AfD MP complains against special meetings of the Bundestag

The AfD MP Christian Wirth has claimed a lawsuit to the Federal Constitutional Court to prevent the planned special meetings of the old Bundestag. According to the will of the Union and the SPD, a special fund of the Union and the SPD will be adopted and a reform of the debt brake anchored in the Basic Law. The aim is investments in infrastructure and defense.

In a message that the Federal Constitutional Court must clarify the question of what an old Bundestag could decide between the Bundestag election and the constitution of the new Bundestag. He had made an organization system with a request for an engraving decision, said Wirth. Four other AfD MPs contribute to this. According to the application published by Wirth, the plaintiffs are violated in their rights of membership.

In addition, the AfD parliamentary group Bundestag President Bärbel Bas had asked a legal letter to cancel the two planned special meetings of the old Bundestag on Friday. The faction set BAS a deadline until Monday and then wants to go to court if necessary.

In their explorations to form a possible new federal government, the SPD and Union agreed the special infrastructure pot of 500 billion euros and a loosening of the debt brake. The plans require a change in the Basic Law, for which two -thirds majorities are necessary in the Bundestag and the Federal Council. In the new Bundestag, which meets on March 25, the Union, SPD and Greens no longer come to such a majority because of the gains of AfD and left. The special meetings are planned for March 13th and March 18th.

AfD-Vice and Group July Brandner told the DPA news agency about the Appeal of the MP Wirth that of course everyone could complain as he wanted. “The colleague Wirth immediately sued. But we think that is not so safe,” said Brandner. “If you go to the Federal Constitutional Court right away, there is a risk that the court will say: We do not deal with it – you could have tried an agreement yourself.” By writing to Bas, the parliamentary group wanted to show the court that attempts had been made to clarify the topic.