It actually is - if you can identify the made up parts.
The rest really is somewhat interesting.
First, context. The AFD is the german far right party (11% of votes on the last EU elections, which is a downwards trend compared to their results at the last national elections) - its the party that noone wants to cooperate with (they are politically ostracized) and its also the party that follows the nationalists drumbeat (Farage, Trump, ..) of destroying europe from within. Their current main pre election campaign topic is a 8 year old that was killed by a foreigner.
But also - being against further integration (Germany paying more for social projects throughout the EU). As context for that you have to know, that in the current economical and financial configuration - 'all the money' ends up in germany (lowest investment risk, high industry percentage, export focused - no growth opportunities in the european south - really. This has to do with the comparative strength of the german economy. They even lowered income (Harz 4) to outcompete other markets better. And they reaped benefits for the last ten years (now its different, as global growth and export opportunities are declining again) (thats why we now have signed Mercosur.))
Now - Europe has been created in a configuration where you really have tied together France and Germany (which have very different economies, and 'competitiveness' levels, so that if germany outcompetes the rest of europe again, france is there to 'remind' them, that they have to be more considerate to their other partners as well. Mainly france.
) politically - that kind of was how the EU was conceptualized (designed).
So - considering, that britain now left and germany might not have as easy of a blocking majority as in the past (33%), they will now have to cooperate with france more often - that is correct.
Now from a position of "Germany first" (which the AFD is selling), this is bad. The speaker is correct on that one.
The speaker also mentions, that 'the only thing the UK wanted was to remain more independent - and not be forced into tighter social integtrration' (paying more for people in the poorer countries) - this is correct as well and can be seen as the actual reason, why the political forces behind the brexit campaign started to write the populist playbook for brexit.
A few things that arent correct at all: "We now need to quickly write laws that allow "countries that exit the EU to remain better economical friends". No - not at all, no need. (The UK is big enough so that those decisions will get made in that specific case - through negotiations, without needed established 'common' law.) Because there arent many other countries that want to follow the british 'example' (of now being fed by the US), and because as the EU you dont want them to be many. If smaller countries would also leave the EU, they would have to negotiate outcomes individually (just as the UK did), and have worse negotiation positions than the UK has. Which kind of is the point.
Now - why are you demanding "common rules" for exiting countries? Again, because the AFD is part of the fraction, that wants to 'destroy' the EU from within. (National independance movement.)
Did the UK really just "want what it had"? No - a path was set for further integration - and as they saw it THEY came up with the entire movement to leave the EU. LEAVE the EU.
Is further integration necessary? Kind of - because of the way the Euro works - which doesnt allow smaller countries in the south, in the monetary union to compete with germany - so they will go into perpetual crisis - if we dont solve that somehow/better. And further integration kind of always was the project of the EU in the first place.
If we don't fix the issues with our more southern countries, economy wise (which will cost the states in the north more money, hopefully not in perpetuity) - that will also become an existential issue for the EU - which again, the AFD - likes.
Did Germany or France make so many mistakes in not giving the british, what they would like to have (everything, without paying), not really. The issue here always was - if you give them what they demanded (free movement of money, but not people) - all the rich boys would have moved from the enitre EU to GB, wile running their EU businesses remotely - being pampered by the UK tax wise - and not having to fear public resentment - because all the poor workers wouldnt be allowed in country. (Thats the populist version - you can also make an argument, that kind of draws the same story, but for banking and finance sectors only - so without people.) GB would have loved that - the rest of europe wouldnt have. Then GB would have refused to pay more for the problems of the European south, and celebrated all the way to the year 2100.
Does hard Brexit (no access to UK markets) hurt the UK as well as Germany. Yes. That was allways the point. Its a loose-loose configuration.
But it (no access to EU markets) hurts the UK more. Because its the smaller market, with more dependency on EU ressource and supply chains.
So what the speaker in the video is saying, is kind of correct - but then she is in the exactly same political fraction as Farage and Trump ('Germany first'), she has no political power whatsoever, and as a smaller opposition party leader in germany, her job is to make up excuses, why the current government failed in everything they did. Thats literally her job. (To make the public more angry, to vote for opposition parties.) And she is in a direct coalition with the parties responsible for Brexit, and Trumps america first stance (they exchange campaign managers, and other experts.)
So - if thats your sole source of information - you by now outed yourself as a far right banner carrier - that never thinks beyond the party line.
Again - the UK cant blame germany, or france for the situation they are in currently. They did it to themselves.
"We need to harm GB greatly, so they will come into the union again, defeated - out of necessity" - was a potential political tactic, thats not compatible with endless negotiations. Endless negotiations result in "a middle ground". But its a perfectly arguable political stance - if the UK wants to move towards hard Brexit (=hurt the EU most) it will become the palybook again - no doubts about it.
But again - its the UK that first decided, we want to hurt the EU, by leaving the union. Not the EU. You cant pin that onto EU member states.
With the far right you have to always be careful of populistic "reality reversals", they try to make up fake continuities that, start from a point - where brexit was just something that doesnt have to concern anyone too much - right, right? And then end up being the victims somehow. Its boring. Thats all they ever do..
Then they make and finance youtube channels like "
Cassius", that takes the time, to subtitle german right wing politicians speaking in the german parliament. Then they share that to their twitter army. shamizie kind of is part of that movement.
(Sole source of news for him.
Carrying allong the youtube searchwords, people should use, to end up with far right content on the net. What was it last time? Obama threatens the people of the UK, not to do brexit?
If you type in the right search terms into google - more than half of all results will be non mainstream opinions. So the far right do SEO in that field to recruit peoples minds.)