Alliance for Democracy
Ref.: AW: Ratification of the ESM

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Thank you very much for your mail. I can assure you that my faction THE LEFT will definitely vote against the permanent Euro rescue package ESM and against the fiscal pact, myself included of course.

The billion-Euro rescue package put together by the Euro zone countries and the EU is nothing more than a bank rescue package at the cost of public budgets and taxpayers. The Euro crisis is also a consequence of the financial and economic crisis, which has been transformed into a national debt crisis through the state assumption of private debts, bank rescue and economic programmes. The European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which is intended to replace the previous EFSF rescue package from 2013, continues this dangerous course. We in our party and our faction have intensively examined the question of the so-called Euro rescue package and the fiscal pact, and introduced it into the debate on the 1st reading, as well as previously in our own applications, in which we reject the ESM and the fiscal pact, and call for a European investment programme (Bundestag records 17/9146 and 17/9147).

My faction will go before the Federal Constitutional Court on Friday immediately after the vote in the Bundestag and complain against the fiscal pact, because the proposed deprivation of power of the Parliament is absolutely undemocratic and unacceptable. For your information here a link to the speech of Dr. Gregor Gysi on the 1st reading of the bill: http://tinyurl.com/gg290312. If you would like to find out more about the proposals of THE LEFT, look on the Internet under www.linksfraktion.de/themen/eurokrise-eurorettung/

With kind regards
Caren Lay
With kind regards
Susanne Bartholmes
Office Manager

Caren Lay, MdB
THE LEFT Faction.
German Bundestag
Platz der Republik 1
11011 Berlin

------ Original message --------
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:52:36 +0200
From: Christine Buchholz
To: The Alliance for Democracy
Ref.: Protest demonstration on Friday 29.6. | 16:00 | Reichstag - against the vote on the fiscal pact

+++ please forward +++ please forward +++

Stop the fiscal pact ++ Defend democracy and the welfare state ++
Protest demonstration on Friday 29.6. | 16:00 | Reichstag - against the vote on the fiscal pact

Ladies and Gentlemen,
Dear friends,

Next Friday, the Federal Government, with the votes of the “opposition parties” of the SPD and the Greens, intends to vote in favour of the fiscal pact. The now forthcoming fiscal pact will lead to massive social cutbacks through the strict debt brake applied to the nation, states and communities, and thus directly to mass poverty. It also undermines the European integration process and is not least an attack on democracy, because national parliaments will have to largely relinquish their budget sovereignty. In other countries, whole governments will be installed by the triumvirate of the EU, IMF and World Bank.

Since investments through new borrowing will then no longer be possible, public service provision (education, infrastructure, social rights) will either have to be cut back, or the family silver sold. European Governments will therefore have to submit to decades of austerity dictatorship, without the opportunity to stimulate the economy.

THE LEFT will refuse its agreement to the fiscal pact in the Bundestag. THE LEFT also intends to prevent the signature of the pact by an urgent application to the Federal Constitutional Court.

Take part in the demonstration, so that the greatest possible number of people are seen to protest against this austerity dictate.

Stop the fiscal pact ++ Defend democracy and the welfare state ++
Protest demonstration on Friday 29.6. | 16:00 | Reichstag - against the vote on the fiscal pact

With kind regards Katja Kaba
Colleague of
Christine Buchholz, MdB
THE LEFT faction
Peace policy spokesperson
Platz der Republik 1
11011 Berlin


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re.: Customer service
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2011 15:20:45 +0100
From:
To: abo@zeit.de

Dear Sirs,
[...] I recently tried DIE ZEIT, and was almost not disinclined to take out a subscription, until today's issue. A 4-page dossier as an advertisement for a book which makes it possible to put a fine gloss back on the tarnished image of Mr. zu Guttenberg. This just cannot be beaten for hubris, journalistic misfeasance or tactlessness. No politician is worth the press throwing their arms around him in this way, let alone making common cause with him, because even a Mr. zu Guttenberg, after he has consigned Mrs. Merkel to history and is perhaps even governing the country, will hardly be able to get rid of the German debt mountain by striking a balance and rescheduling debt, since he is a jurist, and not an economist, and has only proven so far that he is a capable plagiarist. So, many considerations, hardly any benefit for Germany, and it is simply not worth € 4. You would rather have to pay your readers to take a copy.
Worse still, this example shows once again how politics and journalism work hand in glove; unfortunately to the detriment of the reader, because journalists should investigate and explain what politicians do; they should not engage in politics themselves. It is tragic that a company such as DIE ZEIT considers such attitudes necessary at all.
With kind regards

Giovanni di Lorenzo (Die Zeit) replied

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Party politics and short-sightedness with regard to the ESM
On 31st May 2011, the Alliance for Democracy wrote to the members of the German Bundestag, calling on all parliamentarians to refuse their agreement to the planed ratification of the ESM.

G. Jung of the "Mitmach-Zentrum" of the FDP replied to this letter on 12th July 2011:
From: fdp-point@fdp.de
Sent: 12.07.2011 16:38:10
To: Alliance for Democracy
Re: Letter to the members / ESM

Dear Sirs,
Thank you for your letter. We would like to explain to you why in our opinion the support of the European member states (such as Greece) is important at the moment.

The stability of the Euro is currently under discussion because of the financial predicament of some member countries, such as Greece. The question repeatedly arises as to whether and what extent Germany should assist these struggling countries with financial aid. For this purpose, we would like to state the position of the FDP government faction:

• The Euro can only be strong if it is stable. Every individual member country of the Euro therefore has a responsibility for its own stability, which then applies to the Euro as a whole.
• If it had stated its factual economic data, Greece would not have been allowed to join the European Currency Union, nor should it have been allowed to join.
• In the light of the stability pact, it is not a matter of helping Greece, but of protecting the German taxpayer and the German economy.
• Greece itself must ultimately get a grip on its problems. Only if Greece can provide evidence of its own major efforts will support be provided by the EU partners.
• We reject any direct budget aid which is not linked to concrete conditions. There must be no "blank cheque" which in the end means no improvement, but simply a time delay in dealing with the structural problems of Greece.
• Any damage to the German taxpayer as a result of such aid must be prevented.
• If help is provided, support must also be given to German companies having financial claims against Greece.
The stability of the Euro is not in long-term danger. At the EU summit in Brussels, the countries of the Euro zone have already declared themselves ready to provide highly-indebted Greece with financial aid if necessary, in order to stave off national bankruptcy.

The German government has declared its readiness to grant Greece a loan, which would be subject to interest at a rate of 5.1%. At the moment Greece has to pay an interest rate of 7.5% to obtain new loans. By granting this loan, if it is needed by the Greek government, and if the full line of German credit of € 8.4 billion is used, Greece would make an annual interest payment of € 428 million, which would go to the direct benefit of Germany.
This is not a "gift" or inefficient use of tax funds. If Germany, as at the moment, has to pay loan interest at the rate of 3%, and then makes these funds available to Greece, Germany makes a "profit" of € 176 million per year. At the same time, Greece not only has to pay lower debt interest, but also improves its creditworthiness, so that further loans can also be obtained at a lower interest rate.
Current information on this subject is available from the site of the FDP faction in the German Bundestag: www.fdp-fraktion.de.
With kind regards
G. Jung
MitMachZentrum

FDP Office
Reinhardtstr. 14
10117 Berlin
Tel.: (030) 28 49 58 0
Fax: (030) 28 49 58 22
Mail: info@fdp.de
Web: www.fdp.de

The Alliance for Democracy replied to this letter as follows:
Dear Sirs,
Firstly we would like to thank you sincerely for your reply of 12th July 2011, in which you explain the outlines of the FDP for a European currency policy.

We welcome the objective of the FDP – the stabilisation of the Euro. We also welcome the clear acknowledgement of budget policy responsibility on the part of the individual member states.
Unfortunately the actual policy of the government is not reconcilable with these outlines. The implementation and continual expansion of the European rescue package is leading to budget policy irresponsibility. Instead of the actual sanctions allowed fir deficit transgressors, more and more loans are granted without security.
Whether the loans will ever be repaid is highly doubtful. The burden of debt is increasing all the time with ever more loans. The only way out of the debt trap is national insolvency. The result will be total default against the German loans.
You refer to possible interest profits for Germany as an argument for granting the loans. This is incomprehensible. It is not within the mandate of the government to gamble with German tax funds and speculate on interest profits. The risk – the total default against these completely unsecured loans – is also out of all proportion to the possible interest profits.
The granting of more and loans to completely bankrupt countries is therefore no stability policy at all, but simply the delaying of insolvency.
The government is giving away money which the German state does not have at all, and has not had for a long time. The latest ratings by independent agencies (China, Switzerland, Norway) have also greatly devalued German government bonds. German national finances can only be rescued (if at all) if Germany ceases to take on even more European obligations and liabilities.
We therefore call on the representatives of the FDP to vote against any further extension of the European rescue package.
With kind regards
Alliance for Democracy

Our letter to the members of the German Bundestag was also answered by another member, Stefan Müller (CSU) on 3rd August 2011:
CSU National Committee
Stefan Müller MdB
To: Alliance for Democracy
03.08.2011

European Stabilisation Mechanism (ESM)
Dear Sirs,
Thank you very much for your letter of 27th June of this year. I would like to reply to you on behalf of all my colleagues of the CSU National Committee, to whom your letter was also addressed.

The stability of our currency is a valuable commodity. This applies particularly to Germany as the largest and most successful European national economy in worldwide competition. The Euro zone contributes around 41% to German export success, and therefore to growth and jobs in Germany. The Euro has also been a major factor in enabling us to withstand the financial and economic crisis well in comparison to other countries.

The national and government heads of the Euro zone agreed at their special summit on 21st July of this year on a comprehensive overall package for the stabilisation of the Euro zone. The main elements of this package include the increased flexibility and strengthening of the European Financial Stabilisation Facility (EFSF) and the European Stabilisation Mechanism (ESM), the strengthening of the stability and growth pact and economic policy coordination and the commitment of European states to budget policy consolidation. These measures create the requirements by which future budget crises in the Euro zone can be averted at an early stage, or cannot arise at all.

This package also includes matters central to Germany. In its negotiations with the European Council, the German government succeeded in preventing the creation of a transfer union and the establishment of a permanent communal liability, which some member states were aiming for by the introduction of Euro-bonds. Aid from the EFSF and the ESM continues to be bound by strict criteria and requirements. Important decisions relating to the EFSF and the ESM must be made unanimously, so that Germany still has a full right of veto. The granting of short-term stabilisation loans corresponds to the current practice of the International Monetary Fund (IMF). It is now up to the Greeks themselves to make use of this opportunity.

The package also contains new measures for bridging the refinancing problems of Greece. For the first time these envisage appropriate participation by the private sector, as called for by the German government and the CSU National Committee. The new programme gives Greece the time to carry out the structural reforms necessary in order to restore its competitiveness and overcome its budget crisis. It is now up to the Greeks themselves to make use of this opportunity.

It is obvious that the debt problems of Greece and other countries of the Euro zone, which have been building up for years, cannot be solved by the stroke of a pen, but need time. It is in the interest of all Euro countries to support this process as far as they are able. An uncontrolled national bankruptcy in the Euro zone would involve incalculable consequences for the stability of the Euro, and European banks and companies, and therefore also directly affect the people of Germany.

I am confident that the negotiation result described creates the required basis for the permanent stabilisation of our common currency.
With kind regards
Stefan Müller

The Alliance for Democracy replied:
Dear Mr. Müller,
Firstly we would like to thank you sincerely for your reply of 03.08.2011, in which you explain the outlines of the CSU for a European currency policy.

We welcome the objective of the CSU – the stabilisation of the Euro. We also welcome the clear positioning of the CSU against any joint liability of Germany for the debts of other Euro countries. It is stated in today's daily press that the CSU is calling for the introduction of insolvency proceedings for over-indebted Euro countries. That would be a courageous step in the right direction.

Unfortunately the actual policy of the government is not reconcilable with these outlines. The implementation and continual expansion of the European rescue package is leading to budget policy irresponsibility. Instead of the actual sanctions allowed fir deficit transgressors, more and more loans are granted without security. Irresponsible indebtedness remains unsanctioned, and is even rewarded with more loans.

In your reply, you emphasise that the support of debtor countries is linked to strict requirements and corresponding budget discipline. This is intended to create a way out of the debt crisis, and prevent possible future crises.

This is not very credible. In the past, the stability criteria have been trampled underfoot, without corresponding sanctions being applied. We are afraid that politics cannot stir up the courage to act any differently in future. Because sanctions against "bankrupt countries" only exacerbate their crisis and lead directly to the insolvency of the countries concerned. People will shrink from such a step, showing the requirements to be nothing more than a "toothless, paper tiger".

The dynamics of this budget policy irresponsibility can only be halted by a radical reversal of policy. Debts must no longer combated by more and more debts, since this can only increase the debt burden to immeasurable levels. The only way out of the debt trap is controlled national insolvency.

The granting of more and loans to completely bankrupt countries is therefore no stability policy at all, but simply the delaying of inevitable insolvency.

The government is giving away money which the German state does not have at all, and has not had for a long time. The latest ratings by independent agencies (China, Switzerland, Norway) have also greatly devalued German government bonds. German national finances can only be rescued (if at all) if Germany ceases to take on even more European obligations and liabilities.

Your Party Chairman Horst Seehofer has called for and announced the return to a serving policy. This being the case, we call on the representatives of the CSU to vote against any further extension of the European rescue package.
With kind regards
The Alliance for Democracy

And Stephan Mayer, CSU, MdB, also replied to our letter on 13th August 2011:
From: "MdB Stephan Mayer"
Sent: 13.10.2011 14:36:43
To: "The Alliance for Democracy"
Re: ESM
Dear Editor,
Thank you very much for your e-mail, in which you call on me to vote against the ESM Treaty. The stability of our currency is a valuable commodity. This applies particularly to Germany as the largest and most successful European national economy in worldwide competition. The Euro zone contributes around 41% to German export success, and therefore to growth and jobs in Germany. The Euro has also been a major factor in enabling us to withstand the financial and economic crisis well in comparison to other countries.
The national and government heads of the Euro zone agreed at their special summit on 21st July of this year on a comprehensive overall package for the stabilisation of the Euro zone. The main elements of this package include the increased flexibility and strengthening of the European Financial Stabilisation Facility (EFSF) and the European Stabilisation Mechanism (ESM), the strengthening of the stability and growth pact and economic policy coordination and the commitment of European states to budget policy consolidation.
With the "Law on the Amendment of the Law on the Assumption of Guarantees under a European Stabilisation Mechanism" passed by a large majority in the German Bundestag on 29th September, the German Bundestag was given far-reaching powers to intensify financial controls and extend the democratic legitimacy of the rescue measures. The following applies in future: The German Bundestag must agree to applications for emergency measures, amendments to agreements made with debtor countries and modifications to the rescue package. The German representative in the EFSF Directorate is also strictly bound by instructions, and may only agree to measures if he has a positive vote from the German Bundestag. In cases of special urgency or confidentiality, an ad hoc committee will be formed from members of the Budget Committee. It is therefore clear that no payments can be made without the consent of the German Bundestag. There is no automatism.
By the topping up of the German liability share from € 123 to around € 211 billion, we are ensuring the creditworthiness and the credibility of the rescue package. This makes the financing of support measures both easier and less costly. This high creditworthiness also stands for the reliability and solidarity of the Currency Union. The other Euro countries are also prepared to increase their national guarantee commitments for this purpose.
A bank rescue package will now also be established, which acts as a firewall between over-indebted countries and the finance industry. By this means, struggling financial institutions will in future be able to be stabilised with fresh capital – as we have already successfully done in Germany with the bank rescue fund. This new European instrument will help to prevent problems spreading into the real economy. We are also thereby protecting our export-orientated economy. The strengthening of the rescue package also includes the new instrument of lines of credit. Debtor countries will thus still be able to obtain credit on the free capital market, rendering actual effective aid unnecessary. The International Monetary Fund IMF has had good experiences with this form of "overdraft facility".
In exceptional cases, the buying up of government bonds by the rescue package on the primary and secondary market will also be possible. In this way, excessive price pressure on the markets can be reduced. Financial investors can also take a direct share in price losses. Above all however, we are relieving the pressure on the European Central Bank, which so far has alone been buying government bonds on the secondary market in order to avoid price distortions and protect the Currency Union against speculation. All these measures serve for the protection of our economy and currency.
These measures create the requirements by which future budget crises in the Euro zone can be averted at an early stage, or cannot arise at all.
In the course of these measures, some member states were aiming for the establishment of a transfer union and a system of permanent communal liability. This was to be achieved by the introduction of Euro-bonds. Euro-bonds are government bonds which are jointly guaranteed by the Euro countries. This opens up the possibility for crisis countries to obtain loans at lower interest rates than previously. In return however, "sound" countries such as Germany must also be liable for the debts of these countries. I take a very critical view of such a development. Although the stabilisation of the Euro is in the fundamental interest of Germany, the solidarity associated with the Euro rescue packages with the Euro countries which are in difficulties, should not be extended without the awareness of their self-responsibility. It must only be help towards self-help. The countries concerned must be convinced to resolve their budget and structural problems quickly. If all responsibility is however removed from the shoulders of these crisis countries by Euro-bonds, they will also lose the spur and incentive to implement strict, lean policies. In the best case therefore, Euro-bonds could only make a short-term contribution to solving the problems of the Euro, which were triggered by a national debt crisis in some Euro countries. The medium- and long-term consequences are serious. As you correctly state in your letter, Germany would be burdened with several billion Euros annually, without solving the budget and structural problems of the crisis countries. The calls for Euro-bonds therefore result from a misunderstood solidarity. I therefore reject Euro-bonds categorically.
The overall package for the stabilisation of the Euro zone also includes matters central to Germany. In its negotiations with the European Council, the German government succeeded in preventing the creation of a transfer union and the establishment of a permanent communal liability. Aid from the EFSF and the ESM continues to be bound by strict criteria and requirements. Important decisions relating to the EFSF and the ESM must be made unanimously, so that Germany still has a full right of veto. The granting of short-term stabilisation loans corresponds to the current practice of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
I voted in favour of the overall package for the stabilisation of the Euro zone. This addresses the actual cause of the crisis. We are in a good position in Germany, despite the crisis, because we have also used this time for structural reforms. And we have agreed and incorporated a "debt brake" into Basic Law, which forces us to reduce public deficits both at the national and state level, and to forego excessive new debt in future. In the crisis countries, insufficient use has been made of the opportunity presented by the common currency. The package will support the national budget policy of these crisis countries. It is in the interest of all Euro countries to support this process as far as they are able. An uncontrolled national bankruptcy in the Euro zone would involve incalculable consequences for the stability of the Euro, and European banks and companies, and therefore also directly affect the people of Germany. Your feared liability of Germany for the debts of the crisis countries has however been successfully averted.
I am confident that the negotiation result described creates the required basis for the permanent stabilisation of our common currency. Please feel free to contact me in the event of any further questions.
With kind regards
Stephan Mayer, MdB
Member of the German Bundestag
Lawyer
Internal and legal policy spokesman of the CSU National Committee
Platz der Republik 1
11011 Berlin
Tel.: 030-227-74932
Fax: 030-227-76781
homepage: www.mayerstephan.de

The Alliance for Democracy replied:
Dear Mr. Mayer,
First I would like to thank you for your comprehensive reply of 13.10.2011 on the stability of the Euro and the corresponding current measures of the European Union. Unfortunately I cannot share your optimistic estimate. The measures of the European Union are not suitable to bring about a sustainable stabilisation of the Euro:

The European financial stabilisation facilities are financed exclusively by credit. In the event of a crisis, it is intended to take out loans by issuing bonds for which its member states are liable. These loans will be passed on to the member states in financial difficulties, who can no longer finance themselves on the capital market at affordable interest rates. In this way, debt levels will not be reduced, but increased. Genuine stabilisation could only be brought about by the use of funds of member states which are not financed by loans. The success of all stabilisation measures will stand or fall by the prompt consolidation of public budgets.
In this respect, Chancellor Merkel has rightly called for the stability criteria contractually agreed at the European level to be subjected to judicial control by the ECJ (treaty infringement proceedings at the application of the Commission or a member state). Such a judicial control facility is however still lacking. Without judicial control and effective sanctions, the stability criteria remain ineffectual, and will continually be circumvented by politics, as in the past.
The fact that the majority of member states of the European Union were not prepared to subject their budget policy to judicial control shows that the consolidation efforts are purely lip-service. Because anyone who really intends to consolidate fears no court.
The stabilisation of the financial sector (rescue package for the banks) must also be treated with substantial reservations. This is the road to irresponsibility. Banks must no longer be responsible for their mistakes. It is also the road to further destabilisation, because it encourages a business policy of risks, because the risks are transferred and cushioned, while the profits remain with the banks.
We welcome your rejection of Euro-bonds. But the previous commitments also constitute substantial joint liability of Germany. The transfer union has long since been reality. We also welcome the fact that the guarantees given under the European Financial Stabilisation Facility will now be subject to a certain level of Parliamentary control. Democracy however remains in danger. In the very likely event of a guarantee having to be honoured, the Bundestag will have no political freedom of action, and policy will then no longer be determined by the people or parliament, but dictated by financial conditions.
With kind regards
The Alliance for Democracy

In a similar campaign, the Alliance for Democracy turned to the members of the European Parliament. We called on every member, in their responsibility for the well-being of Europe, to make their contribution to stopping the European "super debt", and to give affected countries a new start by means of controlled national insolvency. Unfortunately none of the members responded to our petition; the European Parliament simply referred to the website of the EU, which contains numerous proposals by the Commission for overcoming the debt crisis. We have described however in many articles that this has no prospect of success.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our reader KH K. from O. wrote to us on 27th July 2011:

Hi and hello,
your cause is great! Full stop!
It falls short only in one fact: You must first explain to people that Germany is NOT a democracy, but a party dictatorship controlled by criminals (see G. Grandt: "Aktenzeichen Politiker")! These people are not only criminal, but also deceitful, incompetent and egoistic (e.g. 13 months for the Hartz IV-increase of € 5, and only days for the raise of parliamentary allowances by € 600). Added to this is a utopian measure of arrogance and presumptuousness. Examples: Switzerland (!!!!) has been accused of a lack of understanding of democracy, Luxembourg of the banks "machinations" (you only have to look at the tax legislation in Germany, and all the financial scandals – including those amongst the parties,...), managers have been referred to as "elite" (von Pierer, Hartz, Nonnenmacher, ...), and V. Putin as a "perfect democrat",... It is being discussed whether the "private sector" should be involved! The wrong approach: It can only be asked: Why should the taxpayer pay for the machinations of the "private sector"?
It is perverse when the catastrophe which befell us on Friday afternoon is taken as a pretext to further perfect the supervision and control of the German people. It even went so far that my King (and Mr. Jens Stoltenberg) was criticised for not making a statement earlier. They fail to understand how shocked we were! A terror attack in our country? Unthinkable! Furthermore, my politicians think before they speak. One special feature of democracy for example is the plebiscite (referendum), for example on the EU, and on the €. We said NO – tat was it for the EU and €! Politicians: Dismissed! Another brief example in closing: in a neighbouring town, a small school (with 36 pupils) was to be closed, we said NO, and the school is still in existence! You will certainly have noticed that I have emigrated!? Unfortunately 20 years too late. I love my home country of Norway, for example for its democracy, for its security, because of its social balance, because of ... to list everything would take the whole evening!

Alliance for Democracy replied on 4th August 2011
Dear Mr. K.,
First of all we, the comrades-in-arms of the Alliance for Democracy, would like to thank you for your encouraging letter, which expresses very extremely and clearly how a normal person must feel about all these political circumstances. In the immediate future, we will be publishing 20 - 25 new links.
The third letter regarding the charge against the German government has been sent off, and further actions are underway, on which we will report further.
Your letter has given us the idea of getting you on our side with a brief commentary. Would you agree to this? Please mail us your reply. We also want to encourage in our commentaries other Germans who have emigrated to Switzerland or Norway to become active in our cause to write to us about their own experiences – if possible in a publishable way.
Apart from that we wish you all the best in a country with direct democracy, thank you for your interest, and look forward to your reply. Until then we remain.
With kind regards
Alliance for Democracy

KH K. from O. replied on the same day:
Hi and hello,
why do you call my opinion "extreme and clear"? Is it extreme if I for example, criticise the spelling "reform" as a crime against our native language?
Just one small but typical example: Germany knows no democracy! Of course I agree to the publication of my opinion – I live outside the police state, I live in a democracy! Just compare the reactions of German "politicians" to the outrageous crime of Oslo/Utøya with that of our Secretary of State Mr. Jens Stoltenberg ..., not even to speak of my Royal House. THIS is how we react in Norway (see attachment), Germany (e.g. Uhl) on the other hand calls for total supervision and control ... i.e. the dismantling of democracy and freedom. We "demand" more trust, more love, more tolerance, more respect, more, ... We love our country and our democracy! That is why it says in our national anthem: "Ja, vi elsker dette landet ..."
Germany demands total control. THAT is the "minor difference".

KH
Write to us with your opinion!  > Contact
spot
spot
spot