German politician admits drawing swastika on ballot paper
The incident occurred during a vote for a regional cross-border body in the southwestern state of Baden-Wuerttemberg, which includes representatives from Germany, France, and Switzerland. The Nazi symbol was discovered on Thursday, prompting an admission on Friday from the lawmaker.
The far-right, anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) party had unsuccessfully attempted to secure the election of its nominees in the vote.
Using the swastika is illegal in Germany and falls under a ban on the symbols of unconstitutional organizations.
The speaker, Muhterem Aras, described the incident as 'a disgrace for this parliament.' But, since it was a secret vote, it was not immediately clear who was responsible.
On Friday, Daniel Born, a deputy speaker of the legislature and member of the center-left Social Democrats, said that he had drawn the symbol next to the name of an AfD lawmaker.
He described his actions in a statement as a 'serious mistake' and apologized. He said that he was stepping down as deputy speaker and leaving his party's parliamentary group.
Aras called for him to give up his parliamentary seat, German news agency dpa reported.
Born said that he had not intended to make out that a far-right lawmaker had drawn the symbol. 'On the contrary, in a knee-jerk reaction, I wanted to show that votes for AfD are always votes for right-wing hatred and agitation, no matter in what election," he said.
AfD has firmly established itself as a force in German politics since it was formed 12 years ago, even as it has drifted steadily to the right.
In Germany's national election in February, it finished second with 20.8% of the vote, and is now the biggest opposition party in Berlin. However, mainstream parties refuse to work with it.
Born said in his statement that 'it no longer leaves me a minute's peace' that people are increasingly getting used to the party.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
18 minutes ago
- Reuters
Pope Leo discusses war in Ukraine with Russian Orthodox Church official
VATICAN CITY, July 26 (Reuters) - Pope Leo discussed the war in Ukraine on Saturday with Metropolitan Anthony, a senior cleric in the Russian Orthodox Church, in a possible effort to ease ties between the churches strained by Russia's invasion. Leo saw Anthony, chairman of the department of external church relations, and five other high-profile clerics during an audience in the morning, the Vatican said. "During the conversation, numerous issues were raised concerning the state of Orthodox-Catholic dialogue, as well as the ongoing conflicts in the world, including in Ukraine and the Middle East," the Russian Orthodox Church said in a statement. Since assuming the papacy in May, Leo has repeatedly appealed for peace in global conflicts and this month told visiting Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that the Vatican was willing to host Russia-Ukraine peace talks. Russian officials, however, have said they do not view the Vatican as a serious venue for talks because it is surrounded by NATO member Italy which has supported Ukraine. The head of Russia's Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, has been an enthusiastic backer of the invasion of Ukraine. The Russian church statement said that Kirill's congratulations were conveyed to Leo for his election as pope. "Pope Leo XIV expressed his gratitude to his holiness patriarch Kirill for his good wishes and noted the importance of developing relations with the Russian Orthodox Church," it added.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Keir Starmer will fight Corbyn's new party by copying Emmanuel Macron
It is easy to mock the new party launched in a struggle between its joint figureheads, but that is no reason to pass up the chance. It takes a special skill for one figurehead (Zarah Sultana) to announce the founding of a new party only for the other figurehead (Jeremy Corbyn) to deny, a day later, that it had happened (' discussions are ongoing '). Then, when Corbyn, three weeks later, announced that it was indeed ' time for a new kind of political party ', which appeared to be called Your Party because that was the name of the website, Sultana snapped on social media: ' It's not called Your Party!' It turned out that Your Party was a placeholder name and the real name will be decided democratically at the inaugural conference, details TBC. Mockery is always useful, because it reminds us how incapable the Corbynite tendency usually is at organising anything more complicated than a split. But it cannot be the whole story, because we know two other things. One is that there is a big pool of potential support for soft Corbynism, if it can suppress the doctrinaire Marxism, the disdain for Britain and the accusation of antisemitism (denied by Corbyn, of course) that is never far from the surface. The other is that Corbyn's allies showed that they could, briefly, run a competent general election campaign when they came close to unseating Theresa May in 2017. So the Not-Your-Party could be a force to be reckoned with. According to some opinion polls, it would take most support away from the Green Party, but it would also siphon votes away from Labour. It is all very well Peter Kyle, the science secretary, describing his former leader as ' not a serious politician ', but Labour has to take the threat from the new party seriously. It is doing so. Keir Starmer has been criticised – not least by Sultana – for copying Farage and thereby pushing Labour voters who are repelled by Reform in her direction. But I think this is to get Starmer's strategy the wrong way round. He knows that part of Labour's electoral coalition is repelled by Farage, but he wants to use that force of magnetic repulsion to try to keep hold of those voters, not to drive them away. This is what might be called the 'Emmanuel Macron' strategy. Macron twice fought off a threat from Jean-Luc Mélenchon, the French equivalent of Corbyn-Sultana, by becoming the leading candidate against Marine Le Pen, the anti-immigration candidate of the party formerly known as the Front National. In 2017, and again in 2022, Macron came top in a divided field (winning just 24 per cent and 28 per cent of the vote) in the first round, forcing voters to choose between him, a centrist with roots in the Socialist Party, and Le Pen, regarded with horror by polite French opinion. Each time, he won the run-off vote comfortably. By running against Le Pen, Macron was able to unite a coalition stretching from Mélenchon through Macron's former socialists to the remnants of the establishment conservatives. Starmer wants to fight the next general election as, in effect, a presidential run-off contest between him and Farage. He knows that the threat of Farage as prime minister is his most powerful weapon. Presenting the election as a contest between Starmer and Farage is the best way of squeezing not just the Corbyn-Sultana vote, but the Green Party vote and even that of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. The one point on which apologists for the Corbyn-Sultana party become evasive is when they are asked if they would be helping to let Farage in. That is the irresistible logic of the first-past-the-post voting system, but they have to try to deny it to keep their dream alive. Most longstanding Corbynites understand this very well. That is why Corbyn was so reluctant to launch the new party, which some of his acolytes were keen to do the moment he won his Islington North constituency as an independent last year. He knows that the only reason he nearly succeeded in 2017 was that his supporters had taken over the Labour Party. An outfit outside the party, on the other hand, will quickly discover that support for Gaza and anti-capitalism, however wide, is not deep. If Farage's popularity holds up, the next election will be decided in seats that are contested between Labour and Reform; in those seats, a vote for the new party will be a vote for Farage. It will be time, as Macron said in France, for all good people to rally to the cause of defeating anti-immigrant authoritarianism. That is a message that could work for Starmer here with voters otherwise tempted to vote Tory, Lib Dem, Green – and with voters attracted to whatever the Corbyn-Sultana party ends up being called.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Households at risk of £12.7bn bill for switching off turbines on windy days
Households and businesses risk facing a £12.7bn-a-year bill to cover the cost of switching off wind turbines and solar farms under net zero plans. The grid operator has warned that the cost of paying energy firms to shut down renewables could surge by more than fivefold by the end of the decade. But it also said the Government could avoid the payments by abandoning its climate targets and prolonging the use of gas. Critics said that the latest net zero costs would come as a 'slap in the face to hard-pressed consumers struggling to pay their energy bills'. The payouts will be sparked by the huge expansion of intermittent renewable power sources under Mr Miliband's plan to decarbonise the energy grid. When the wind blows strongly and the sun shines, turbines and solar farms produce more electricity in a short period than the network can cope with. To stop the system being overwhelmed, potentially triggering widespread blackouts, the grid operator has to step in and tell firms to switch them off. Energy companies are then handed payments, known as 'constraint costs', to compensate them for the electricity those sites would have generated. Ministers said they would 'minimise' the increase in costs by fast-tracking new infrastructure such as pylons to connect offshore wind farms to the grid, despite opposition in areas where these are likely to be built. It comes after Ed Miliband was forced to increase subsidies for new wind farms to 'eye-watering' levels to get developers to build them. The Energy Secretary is already under pressure from No 10 over when his green electricity drive will deliver promised lower bills for households. In a new report the National Energy System Operator (NESO) warned that such subsidies could increase by more than fivefold by the end of the decade. It found that in the worst case scenario, compensation payouts could surge from £2.5bn a year at present to a high of £12.7bn a year in 2030. That would occur if the Government fails to force through any major upgrades to the grid, such as new pylon routes, over the next five years. In the report, the NESO said: 'Connection dates for new network build remain uncertain and changes to delivery timelines could significantly impact balancing costs, particularly around 2030. 'If no further network reinforcement takes place (current transmission network remains unchanged) constraint costs could peak at £12.7bn in 2030.' The NESO also projected a surge in the total rebalancing costs – including constraint costs – that taxpayers will face to fund the switch to net zero. If current policies work out, including 'strong consumer engagement' in reducing electricity usage, those total costs are still likely to rise by £8bn a year. The operator found that the best case net zero compliant scenario involved a rapid switch to hydrogen, reducing the financial burden to just over £6bn. But the cheapest option for households was a 'counterfactual' scenario in which Mr Miliband abandoned plans to phase out gas use and petrol cars. In that instance the NESO calculated that total rebalancing costs would rise only slightly, to just over £3bn a year at the end of the decade. The operator expects payouts to fall back after 2030, though only in the counterfactual scenario would they drop below current levels by 2035. Mike Foster, the chief executive of the Energy and Utilities Alliance, said the report showed that ministers should be focussing on a switch to hydrogen. He said: 'So-called constraint payments are a slap in the face to hard-pressed consumers struggling to pay their energy bills. 'The warning from the system operator, that they could reach £13bn by 2030, over £400 a year for the average bill, cannot be justified. 'What is worse, is all that surplus wind and solar power generation wasted could be used to produce green hydrogen – the holy grail in reaching net zero.' Octopus Energy, one of the country's leading providers, said that taxpayers have already forked out £700m on constraint costs this year. The business said that was already £250m more than at the same time last year, adding that the projected £8bn cost by 2030 was 'staggering'. It had previously calculated that subsidies would hit the £6bn mark by the end of the decade, at a cost of £200 per household in the UK. A spokesman for the net zero department said: 'These claims are fundamentally misleading, and wrongly assume that no network infrastructure will be built over the next five years. 'Through our clean power mission, we are working at pace to deliver the biggest upgrade in Great Britain's electricity network in decades, which will minimise constraint costs.'
