Siegmunds Gehaltszettel aufgedeckt Friedrich Merz verliert völlig die Fassung. t1
Siegmunds Gehaltszettel aufgedeckt Friedrich Merz verliert völlig die Fassung
Im Mittelpunkt einer aktuellen parlamentarischen Debatte steht der AfD-Politiker Ulrich Segmund. In einer Rede vor dem Parlament thematisierte er die Rückführung syrischer Asylbewerber und kritisierte scharf die Migrationspolitik der etablierten Parteien, insbesondere der CDU. Segmund bezog sich dabei auf die veränderte Lage in Syrien nach dem Sturz von Baschar al-Assad.
Segmund argumentierte, dass mit dem Wegfall des Schutzgrundes in Syrien die rechtliche Grundlage für den Aufenthalt vieler Syrer entfalle. Er forderte ein geordnetes Rückführungs- und Abschiebeprogramm und verglich dies mit einem Kurs, der in Österreich von der FPÖ verfolgt werde. „Diesen Kurs gibt es in Deutschland nur mit der AfD“, so der Politiker. In diesem Zusammenhang verwies er auf eine hohe Zahl von Syrern im Bürgergeldbezug und bezeichnete das Bürgergeld als „Migrantengeld“. Konkret nannte er eine Zahl von 55 Prozent der Syrer, die Bürgergeld beziehen würden.
In seiner Rede griff Segmund auch die CDU und deren Spitzenkandidaten Friedrich Merz an. Er warf der CDU vor, mit der Forderung nach einer Abschaffung des Bürgergeldes im Wahlkampf zu lügen, da die CDU unter anderem durch den Ministerpräsidenten Riner Haselov die Einführung des Bürgergeldes erst ermöglicht habe. „Wie peinlich kann man hier Politik machen?“, fragte Segmund und bezeichnete die CDU-Politik als „Desinformation“. Die AfD hingegen stehe für einen klaren Kurs der Remigration und differenziere zwischen gut integrierten Migranten und solchen, die das System missbrauchen würden.
Im Anschluss an die Rede kam es zu einem Schlagabtausch mit dem Abgeordneten Herrn Striegel. Striegel konfrontierte Segmund mit der Frage nach der Position der AfD zu den Aussagen des Fraktionskollegen Hans Thomas Tillschneider, der öffentlich seine Solidarität mit dem gestürzten syrischen Diktator Baschar al-Assad erklärt hatte. Segmund wich einer direkten Antwort aus und erklärte, die AfD vertrete ausschließlich deutsche Interessen. „Die Zustände in Syrien kann ich nicht ändern, werde ich nicht ändern und möchte ich auch nicht ändern“, sagte Segmund.
Striegel kritisierte daraufhin die ausweichende Haltung der AfD und verwies auf Reisen von AfD-Mitgliedern nach Syrien. Er empfahl der Partei sarkastisch eine Tour durch die „schönsten Diktaturen der Welt“. Segmund konterte, die AfD kenne keine Denkverbote und setze auf Diplomatie mit allen Akteuren. Der Streit verdeutlicht die tiefe Kluft zwischen den Fraktionen in der Migrations- und Außenpolitik. Ob eine geordnete Rückführung syrischer Asylbewerber rechtlich und praktisch umgesetzt werden kann, bleibt nach dieser Debatte offen.
Parliament Erupts as Starmer Snaps During Heated PMQs Exchange and Tensions Escalate
A heated session of Prime Minister’s Questions saw Keir Starmer facing intense scrutiny over the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington, with opposition leaders accusing him of a breakdown in due process. The exchange, which took place in Parliament, centered on whether proper security clearance procedures were followed before Mandelson took up the post. Starmer acknowledged that the appointment was a mistake but insisted that the correct processes were observed, a claim that was met with sharp rebuttals from the opposition.
The Prime Minister stated that he was unaware that UKSV, the United Kingdom Security Vetting body, had recommended against granting clearance to Mandelson. “That is information that should have been brought to my attention,” Starmer told the House. He noted that Foreign Office officials granted security clearance against the recommendation of UKSV, a decision he described as a serious error of judgment. Sir Olly Robbins, the former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, testified yesterday that he did not share the UKSV recommendation with the Prime Minister or any other ministers.
Opposition leaders challenged Starmer’s account, pointing to advice he received from Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, on November 11, 2024. That advice stated that the appointment would require the necessary security clearances before confirming the Prime Minister’s choice. The opposition argued that this advice was ignored, and that confirming Mandelson before security clearances were completed did not constitute full due process. The Prime Minister defended his actions by citing a review by Sir Chris Wormald, who confirmed that appropriate processes were followed.
Sir Chris Wormald, who was asked to review the appointment process including the vetting, stated that for external appointments, security clearance typically occurs after appointment but before the person signs a contract and takes up the post. Starmer quoted Sir Olly Robbins as saying that the fact that developed vetting occurred after the announcement made “no material difference to the conclusion that was reached.” The Prime Minister also cited a letter from Sir Olly Robbins stating that when Starmer informed the House that proper process had been followed in respect of national security vetting, he was correct.
The opposition pressed further, noting that the due diligence document indicated Mandelson remained on the board of the Kremlin-linked defense company Sistema long after Russia’s first invasion of Ukraine in 2014. The opposition leader questioned why the Prime Minister sought to appoint a man with links to the Kremlin as ambassador to Washington. Starmer responded that any issues of national security were dealt with in the developed vetting process, and that Mandelson ultimately received clearance through that process. He reiterated that the problem was that UKSV’s recommendation against clearance was not brought to his attention.
Sir Olly Robbins’s testimony was a central point of contention. The opposition highlighted his statement that Mandelson was given access to highly classified briefings before receiving clearance, calling it a clear national security risk. The opposition also noted that Sir Olly Robbins said the Prime Minister’s team showed a dismissive attitude to vetting and argued that Mandelson did not need any vetting at all. Starmer countered by quoting Sir Olly Robbins directly: “I didn’t feel under pressure personally in terms of my judgment,” and that recommendations and decisions were “rigorously independent of any pressure.”
The Prime Minister defended his handling of the matter by stating that he lost confidence in the former permanent secretary after learning that the UKSV recommendation was not shared. “Anyone in my position would have lost confidence in the former permanent secretary,” Starmer said. He also accused the opposition leader of being wrong on multiple counts, including claiming that Mandelson could not have been cleared against security advice and that ministers must have been told. “Wrong, wrong, wrong,” Starmer said, adding that she rushed to judgment as she always did.
The opposition leader responded by accusing the Prime Minister of failing to follow the process set out by the Cabinet Secretary in November 2024. “He knows he did not follow due process. Yet he told the House he had,” she said. She stated that she could not accuse the Prime Minister of deliberately misleading the House but added that “everyone can see what has happened here.” The session concluded with the opposition leader asking whether the Prime Minister would finally take responsibility and go, to which Starmer replied that he was elected by the British people to deliver for the country and would not be distracted.
The debate highlighted a deep divide over the interpretation of events, with both sides claiming different conclusions from the same testimony. The Prime Minister maintained that Sir Olly Robbins’s evidence supported his position, while the opposition argued that it revealed a dismissive attitude toward security vetting and a failure to follow proper procedure. The exchange did not result in any new formal actions, but the issue is expected to remain a point of contention in Parliament.
