Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE!
|
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
| Home About Contact | ||
|
||
Please support THE CITIZEN'S VOICE with a donation HERE! |
||
Saxony-Anhalt 2021 vs. 2026 - Between Self-Glorification and Reality ShockOn September 16, 2021, the newly elected state parliament of Saxony-Anhalt stood under the sign of a new beginning: CDU parliamentary group leader Siegfried Borgwardt presented a self-confident record and an optimistic perspective. “We were never gone. We were always there for 19 years and were always winners,” he declared, dismissing the opposition's criticism as unrealistic and negative. He defended the coalition agreement against accusations of lacking concreteness, for example regarding climate targets or social security. Four years later, at the beginning of 2026, the gaps between rhetoric and reality are glaringly apparent: Economic weakness, industrial insolvencies, rising energy prices, and social risks are shaping the state. Economy: Stagnation, Insolvencies, and Energy ShockIn 2021, Borgwardt emphasized the state's economic stability. In the debate, he argued that Saxony-Anhalt had almost halved its CO₂ emissions since 1990 and was relying on “the rationality of the citizen” instead of rigid requirements. He also responded to criticism from the Greens: “We are not a party of bans, we rely on the rationality of the citizen.”Today, it is clear that this rhetoric barely captures economic reality. High energy prices, partly caused by ambitious climate targets and the switch to renewable energies, are massively burdening energy-intensive industries in particular. The chemical industry, a core sector of the state, is a prime example of the consequences: At the end of 2025, DOMO Caproleuna GmbH filed for insolvency, affecting around 585 jobs in Leuna and Premnitz. Despite state bridging measures, the situation remains precarious – an example of how political climate targets and a lack of economic support interact to endanger production sites. High energy prices are also affecting other economic sectors: Small and medium-sized enterprises complain of rising operating costs, declining competitiveness, and investment restraint. The CDU's stability promises from 2021 stand in stark contrast to reality. Demographics and Labor Market: Pressure is RisingIn 2021, Borgwardt barely mentioned demographic change. Today, the population is slightly declining, the working-age population is shrinking, and the shortage of skilled workers is increasingly acting as a brake on growth. Structural problems are hitting industry even harder: Even if energy and climate policy were theoretically implemented correctly, the people needed to actually carry out this transformation are often missing.Social Situation: Burdens are IncreasingIn his speech, Borgwardt defended the social measures: “I can tell you, it is by no means going down the drain,” he said, pointing to child promotion, daycare centers, and state blindness allowance. Today, social burdens have risen massively. Energy prices and inflation are placing additional strain on households. The previously highlighted social security is being undermined by rising cost of living. Many families are at risk of poverty, despite formally increased social spending.The discrepancy between rhetorical claim and actual impact is clear: Measures exist, but they do not compensate for the additional cost burdens. Climate Policy: Ambitious, but Economically DamagingIn 2021, Borgwardt defended the coalition agreement against criticism of a lack of concretization of climate targets and rejected measures such as area commitments or solar obligations. He emphasized: “Certainly not, as you want it, in the forest,” which aimed at consideration for citizens' initiatives.Today it is clear that this policy has its own side effects. The ambitious climate targets, combined with the switch to renewable energies, are leading to high energy prices that burden industry, crafts, and private households. The chemical industry is particularly hard hit, but many small businesses are also struggling with energy costs that threaten their competitiveness. This shows that the “rationality of the citizen” invoked at the time is not sufficient to cushion the economic and social side effects. Between Rhetoric and RealityThe 2021 debate was marked by self-glorification: stability, competence, social responsibility, and visionary industrial policy. Four years later, the picture is:The economy is stagnating, the chemical industry is seeing insolvencies, energy costs are rising drastically. The population is shrinking, the shortage of skilled workers is exacerbating structural problems. Social risks and the threat of poverty are rising, while expenditures increase but burdens are shifted to households. Climate policy goals are leading to higher energy prices that burden industry and households. Borgwardt's promise to work “for the good of the state” now reveals clear gaps: The coalition has not solved the structural challenges but is partly shifting them to coming years, while industry, population, and social infrastructure are coming under increasing pressure. The discrepancy between confident rhetoric and current reality highlights the need for concrete, actionable measures – from energy policy relief to strategic industrial and social policy. The speech by Siegfried Borgwardt (CDU) and the discussion on 16.09.2021 in the State Parliament of Saxony-Anhalt Siegfried Borgwardt (CDU): Mr. President! This shows you how democracy-friendly the largest parliamentary group and the coalition as a whole are. We have jointly decided that you can do it this way now. Ladies and gentlemen! The citizens of the state of Saxony-Anhalt made a clear commitment to democracy, to fundamental values, to a free and open society, and to the principles of our rule of law in the state election on June 6, dear comrades. (Laughter) The basis of our current coalition agreement was a change in parliamentary reform that was decided in the previous legislative period. My thanks today still go to the opposition parliamentary group sitting on the far left; because that was an essential principle for us and a foundation on which we could build our coalition and our coalition agreement, because we had enough time and no longer so many indefinite legal terms, as the very esteemed lawyers say. And we also no longer have 137 review mandates like in the last coalition agreement. Colleague Kosmehl quoted a line from Mr. Westernhagen – I want to adapt it a bit: We were never gone. We were always there for 19 years and were always winners. (Applause) I tell you this because I am more than convinced and glad to belong to the largest people's party in Saxony-Anhalt, namely the CDU. If I belonged to the LEFT, I would get burnout. For 19 years you have told people how catastrophic everything is here, how bad we are, and how everything is going downhill. (Laughter) The voters don't reward you for that. Much worse: The more strongly you say it, the fewer percent you get. You can see that when you look at the last 19 years. I find that sad. It would have been better perhaps to also acknowledge – and then I'll come back to the motion – what we have actually implemented, and in great unanimity of the parliamentary groups of the so-called democratic center. And I want to tell you, Ms. von Angern: You used to be better at this. One could headline it like this: What cannot be, what must not be. We now have five women in the state government. For years it was said that there are always so few, even in the CDU parliamentary group. Now we have five women and four men. What do you say? – You actually think that's good. But you wouldn't have trusted the Minister-President to want strong women. (Eva von Angern, DIE LINKE, laughs) - What cannot be, what must not be. You can read the original quote. The same applies to the CDU parliamentary group. We have become significantly younger and more female – nobody talks about that anymore, by the way, not even the journalists – because we now have nine women and thus the most women any parliamentary group in this state parliament has ever had. That has to be said clearly. (Approval) But that's life, dear friends. (Approval) And if I hadn't been there for 19 years... As I said: I don't get burnout so easily because I belong to a large people's party. (Laughter) Now I want to address a few points because I want to do it like the Minister-President. I mean by that that I want to become clearer in the government declaration about the corona pandemic, finances, and similar things. I just want to go into three short points. Effective climate protection policy: The very esteemed colleague Lüddemann said here that there is nothing concrete at all in the coalition agreement about this. Now I have to say that I am not one of those who criticize former coalition partners and condemn them wholesale. I am far from that. But I at least expect people to read the coalition agreement. (Interjection from Cornelia Lüddemann, GREENS) - It starts with an analysis, Ms. Lüddemann. Your esteemed Minister-President gloriously announced in Baden-Württemberg that the coalition agreement includes the target of 1,000 wind turbines. I can tell you that we have 2,858 wind energy plants in Saxony-Anhalt. I repeat the sentence I said for five years in the last coalition: We are making every effort and doing everything possible. But Saxony-Anhalt alone cannot save the world. And we alone cannot achieve the climate targets either. (Unrest) I know what you always said about it: But we have to be pioneers. We have to start somewhere. We started a long time ago. In the last year alone, we built 43 wind turbines. The second point is: Nothing concrete. You will not find any coalition agreement on this point that is as concrete. By the way, it is significantly more concrete than the previous one we negotiated with you. It states that emissions are to be reduced by 5.65 million t CO₂ equivalents. There was never a concrete figure anywhere before. I tell you, I viewed that with caution because it is always difficult when you commit to numbers. But that was the joint decision. But to say we have nothing concrete is not entirely honest, dear colleague. The next thing is, Saxony-Anhalt also needs little remedial teaching. Since 1990, we have almost halved our CO₂ emissions from 49 million t to 26 million t in 2018. And you say nothing is happening here. If you now join the lawsuit – I will have the opportunity elsewhere to go into what the German Environmental Aid is and who benefits whom here, dear colleagues – (Applause) and if one assumes that it affects eight federal states – in some you are personally involved – then I wish you much joy in the counter-arguments; because then you will be sued yourselves. The next point is – I also want to tell you this – the LEFT parliamentary group probably thinks, in quotation marks, because it is not in the state government, that this is a social downward mobility agenda and social security is going down the drain. I can tell you, it is by no means going down the drain. I would like to remind you once of the starting situation in the previous coalition of CDU, SPD, and GREENS. We agreed on an awful lot of very good social policy measures as well. This includes, among other things, the amendment of the Child Promotion Act – you know that – with the regulation to charge contributions only for one child. In addition, staffing ratios were improved. We also increased the state blindness allowance, which had caused us problems for years and where it was extremely unpleasant for me to be invited every time. You know that too. Federal expenditures rose in 2019 to more than 1 billion €, i.e., 1,000 million €, namely exactly 1.04 billion €. But that is not only related to the pandemic. In addition, ladies and gentlemen, significant social policy benefits from the federal government were added to the state measures: 1 billion € for all-day care, 5 billion € for social housing construction. However, you do not participate in that in Berlin; because first you sold the apartments and now you buy them back for double the money. (Interjection: Yes!) That is your responsibility, ladies and gentlemen of the LEFT. I can also tell you: There were also 3 billion € for hospitals as well as for better wages and care. This list could be continued indefinitely. I can tell you, this is not social coldness. We attached great importance to it. The 9,995 respondents who participated in the Infratest dimap survey attributed social competence to the CDU parliamentary group at 61% – that was the top competence field in the three areas alongside finances and internal security. That is why it was also important for us – the co-negotiators know that I always negotiated this at the forefront – to say: We leave the status quo in place, which we thankfully succeeded in doing, also through intervention by the CDU parliamentary group in the Bundestag, so that we no longer have to address this perspective if the Good Kita Act does not come. I am expressly grateful to the ladies and gentlemen members of the Bundestag for that. We would have done that anyway because it was good. So I cannot understand accusing us here of social coldness. Finally: I would have also wished for a better start, a start without a second ballot. But that didn't tear us apart in 2016 either, but allowed us to work well. The problems we had arose from interpretation questions on certain points. Everyone here knows that. So I am completely optimistic that we will work excellently together and move forward. This one stumble – as I said, I would have liked to avoid it and I think the other colleagues too – does not burden this coalition. Let us work for the good of the state. Next time, when the Minister-President has given his government declaration, we will still have the opportunity to address your issues explicitly and extensively. – Thank you very much. (Applause) Vice President Wulf Gallert: I first have a question from Mr. Striegel. Do you want to answer it? – Yes. – Mr. Striegel, that gives you the chance to ask it. Sebastian Striegel (GREENS): Dear colleague Borgwardt, yes, there is a CO₂ target in this coalition agreement, no question. But with this CO₂ target there is the same problem as with the federal government: It has set itself targets. But it has taken too few measures to actually achieve these targets. That's why my question to you is, where is the binding force supposed to come from? I don't find any binding measures in this coalition agreement. There is no 2% area target, which by the way your party now considers necessary at the federal level. At least that's how I understood the Climate Union. Where is the binding obligation to install solar systems on roofs? None of that appears in the coalition agreement. I also ask you: How is the sentence to be understood according to which you leave yourself a back door in the coalition agreement to postpone the coal phase-out even to a point after 2038? In the coalition agreement there is a formulation that the coal phase-out would be carried out at an even later date if the energy prices don't really work out – from your point of view. Siegfried Borgwardt (CDU): May I answer? Vice President Wulf Gallert: You have the floor, dear Mr. Borgwardt. Siegfried Borgwardt (CDU): I might start from the back, dear Mr. Striegel. What unites us with the FDP: We are not a party of bans, we rely on the rationality of the citizen. (Applause) If you want to do or enforce something against the citizen, then you are a party of bans. I tell you one thing: If all federal states had 2,858 wind turbines like us, we would have already doubled the climate targets. You know that too. (Lively applause – Sebastian Striegel, GREENS: What about the 2%? – Further interjections) That's why I say here once again – also regarding what your very esteemed parliamentary group leader introduced earlier: Yes, we support the possibilities of confrontation, but we also have great respect for citizens' initiatives that see major problems in this regard. I have to tell you that. We also keep them in mind. We want to do it together with them. – First point. Second point. We have regulated it bindingly. We have – this is again to explain, for transparency and understanding; in hindsight we were skeptical about it at the time, you know; I'm now talking about the culture convention and the education convention – a climate convention. We do this deliberately. It is also stated there so that we can talk about it with the broad population and with experts, whether a climate protection law (Sebastian Striegel, GREENS: But we don't have a knowledge problem! We have an implementation problem!) – wait and see – actually fulfills the targeted goals or whether we possibly don't need this climate protection law at all because of the measures that come during implementation. (Approval) That's just how it is. I don't want to go into the points now. The other eight federal states will be pleased. They have already called us because they largely support our view. We will certainly work very closely with them when we eventually see a nice lawsuit. Vice President Wulf Gallert: Good. Now we have an intervention from Mr. Loth. – Mr. Loth, you have the floor. Please. Hannes Loth (AfD): Dear Mr. Borgwardt, I don't know how you arrived at the number of wind energy plants you mentioned here. But I can tell you – through our inquiries we arrived at exactly the number – that there are 3,042 wind energy plants in our state. Of these 3,042 wind energy plants, 943 are not in priority wind areas, so they will soon have to be dismantled and rebuilt in priority wind areas, if at all. Since you haven't even grasped this number correctly, I doubt that the other numbers you mentioned here are correct at all. (Laughter and applause) Vice President Wulf Gallert: You can answer, Mr. Borgwardt. Siegfried Borgwardt (CDU): That was a typical Loth, (Laughter) I say here once for the colleagues who haven't been here as long: (Hannes Loth, AfD: Yes, factually correct! Fact check!) not properly researched and not properly described. So, there are three different things. One is correct: The number of plants that are not in the suitability area is correct. That has always been our criticism, that they have to go first – without question. But you know that they are old plants. We agree on that. So the first number is correct. The second number is not correct because repowering measures have of course already taken place. You know that. The CDU parliamentary group pushed that through vehemently at the time: 1:2. (Hannes Loth, AfD: Well!) – Yes, 1:2. You have to dismantle two, (Hannes Loth, AfD: No!) then you can build one new. (Hannes Loth, AfD: No!) – Please read it, that's how it is. We didn't change that in this coalition agreement either. (Interjection from Hannes Loth, AfD – Interjection: Maybe you could listen for once!) We didn't change that either. Then there's also: Which plants are you counting? – The plants I mentioned now are those in wind farms. The other wind energy plants – you may know, in my district there are two that were built around 1990, which are not subject to these conditions at all; one is at a private company, but I don't want to go into detail now – are of course also to be subtracted. They also don't have the classic height. So, the numbers were researched by us and I believe they are correct too, but check again as I clearly said here. So I have nothing to add to that. Vice President Wulf Gallert: Good. – Wait a minute! There is now another question from Ms. Frederking. I would allow it, although I only saw the registration after Mr. Borgwardt's contribution to the debate was over. But I can't one hundred percent rule out that Ms. Frederking registered ten seconds earlier. The question now is: Mr. Borgwardt, do you want to allow this question? Siegfried Borgwardt (CDU): I'll listen to it first. I can always decide then. Vice President Wulf Gallert: You can still decide. – Good. So he allows it. Whether he then answers is up to the members of parliament, unlike government members. – You have the floor. Dorothea Frederking (GREENS): Thank you very much. – Mr. Borgwardt, it may please you: Your numbers are correct. (Applause) Today they are correct. That's not always the case. We have already had disputes about this several times. Now the numbers again. You said that some wind turbines were added. You named the number. I don't have the number now, but I have the capacities. Siegfried Borgwardt (CDU): I have them too. Dorothea Frederking (GREENS): From January to July we had an addition of 37 MW in Saxony-Anhalt. I just want to throw the number into the room to make it clear where we need to go. I have calculated: To become climate neutral, we don't need more wind turbines in Saxony-Anhalt than today – I have always emphasized that – but we need more capacity, i.e., larger plants that bring more energy. To achieve climate neutrality by 2035, we need an annual addition of 450 MW. Today we are at 37 MW. So we need easily ten times as much. If we want to repower old plants – you described that too – that have unfavorable locations and are outside priority and suitability areas – whether 1:1 or, as you say, 1:2 – then we need areas for that. These areas do not exist today. Therefore, areas must be designated. The prerequisites must be created. Our criticism of your coalition agreement is this: You write goals into it and wish for something. But you do not explain with which measures and political instruments – in this case to enshrine 2% in the state development law – this is to be implemented. The prerequisites are missing for that. Therefore it cannot work. Hence my question: Where are the new, larger, taller, more powerful wind turbines supposed to be built? (Approval) Siegfried Borgwardt (CDU): Dear Ms. Frederking, certainly not, as you want it, in the forest. I tell you that clearly right now. (Applause) You don't rule that out either. I say clearly and plainly now: We will do a clear inventory analysis. A whole part is being sued. We will wait for these lawsuits. We will wait for them too. We won't do anything against the population; we take them with us. I am very sure that we are talking about new repowering plants that then have more megawatts than now. Whether that has to be realized with huge further resource consumption of area or whether it can't be done on the area that is there now... I will not answer any further question. (Interjection) I just want to finish answering. Otherwise this becomes an endless story. One thing is completely clear: I will not answer any more questions. (Laughter) I have now explained to you how it works. We are very confident that we will manage it. That does not mean that we will build up the forest and not take lawsuits from citizens' initiatives seriously or somehow suppress them. We will not do that. (Applause) Vice President Wulf Gallert: Good. – Then we are at the end of the debate contribution. I would like to explain briefly the following: It is important that questions during the debate contribution of the person standing here are indicated, by the way also for interventions. This has the following reason: Otherwise we have an endless chain of questions and interventions that then no longer deal with the debate contribution of the speaker, but with the questions, interventions, and answers that came after. This way we really get a bit off track. Therefore, I ask everyone to always clearly register questions and interventions during the debate contribution of the person standing here. Author: AI-Translation - АИИ | |
|
| Other articles: |
 | Is the End of Opinion-Free-ness Threatening? Where Can the Censorship Democrats Go Now?It is a dark day for all friends of censorship and so-called fact-checking. Because while X (formerly Twitter) has for some time now developed into a veritable Eldorado of unchecke... zum Artikel |
 | The German Lemming - A People on AutopilotThe German lemming is a fascinating creature. It lives, it breathes, it works – but most importantly: It obeys.... zum Artikel |
 | Green Disinformation and Misrepresentations – Sebastian Striegel’s Speech in the Saxony-Anhalt State Parliament – Facts, Omissions, and Rhetorical Smoke ScreensOn March 4, 2026, the draft of an implementation law for the Heat Planning Act and the decarbonization of heating networks was on the agenda in the Saxony-Anhalt State Parliament.... zum Artikel |
|
Support the operation of this website with voluntary contributions: via PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/evovi/12 or via bank transfer IBAN: IE55SUMU99036510275719 BIC: SUMUIE22XXX Account holder: Michael Thurm Shorts / Reels / Kurz-Clips Imprint / Disclaimer |