“The afd is not just a party, the afd torpers the zeitgeist”

adminonDecember 13, 2021January 28, 2022Leave a Comment

Image: Karl-Ludwig Poggemann / CC BY-2.0

As a FPO top politician and "Life lot" Jorg Haiders he was co-aging of the right populism. Stefan Petzner in the interview on the AfD, escape, apartmentnot, "Stand up" and the social question – and what Seehofer, Schulz, Salvini and Orban of Chancellor can learn short

Stefan Petzner in the last 15 years was one of the most dazzling people of politics in Austria. As a mastermind of the FPO and then of the Second Haider Party BZO, he created the Chief Strategist and Party Speaker The Success Elections of Jorg Haider to the Landeshauptmann (Minister Prosident) of Karnten, whom he was promoted privately until his death. With a concept of actually socio-critical writer Thomas Bernhard he described him as his "Livelihood".

In the years from Haider, the FPO managed to establish itself nationwide as a rough party next to the OVP and the SPO. In 1999 she became a two-selling power of the federal elections with almost 30% and set the government with the OVP – this resulted in sanctions by the EU and diplomatic tensions with Israel. Currently, the FPO rules again in a coalition with the OVP and represents u.a. the vice-chancellor. The FPO always came into the headlines through positioning and meeting with Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein and Chechnya Prasident Kadyrov, who is considered Islamist.

Stefan Petzner

Petzner also had a variety of top items in the BZO inne, u.a. Was he federal General Secretar and Landesparteichef in Karnten. At the time of Haiders’s death, he was Deputy Chairman and the Federal Party Party nominated by the unanimous vote of the board, which then renewed Querelen he renounced. In the brochure affare he was sentenced to a prison sentence.

Since its accounting with the FPO in the Cast Estate Beinungsbuch "Haiders shadow" he released as a former insider in many books like last "Trump to go" The strategies of the new rights and their populist parties. Petzner works today "Trader of information" in political, economic and NGO consulting. It specializes in PR management in crisis situations (strategic crisis communication) and ligitation PR. To date, he has a broad network and best contacts also in German politics and journalist scene.

After Chemnitz, it hung in many analyzes: The AFD has now shown her true face – she marches shoulder on shoulder not only with Pegida, but also with Neo-Nazis. Is the superscript?
Stefan Petzner: The problem is flatizations and generalizations on all pages: the left bearing is convicted by the demonstrators as Nazis. This is a mistake and drives the emports, devastated and deserting only further into the arms of the right. The rights in turn represents the mass of the demonstrators as all worried burger, which make use of their demonstration right only. This drawn picture does not correspond to the truth. But the truth is in the middle. Normal demonstrators have mixed with right-wing extremists and radicals and stood a closed block left counter-demonstrator. In this heated mood, for a differentiated and favorite consideration of events but no space was more, neither part of the media, nor by policy up to the Federal Chancellor. And that’s exactly the problem. The political debate culture in Germany is currently underheated, polarizing and aggressive, ultimately poisoned that a normal political debate culture is currently no longer possible. This is dangerous. Because the question is less, who went to the strain, but why? And why could the situation escalate? What is behind this development? What are the deeper causes and reason? Nobody talks about it! At the heart, it is about the fact that the topics of migration and immigration massively transform people. The good ones who are well worried, and the bad ones trying to beat political capital. Under the stroke but remains: the topic moves. You can not get past him. If you want or not. To devote itself intensively to this topic, so it’s about! So that people have the feeling that the high policy has recognized the problems, devoted themselves to them and developed on a factual and fantastic manner and also implements. But that does not happen or only too little, but it is split by all sides, generalized, condemned and polarized. The winner is the AFD at the end, because it determines the political debate that dominates headlines and at the end all down, whether knowing or unknowingly to adapt to their discourse and debate style.

According to the green, FDP, PDS and the Bavarian Minister Prosident Stoiber, the SPD lawyers now demand a folk decision on the art for the art.

The yesterday explained the Federal Chairman of the Association of Social Democratic Jurists (ASJ) DR. Klaus Hahnzog, Chairman of the Committee for Catching, Legal and Parliamentary Questions of the Bavarian Landtag:

In the context of the further steps for the EU-commands developed by the European Congress Convention, the question of folk decision at federal level in Germany has become up-to-date in other parties. The parliamentary groups of RED / GRUN should have their bill from 13 as soon as possible. Marz 2002 to introduce the introduction of popular initiative, referendum and referendum to the Basic Law. Immediate democracy has preserved in the German countries and municipalities. It is considered as the order of the parliamentary-representative system.

Previously, the FDP had introduced a corresponding request in the Bundestag and also the – Bavarian Minister Prosident Edmund Stoiber, in the state election campaign, spoke out for a folk decision. This prompted the PDS Bundestag MEP Petra Pau to a call to the participation points:

Now the demand for more democracy has reached the CDU / CSU. The PDS has been planning for a long time for referendums at the federal level. SPD and Grune promised it. The FDP has applied for a youngest. A corresponding legislative initiative of the PDS has been the Bundestag since the previous electoral period. Answer is a two-thirds majority in the Bundestag, as the Basic Law has to be reformed. Suppose, SPD, Grune, FDP and PDS vote 100 percent with yes. Then, among the 248 CDU / CSU MEPs only 47 liberal had to find minded, which also agree. If even Edmund Stoiber can jump over his long shadows, then further Christian Democrats should take their shy away from people in front of people.

But so far came from the SPD predominantly rejection against a burger survey. So also by the Chancellor and SPD chairman. Gerhard Schroder im "Report from Berlin":

I do not think there. I believe that we first have to be amed how our longitudinal situation is. And that does not show such decisions. And before we have made a change in the Basic Law, which has been discussed again and again and again, will be spat. I find this discussion quite interesting. But I think we should now decide on this question in the bodies, which are provided for from the applicable catch. Whether in the process that is now running, that you can use what you call plebiscitar elements, so more direct influence of the people can expand on political decisions, though in principle I query, that will be part of a debate with us his need to be imminent to us.

daily News.de

The Chancellor contains that in connection with the EU-termination a basic language, imminent. This results from a Telepolis newsletter of the SPD Group Chairman Franz Muntefering.. In fact, in the to the Chairman of the other Bundestag fractions – but largely unknown – writing from the 8th faction. July 2003:

Our Basic Law has often preserved in the future and will be the basis and guideline in the future for our democratic and social constitutional state. Nevertheless, the modernization of our community also requires thinking about the modernization of federal order…(…) The goal must be clearer than previously the responsibilities of the federal government and countries..(…) It is also important how the further development of the European Union affects federal order in our country…(…) I propose you named DE SPD parliamentary group, in the fall of this year, to use a commissioning commission for the modernization of the Federal State Order. Such a commission could be based on the model of the Joint Council of the Bundestag and Federal Council at the beginning of the 1990s.

If the Basic Law has to be changed anyway, why not before the adoption of the EU-Final. Concerns, the population could "alienation" Arguments, for example, from Arger to the health care reform, reject the EU force, the SPD lawyers also counter:

The hurden of the bill are fair, but at the same time not for each particular interest rating (necessary, for example, in case of catching questions, a stake of 40 percent and a 2/3 majority of the voting). Therefore, the fear of a folk decision is unfounded Uber the Artical EU Environment. One of the main grounds for this purpose is to create more transparency and strong commitment of the burger for Europe for Europe. For this purpose, a folk decision in Germany with the previous discussion phase is an important means. The EU injection itself also provides for a first step in immediate democracy with the burger requests. It was absurd if in the chain of political levels municipalities, Lander, Bund, Europe direct democracy excluded only at the federal level excluded.

Numerous burger rights organizations also ask the question why Germany in terms of democracy should be shot light in Europe again. Because even if Giscard d’Estaing at the official transfer of the EU commitment to RATPRASIDENT Berlusconi therefore no longer to change the text, he must be appreciated by the heads of government and national parliaments, even by the population of several EU member countries.

Actually, all of them should vote, finds a broad popular movement in this country especially from the club "More democracy e.V." be caught. Funf Lander have already set a referendum with France, Spain, Portugal, Danemark and Ireland. And the people of the Luxembourger will now be questioned. The European farm "More democracy and democracy international" Comes in his study "People’s decision on the EU’s Council" To the result:

In all 25 member and accession cours, a referendum or at least one referendum is possible with a corresponding political will.

In 17 of the 25 member and accession countries, the persistent folk decision presents. Six more countries already passed plebiscites without a strand basis. Only in Germany and the Netherlands it lacks both: the legal requirements and political practice. In addition to the FUF already set countries, according to the study, there are good opportunities for a referendum in Italy and Austria. In the Netherlands, Belgium and Finland, the debate is still open. Only in Sweden, Greece and the Greece Britain, a NO sign up for the referendum.

"But even in these countries the tur is still open. The more states opt for a referendum, the gross prere on the skeptical governments", So Efler, speaker of "More democracy e.V.".

Unclear is the political situation in the 10 candidate policies. There is currently the debate on the EU accession in the foreground. But the positive experiences with the youngest referendists increase the opportunities for a catching decision after the study. The Bundestag is a proposal for a constitutional change, which should also be measured in Germany a long-term referendum. "The initiative of the FDP comes at the right time. Coalition and CDU must seek color now", demanded Effer.

According to the youngest Eurobarometer, 62 percent of Germans involve the EU’s penalty. However, the burgers know little about the content. A broad debate, which in a folk decision Mundet, goods a possible way to anchor the new penalty also in the German population wide.

Talked to the lawyer Claus Forster, who represents the lawsuit against Demonstration ban around the airport Rostock situation

With high prere, lawyers work on complaints against the flat-covered demonstration bans around the summit of Heiligendamm. The Berlin Rechtsanwalt Claus Forster, together with lawyer Eberhard Schultz, represents the applicants against the ban on demonstration for the airport Rostock-Laage (the "International interests" Germany against the demonstrators).

How do you value this prohibition of prohibition legally?
Claus Forster: I clearly see a violation of the paragraph 15 of the Association Act. However, law is generally controversial whether such general convictions can be intervened in the legally protected assembly law. It must be about a concrete assembly with concrete suspected moments. For the prohibitions around the G8 summit in Heiligendamm, it is a general distribution, with which all demonstrations are generally prohibited at a given time in a certain region. A detail screen is no longer made here. There were such measures earlier?
Claus Forster: Yes. The Federal Scarf Court has in connection with the protests against castor transports to the Wendland establish the legalism of such general distribution. Unlike the protests in and around Heiligendamm, however, a much smaller flat for the assembly-free zone was explained in Gorleben. It was about approx. 100 meters. The court charged the legalism of the association ban on the fact that protests are still located outside of this zone in the horizontal and vision of the addressees. Exactly this criterion was no longer valid in our case, as the prohibition zone comprises several kilometers and the addressees of the protest then no longer have been heard. Is this your main argument for the cancellation of the assembly ban before the airport Rostock-Laage?
Claus Forster: There are several arguments. The central question that is to be decided is why the demonstrators can only express their protest in this place. We argue that Rostock-Laage Airport is very important for the meeting participants as a demonstration site. Once because of the militar policy of the airport and second, because from there the heads of state and government participating in the G8 summit, land and start. But could not exactly the call to a blockade of the airport enjoy a confirmation of the demonstration ban?
Claus Forster: In fact, in general conviction, the argument plays a supporting role that the airport is made tight with a blockade and thus the summit is danger. In doing so, quotes from calls from the Internet are raised and overvalued. The planning of the organizers run initially beyond a demonstration. But even with a blockade of the airport goods the summit by no means danger. There are judgments of different dishes, which then describe a blockade as a legitimate protustant, if it primarily serves communicative purposes, that if it is to be made aware of a social or political problem. In the case of a blockade in Gorleben, a court has decided that a blockade itself represents a legitimate protege if the increase in the cost of castor transports should be aimed as sake. Then they had to be very optimistic to win the lawsuit?
Claus Forster: Legally, the arguments are safe on our side. But it is also good for life to believe that the judges are unimpressed by the political coarse weather situation their decisions. It is built up by the current debate a rough political prere for the confirmation of the prohibition. It will show how far the judges give this prere. What does the other way of instance look like?
Claus Forster: The site that loses Schwerin at the Administrative Court, on the other hand, in front of the Upper Administrative Court Mecklenburg-Vorpommern appeal. Then the normal instance path turns off. It would then only remain an extent complaint before the Federal Scarred Court. When is a decision to expect?
Claus Forster: Since there is no deadlines here, it is possible that a decision is currently being conceded immediately before the start of the protests. We've ever reached a quick decision. Finally, the security authorities have already prepared the prohibition of prohibition, the publication beached beyond. Thus, the authorities have to answer the express requirement, with which they argue in the immediate enforcement of frosting, themselves. But it is also possible that the demonstrations will be banned and this ban will be explained in retrospect for unlawfully?
Claus Forster: It is fundamentally possible. We will exploit all legal funds that we have success with the interim decision. But it is not excluded that the decision later falls.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply