Коалиция в Германия? Die Zeit - Collapsed coalition: Relax, Germany Is Not Facing a State Crisis * SPIEGEL ONLINE - Germany, Democracy and the World
Добави мнение Мнения:14
| ...в допълнение и/или като контратеза на написаното в "Наблюдател" Натисни тук There are some in both Germany and abroad who have interpreted failed coalition talks as a state crisis. It's not. But it has taught us three important lessons. Von Marcus Gatzke und Marlies Uken 23. November 2017, 1) A State Crisis? Not Really There is no question that what Germany has experienced in the past several days is unprecedented. Since the founding of the Federal Republic in 1949, the country has always been led by coalition governments. But negotiations ahead of those coalitions have generally only lasted a couple of weeks. Never before has the country witnessed four parties spend weeks on preliminary discussions only to have one party back out following several sleepless nights of talks. That is what happened last Sunday night. After more than four weeks of negotiations, the Free Democrats (FDP) threw in the towel, leaving Chancellor Merkel's Christian Democratic (CDU), its Bavarian partner the Christian Social Union (CSU) and the Greens to pick up the pieces. The four-party constellation – known as a "Jamaica coalition" because the colors associated with the parties involved are the same as those on the Jamaican flag – would have been a first at the federal level in German. It was, however, not to be. But to call it a crisis of state, as some commentators both at home and abroad have done, is rather overblown. There are two options our constitution foresees in such a situation: a minority government or new elections. Neither option, of course, is particularly appealing. But just because the country has never encountered this situation before doesn't mean it is sinking into chaos. There is a clearly defined procedure that will carry us through the coming months – and its outcome is unclear. Nothing more and nothing less. State institutions will continue to function regardless of whether or not the Free Democrats (FDP) can envision a coalition with the conservatives and the Greens. We have a caretaker government in office, which will take care of the day-to-day, and we are far away from a situation in which citizens begin taking to the streets. Those speaking of a crisis of state should glance eastward at Ukraine, where parts of the state are collapsing before our very eyes. Or perhaps to Poland or Hungary, where governments are surreptitiously dismantling democratic checks and balances. What Germany is experiencing is a new political reality. Dramatizing the failure of coalition talks risks driving people further away from the political process than they already are. If everything is dramatic, yet nothing in our lives really changes, why should people still be interested in politics? Those speaking now of a crisis of state are only really helping the right-wing populists from the Alternative for Germany (AfD), a party designed to offer a political home to the frustrated. 2) Germany's Disparate Political Landscape Even if the coalition negotiations didn't collapse until Sunday night, it has been glaringly obvious since the general election on Sept. 24, 2017 that Germany finds itself facing a new political reality. For years, it has been clear that the old majorities – created by pairing the Social Democrats (SPD) with the Greens, or the conservatives with the FDP – no longer work. The arrival of the AfD in the Bundestag, Germany's parliament, has solidified that development. And it doesn't look like the right-wing populists are going to disappear anytime soon. Multi-party coalitions like a Jamaica coalition could become the rule rather than the exception. The only other option, after all, is a grand coalition, matching Merkel's conservatives with the SPD. It is the same form of government that held power in Austria for decades and which Germany has had for eight of the last 12 years – but it isn't the kind of thing anyone really wants. In hindsight, to be sure, Germany's government didn't perform poorly in the previous four years. Indeed, it managed to implement a handful of political projects. But in the long run, such an alliance between the country's two largest parties merely serves to strengthen the political fringes. That, too, is a lesson from recent years. This insight leads to two conclusions. First: Complaints that German political parties are all the same, that they are all situated slightly to the left of center on the political spectrum, could hardly be more mistaken. The four parties that tried in vain to find common ground for a governing coalition essentially represented the entire political spectrum – from the moderate right to the moderate left. They talked, they deliberated, they fought. And the differences between then were sometimes fundamental in nature. But finding compromises has become more difficult in our new political reality – and it requires the kind of courage that the FDP ultimately didn't possess. Second: This new political landscape is perhaps one for which Angela Merkel isn't suited. "Everywhere in the world, political parties have once again begun valuing political objectives over pragmatism," says German sociologist Heinz Bude. That, though, is not something that Germany's caretaker chancellor is known for. 3. (Bad) Luck for Germany The failure of the coalition talks could hardly have come at a better time for Germany. The economy has been doing well for years, unemployment continues to shrink and budget surpluses have been climbing. In this year alone, economists believe the German economy will grow by 2 percent. The goal of full employment is considered by many to be realistic and not some naïve fantasy. In other words, the consequences of months of stasis in Berlin could be rather limited. The reactions shown by Germany's blue-chip stock index, the DAX, and by the euro exchange rate indicate that the prospect of new elections in Germany only briefly startled investors and the rest of the business world. The economy, it would appear, can live just fine with an extended period of political uncertainty. We got lucky. The problem, though, is that Germany's sound economic situation likely played a significant role in the failure of the talks. There are assets available for distribution, with more than 30 billion euros unspoken for over the next four years, and each party wanted to reward its clientele. The best example is the FDP's obsession with the elimination of the "solidarity tax," a tariff used to help finance the reconstruction of eastern Germany. Is that really the most pressing problem facing the country? Plus, the measure would really only benefit those who earned salaries far higher than average. A crisis, by contrast, binds people – and political parties – together. It would have been much easier to stitch together a Jamaica coalition in 2009 at the height of the financial crisis. Conversely, that means that when times are good, parties must look beyond their specific clienteles. If that realization doesn't permeate Germany's political leadership, the next coalition talks are going to fail as well. Plus, it is undeniable that Germany needs an effective government sooner rather than later. Berlin must be able to offer a counter-narrative to rampant populism instead of becoming bogged down in petty party politics. And Europe, too, is chomping at the bit, unable to move ahead without Germany. Immediately following Germany's general election in September, French President Emmanuel Macron unfurled his vision for the EU's future. He is still waiting for an answer from Berlin. Translated by Charles Hawley | |
Редактирано: 2 пъти. Последна промяна от: проф. дървингов |
| Заглавието може да бъде преведено: "Пореден резил на немската журналистика" Изключително слаб политически коментар, наивна логика, противоречиви становища и слаб редакторски контрол. Дори във Вилидж Войс /"Селски глас"/ - щатски брат на "Кооперативно село" - подобно ерзац творение щеше да бъде отсвирено. Явно журналистиката в световен мащаб от ден на ден глобализира, галфонизирайки. Според драскача, след 4 (ЧЕТИРИ) седмично надлъгване и политически покер партиите на Германия не успяват да постигнат консенсус, факт, който не може да бъде окачествен като Политическа криза, но и заявява, че в политическата история на Германия подобно чудо не е виждано.  Като капак на гърнето нафрашкано с оксиморони, прощъпулник-джурналякът гарнира гозбата с твърдение, че подобно състояние води до... НОВИ ИЗБОРИ.  Не разполагам с време, за да натрия мутрата на нещастника с други негови фразеологични изтърсвания, аберации, демагогии и свободни съчинения, зографисани във въпросния памфлет.  | |
Редактирано: 2 пъти. Последна промяна от: Tim |
| А междувременно - Социалдемократите се съгласиха да преговарят с Меркел Натисни тук |
Тиме, авторите са двама, насочи гнева си към тях. Още по-зле. Текстът говори вместо тях. А гневът не е за мен, за швабите е. |
Germany, Democracy and the World The End of the End of History Editorial by Klaus Brinkbäumer The collapse of coalition talks in Berlin are far from a national crisis. But it is symptomatic. It is time for German politicians to realize what is at stake for their country and the rest of the Western world. Sometimes we in the West forget that our view of the world is just one among many that are possible. And that neither our understanding of human rights nor our adherence to liberal democracy are attractive across the globe. Is the Western way of life morally superior? And even if it were, is it the most constructive or effective way of organizing human societies? We in the West also tend to interpret history to reflect positively on ourselves. Were the many centuries during which Europe or the United States were at the center of global events not inevitable? Were they not based on the Enlightenment and the Renaissance, on our engineering prowess, on our technological preeminence? Was it not based on our overall brilliance? After the collapse of communism in 1989, Francis Fukuyama wrote "The End of History," by which he meant the triumph of Western values. Soon the entire world would be democratized, the victorious political order seemed clear. How absurd that worldview seems now, in November 2017. Since September 2001, the West has made a number of missteps. There were the aimless interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. There was the self-inflicted economic crisis of 2008, which was actually not a global disaster but a trans-Atlantic one, as China, Indonesia and India all continued to grow. For too many years we have clearly demonstrated to non-democratic states that democracy may no longer be reliable and is far too fragile: It installs incompetent leaders like Donald Trump in power and leads to blunders like Brexit. It has long been clear that democracy is slow, but now it's obvious that it also makes terrible mistakes. What country would look to today's United States as an example? Which brings us to Germany, that stable center of Europe. It must first be said that the government crisis, which has arisen out of the failed coalition talks, is not a crisis of state - at least not yet. A caretaker government is in office, the federal president is exhibiting prudence, the country's economy is robust, and the system is working as it should. Even the chancellor - whose enthusiasm for political communication is limited at best and whose 12 years of leadership have brought the country to where it finds itself today - is proceeding carefully and maturely. The Social Democrats, meanwhile, twice hastily - indeed, childishly - rejected the idea of joining Merkel in a coalition. There is now no safe way back. Joining a grand coalition would marginalize the party; in four years, it could plunge to just 15 percent. Therefore, rapid new elections are the only thing that makes sense. Hopefully they will result in a clear governing mandate and to a greater sense of urgency and responsibility in the ensuing coalition talks. Complacent Prosperity That, in fact, is the most disturbing thing about the way Christian Lindner of the Free Democrats backed out of the talks, about the constant complaining from the Bavarian conservatives, about the weeks of haggling over details without any sense of the bigger picture. This irreverence. The prioritization of the individual over the common good. This desolate narcissism born of complacent prosperity. In truth, the domination of the world by Europe and the United States has only lasted two centuries. Before that, China was already an economic leader. And the history of the rise of the West cannot really be attributed to but a single cause. This ascent was helped along by genocide and slavery; colonialism allowed Europe to plunder ideas. It was in China that the technologies for iron and steel production were first invented, as well as paper currency, gun powder and the compass. In human history, there has hardly ever been such a rapid rise - which really is just a return to form - as that of China over the past 30 years. The country has long since begun financing other states without paying attention to issues like democracy and human rights: The old "Washington Consensus," is being replaced by the "Beijing Consensus." The Chinese model fascinates those that wish to replicate it because the party appears so resolute and closed while the society is so young, vibrant and hungry for start-ups. Western societies on the other hand are aging. Many citizens see their wages stagnating, while education, homes and healthcare are becoming unaffordable. The old maxim that rising GDP translates into prosperity for all is being exposed as a fallacy. The idea that democracy was somehow the endpoint of development was megalomaniac. As long as there is something to redistribute, every system has it easy. But in the past 11 years, freedom around the world has receded. Of 195 states only 87 are still free, 59 are partially free and 49 are not free at all according to the NGO Freedom House. Turkey and Russia have turned their backs on the group of democracies while Poland and Hungary look to be not far behind. Meanwhile, the United States is foundering. One would hope that should be enough to focus minds in Berlin. There is, after all, a lot at stake. URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-coalition-talks-against-backdrop-of-history-a-1179807.html |
проф. дървингов 24 Ное 2017 19:40 Впечатляващо. Германия на Меркел като последен ПП. 'Бастион' не е точната дума. Може би - опора, надежда/ | |
Редактирано: 1 път. Последна промяна от: Minderbinder |
| ...едно дълго (11 страници) и подробно описание на досега провежданите консултации, различията и проблемите (и не е на азърбайджански език). Акцентът е поставен върху поведението на Свободните демократи и техния лидер. В същото време в днешната преса се появяват все повече съмнения, че ще се стигне до голяма коалиция, аргументирайки се с по-силната позиция (!?!) на социалдемократите понастоящем. ...да се оставим да ни изненадат. |
Collapsed Coalition Talks What's Next for Merkel and Germany? By Severin Weiland German Chancellor Angela Merkel's attempts to assemble a governing coalition collapsed on Sunday night. Much of the blame is falling on the shoulders of the business-friendly Free Democrats, but what happens next? At the end of a long night, Horst Seehofer, the head of the Bavarian conservative party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), said: "Thank you Angela Merkel for these four weeks." Despite the fact that coalition negotiations aimed at slapping together a government of Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU), its sister party the CSU, the business-friendly Free Democrats (FDP) and the Greens had just failed, the chancellor managed a smile. And the two dozen CDU and CSU politicians present in Berlin late on Sunday night stood and applauded. By the time Merkel received her standing ovation, Germany had had about an hour to get used to the fact that the so-called "Jamaica" coalition - so named because the colors associated with the parties involved are the same as those of the Jamaican flag - was not going to happen. FDP head Christian Lindner had decided to back out. The stress was clear to see on the faces of all the politicians involved in the negotiations, but Lindner and his deputy Wolfgang Kubicki seemed particularly wiped out. An exhausted looking Lindner held a paper in his hand, but spoke without looking at it, as though he had been preparing for this moment. "We are unwilling and unable to take responsibility for the spirit of the negotiation results. We even believe that many of the measures under discussion would have been harmful. We would be forced to abandon convictions we have spent years fighting for," Lindner said. Then he, Kubicki and other senior FDP members climbed into their cars and disappeared into the cold, November night in Berlin. The Jamaica coalition, which would have been the first of its kind on the federal level in Berlin, was over before it had even begun. According to one of the negotiators on Sunday night, Lindner had previously read out his decision to abandon the negotiations to Merkel. In response, the chancellor told the FDP head that his comments sounded like they had been prepared as a press statement. And, the negotiator related, Merkel added that Lindner should think long and hard about whether the FDP would ever again have a chance to accomplish the things that had already made it into the draft coalition agreement. Lindner, though, didn't want to continue, the negotiator said. 'A Day of Deep Reflection' Now, after a month of talks, German doesn't know what will happen next. It is an unprecedented moment of uncertainty for a country that prizes stability and predictability above all else. "At the very least," said Merkel, "it is a day of deep reflection on the path forward for Germany." It is difficult to overstate the impact of the collapsed talks. Indeed, for Merkel herself, Sunday night could mark the beginning of the end to her political career after 12 years in the Chancellery. Clearly drained from the exertion of the past several weeks, Merkel said on Sunday night that she would "almost even call it an historical day." It was the kind of sentence Germany has become used to from Merkel: a bit unpolished and inelegant. But it could end up being true. German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier now has a key role to play. For the time being, Germany will continue to be governed by the acting coalition pairing Merkel's conservatives with the center-left Social Democrats. But it is up to Steinmeier, himself a Social Democrat, to navigate the path forward toward new elections - unless Merkel decides to experiment with a minority government. The third possibility, one being discussed intently on Monday, is a repeat of the current "grand coalition." Immediately after the election results in September, which saw the SPD plunge to its worst election result since World War II, SPD head Martin Schulz vowed to lead his party into the opposition - the decision that led to the "Jamaica" negotiations in the first place. Now, though, the collapsed negotiations put the SPD in the position of having to revisit that decision. Schulz had been planning to announce his party's strategy for the future, including a personnel shuffle, on Monday morning, but that press conference has now been postponed. Still, SPD deputy-head Ralf Stegner said on Monday: "There is no mandate for a grand coalition." More Unyielding Either way, the blame game among the parties involved in the coalition already got started on Sunday night. It is likely to continue throughout the week - and it is clear that the FDP will be a primary target. And Lindner himself isn't likely to be spared. Indeed, it seemed on Sunday night that the parties were already positioning themselves for a possible election campaign ahead of a new vote. Green Party politician Konstantin von Notz said that he had had the impression on Sunday morning that the FDP was already preparing to abandon the talks and had found a possible excuse in an interview given by Jürgen Trittin, a senior member of the Greens. Trittin had told the weekly tabloid Bild am Sonntag that the FDP had become more unyielding on migration as the talks had progressed. On Monday, the message from the Green Party is that an agreement had been possible and that the parties had, in fact, been extremely close. The FDP, however, disputes that account, with Kubicki saying: "Such a thing can only be said by someone who wasn't holding the paper in their hand," claiming that there were still 120 points of contention to be resolved. And there were, indeed, plenty of issues on which the parties struggled to find unity: CO2 emissions reductions, foreign policy issues and the "solidarity tax" for eastern Germany. One of the most important clashes, however, focused on immigration and on family reunification. Merkel's conservatives, driven primarily by the CSU, wanted a hard ceiling of 200,000 immigrants per year and were opposed to allowing those already in Germany to bring in their families - a broad skepticism to immigration largely shared by the FDP. The Greens, however, insisted on a more open policy toward immigration. Deep Mistrust On Sunday afternoon, it looked for a time as though the Greens and the conservatives were edging toward a compromise on immigration, with the Greens even reportedly prepared to accept an upper limit on immigration in exchange for family reunification allowances. The Greens were apparently even willing to accept demands from the CDU and CSU to recognize Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco as "safe countries of origin," a necessary designation to allow deportations to those countries. But CSU representatives then told reporters that FDP head Lindner was unwilling to accept the compromise. It was a sign of the mistrust between the FDP and the Greens. Indeed, the FDP was even skeptical of allowing the Greens to take over the Foreign Ministry portfolio in the event of a coalition, worried that the party would try to use the position to circumvent a hard-cap on immigration. "Unfortunately, there is a lot of mistrust," Kubicki recently told SPIEGEL ONLINE. The Greens wouldn't argue. For weeks, the party had felt that the FDP wasn't really interested in a Jamaica coalition. On Sunday night, Jürgen Trittin said of Lindner's retreat: "The party did what it had been planning to do since Thursday." But it wasn't just the Greens who were critical of the FDP. A conservative member of Merkel's parliament who asked not to be identified told journalists on Sunday night that the CDU, CSU and Greens had reached agreement on a compromise on immigration and family reunification. "As soon as the FDP learned of it," the cabinet member said, "they ran away." URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/germany-coalition-talks-fail-what-s-next-a-1179341.html |
| Coalition Talks Collapse - Germany Wins, Merkel Loses A Commentary by Ullrich Fichtner The collapse of coalition negotiations in Berlin is a win for political clarity in Germany. The parties involved would hardly have been able to govern effectively together. But it marks the end of Chancellor Merkel's style of governing. First, the good news: The collapse of coalition negotiations in Berlin has saved the country from a government in stasis, a government with no vision or ambition. Had Chancellor Angela Merkel managed to produce an alliance between her Christian Democrats (CDU), the Bavarian Christian Social Union (CSU), the business-friendly Free Democrats (FDP) and the Greens, the country - indeed, the entire continent - would have faced four years of stagnation, at its center a German government with more driving it apart than holding it together. The four parties involved would not have constructively complemented each other. Rather, they would have constantly been in each other's way. Even if many German politicians have claimed the opposite during the past month of haggling: The will of the electorate was not that of slapping together a coalition of parties that didn't belong together. Nobody except those involved dreamed of a cabinet with arch-conservatives from the CSU, environmentalists from the Greens and opportunists from the FDP gathered around a single table. The fact that such a coalition was the subject of negotiations in the first place is merely the result of a tradition whereby possible coalitions are interpreted as being the electorate's desire. There was, however, no serious mandate for this particular alliance. By walking away from the talks, the FDP made a contribution to political clarity in Germany - even if that wasn't the party's intention. Those who vote for the Greens aren't generally hoping for a coalition with the FDP, while supporters of the CSU tend to have nothing but disdain for the Greens. And, it must be said, that is how things are supposed to be. Rivalry between the parties is the lifeblood of our democracy and their first duty is not that of ensuring the well-being of the state but of reflecting the diversity of German society. It is something that the Social Democrats should remind voters now that the hail of appeals has begun beating down on the party to reconsider, for the good of the country, its decision to shun a continuation of their coalition with Merkel's conservatives. Plus, the initial interpretation of the September 24 election results, that the electorate is eager to be rid of Merkel's conservative-SPD coalition, remains the correct one. Whither Merkel Yet with talks now having collapsed and the SPD intent on going into opposition, there are no more possible coalitions on the horizon - and it is fair to say that the German political system now finds itself in crisis. For years, Germany's party spectrum has been fragmenting while the fringes have radicalized, to the point that seven different political parties now have seats in the German parliament. In the face of such a constellation, the system is failing and is no longer producing the clear coalition options that German voters have become used to. Calling new elections would be akin to forcing voters into detention until they produce a result agreeable to the political apparatus. And were that to happen, it seems likely that the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) would be one of the only parties to profit. The only other option would be a minority government. The experiment has occasionally been tried in German states without much damage being done, but never on the federal level. Meanwhile, the teary-eyed argument that Europe's strongest economy can't afford a wobbly government isn't particularly convincing. The most important question, though, is what happens with Merkel herself. This could indeed mark the beginning of the end for her career as chancellor. In recent days, it has become apparent that a significant amount of the power she once held has evaporated - beginning with the fact that, when the deadline she set for the end of coalition talks passed last Friday, there were no consequences whatsoever. On Sunday evening, it wasn't just the negotiations themselves that came to an end, but the entire Merkel Method™ of governing. For years, she has sapped ideology out of politics - and a coalition with the FDP and the Greens would have been the crowning achievement of that approach. It would have provided proof that even environmentalists and free-trade fetishists can work together as long as Merkel's steady hand is there to keep everyone in line. That, though, is now history. This crisis is Merkel's crisis. It will be interesting to see how she seeks to deal with it - and if she will succumb to it. The same, though, holds true for all those who invested political capital in this misbegotten alliance. Green leaders seemed willing to give up too much and will likely face sharp criticism from within the party. The CSU in Bavaria was already disintegrating well before Sunday's negotiation collapse and the party will no doubt regret not having pulled the plug themselves. The FDP will be nervously looking at the opinion poll results to see how badly the party might be punished. And Merkel's CDU? They will gather around their leader and continue to invoke the bucolic contentedness promised by the chancellor. But it is a message that has now been robbed of all its credibility. URL: http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/commentary-german-coalition-collapse-the-end-of-merkel-a-1179542.html |
| ...една прясна и интересна новина, получена токущо - през последните седмици освен на четиристранната провалила се коалиция и на невъзможната голяма коалиция малко внимание се отделяше на третата възможност. Изненадващо Икономическият съвет на ХДС се обявява (и аргументира) за третата възможност - правителство на малцинството. За сведение - този икономически съвет прилича на доскорошната гражданска (икономическа) квота на РъБъ, има 12 000 регистрирани членове, представлява сдружение с нестопанска цел, обикновено мнението му се зачита. Eine große Koalition werde es nur durch unbezahlbare Versprechen in der Sozialpolitik geben, schreibt der Verband. Das dürfe die Union nicht zulassen. 30. November 2017, 15:13 Uhr Quelle: ZEIT ONLINE, Der CDU-Wirtschaftsrat fordert von den Spitzen der Union eine ernsthafte Prüfung einer Minderheitsregierung. Zugleich warnt er vor einer erneuten großen Koalition. "Das Präsidium des Wirtschaftsrates beobachtet mit großer Sorge die politische Entwicklung in Deutschland", heißt es in einem Beschluss vom Donnerstag. "Eine 'große' Koalition wird nach allem, was wir von den Sozialdemokraten hören, nur um den Preis weiterer unbezahlbarer Leistungsversprechen in der Sozialpolitik zu bekommen sein." Dies dürfe die Union angesichts der großen demografischen Herausforderungen und der nötigen hohen Ausgaben für Bildung und Innovation nicht zulassen. Außerdem stärke ein erneutes Bündnis von Union und SPD nur die politischen Ränder. Die Union müsse fürchten, auf unter 30 Prozent abzurutschen. Der Wirtschaftsrat fordert stattdessen, eine Minderheitsregierung zumindest in Erwägung zu ziehen. Dies sei keine "minderwertige" Regierung. "Das Parlament und mit ihm jede(r) einzelne Abgeordnete bekäme gegenüber der Regierung eine höhere Verantwortung", heißt es in dem Beschluss. Bundeskanzlerin und CDU-Chefin Angela Merkel hatte dagegen gesagt, sie sehe eine Minderheitsregierung skeptisch. Der Wirtschaftsrat der CDU ist ein eingetragener Verein und hat nach eigenen Angaben etwa 12.000 Mitglieder. Er vertritt die Interessen der unternehmerischen Wirtschaft gegenüber Politik, Verwaltung und Öffentlichkeit. |
| ...по все още непотвърдени информации, това по-долу трябва да са първите условия на социалдемократите, за да започнат изобщо да разговарят за нова голяма коалиция. Първо и основно искане - промяна на европийската политика на федералната република. Сролед Шулци това означава да се даде положителен отговор на предложенията на Макрон, направени преди около месец в Сорбоната; Второ, преди разговорите за ново правителство да бъде въведена единна европейска данъчна политика и за бъде номиниран европийски финансов министър наред с формулирането на единна европейска социална политика и уеднаквяване на стандартите при формирането на националната стопанска политика на страните-членки; Трето, във вътрешнополитически план се настоява за модеринизация на социалната политика по отношение на възрастните както и на достъпа до медицински услуги; "Двекласова" медицина не е приевлива; ~~~~ Интересно ... да видим. Нашият покровител на Mutti дали вдява какво става? Манрико? PS не по-малко интересни неща стават и в съседна Австрия, където паралелно се провеждат подобни разговори, не по-малко остросюжетни, макар и не чак толкова отразявани в нашата преса, 'ма това е друга тема. Gespräche zwischen Union und SPD Schulz nennt Bedingungen für Große Koalition Bundespräsident Frank-Walter Steinmeier baut nach Ansicht der FDP den Sozialdemokraten derzeit eine "gesichtswahrende Brücke" zurück in die große Koalition. Nachdem die SPD zunächst den Gang in die Opposition beschlossen hatte, schließt sie nun eine Koalition mit der Union nicht mehr grundsätzlich aus. Zuletzt hatte aber der Alleingang von CSU- Agrarminister Christian Schmidt, der in Brüssel für die weitere Zulassung des Unkrautgifts Glyphosat gestimmt hatte, das Klima zwischen Union und SPD wieder belastet. Steinmeier hatte am Donnerstagabend die Vorsitzenden von CDU, CSU und SPD, Angela Merkel, Horst Seehofer und Martin Schulz, zu einem gemeinsamen Gespräch eingeladen, um die Möglichkeiten einer Regierungsbildung auszuloten. Laut einem Bericht der Bild-Zeitung sind sich Angela Merkel und SPD-Chef Martin Schulz bereits darüber einig, der Parteispitze die Aufnahme von Koalitionsverhandlungen vorzuschlagen. Steinmeier will ebenso wie die Kanzlerin Neuwahlen vermeiden. Nach dem Scheitern der Sondierungen für eine Jamaika-Koalition aus Union, FDP und Grünen hatte Steinmeier in einer ungewöhnlichen Ansprache an die Verantwortung der Parteien appelliert - die diese "nicht einfach an die Wählerinnen und Wähler zurückgeben" könnten. Schulz nennt Kernanliegen der SPD im Fall einer Regierungsbildung Vor weiteren Gesprächen mit der Union über eine Regierungsbildung hat SPD-Chef Martin Schulz Kernanliegen seiner Partei benannt. "Die deutsche Europapolitik muss sich ändern", sagte Schulz dem "Spiegel" laut Vorabmeldung vom Freitag. "Eine positive Antwort auf Emmanuel Macron zu geben, wird ein Kernelement bei jeder Verhandlung mit der SPD sein." Frankreichs Präsident Macron hatte ehrgeizige Pläne für europäische Reformen vorgelegt. Schulz hatte am Donnerstagabend mit CDU-Chefin Angela Merkel und dem CSU-Vorsitzenden Horst Seehofer sowie Bundespräsident Frank-Walter Steinmeier über weitere Schritte zu einer Regierungsbildung gesprochen. Teile der SPD stehen einer Neuauflage der großen Koalition ablehnend gegenüber, Alternativen wären Neuwahlen oder die Tolerierung einer Minderheitsregierung. Schulz forderte vor weiteren Gesprächen mit der Union im "Spiegel" die Einführung einer gemeinsamen europäischen Steuerpolitik sowie die Ernennung eines EU-Finanzministers. Zudem seien eine gemeinsame europäische Sozialpolitik sowie einheitliche Standards in der Wirtschaftspolitik erforderlich. "Wir brauchen eine Neugründung Europas", sagte Schulz. Innenpolitisch werde seine Partei eine umfassende Erneuerung des Pflegesystems sowie der Gesundheitsversorgung zur Bedingung einer möglichen Regierungsbeteiligung machen, kündigte der SPD-Vorsitzende an. "Die Zwei-Klassen-Medizin muss abgeschafft werden", forderte er. Deutschland brauche zudem eine "Bildungsrevolution". "Das sind die Projekte, mit denen wir Deutschland aus seinem Dornröschenschlaf wecken müssen." Schulz warnte die SPD davor, zu früh über Posten zu sprechen: "Ich kann nur jedem raten, zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt nicht über die Vergabe von Ministerien für sich selbst oder an andere zu spekulieren oder spekulieren zu lassen." Der SPD-Chef kündigte für den Fall einer Zusammenarbeit mit der Union einen kantigeren Kurs seiner Partei an: "Wir sind eine stolze und selbstbewusste Partei. Aus diesem Stolz heraus sollte die SPD handeln, nicht aus Angst." |
| Немските социалдемократи се опитват да намерят "трети" изход от безизходицата, в която попадна федералната република; Идеята на Щулц е да запишат в коалиционния договор само няколко, особено важни неща (например емигрантите, данъците, социалните плащания), останалите да бъдат оставени "отворени", да бъдат обсъждани в парламента, да има възможност за опозиционно поведение по теми извън коалиционното споразумение. Целият текст на статията във FAZ Натисни тук ...лично на мен това ми прилоча на разкраченото положение на РаданКъ в миналия парламент. съмнявам се да мине. n der SPD wird angesichts des Widerstandes gegen eine große Koalition eine für Deutschland ganz neue Form der Regierungszusammenarbeit geprüft. Parteichef Martin Schulz erläuterte nach Teilnehmerangaben in der Fraktionssitzung am Montagabend ein Modell, bei dem nur bestimmte Kernprojekte im Koalitionsvertrag verankert werden. Andere bleiben bewusst offen, damit sie im Bundestag diskutiert und ausverhandelt werden können. Das würde Raum geben zur Profilierung – und zu wechselnden Mehrheiten. Ein Sprecher betonte, das sei einer von mehreren denkbaren Wegen. Die Idee einer Kooperationskoalition („KoKo“ stammt von der Parteilinken. Der Sprecher der Parlamentarischen Linken, Matthias Miersch, sagte der Deutschen Presse-Agentur: „Wir waren sehr, sehr stark an die Bundesregierung gebunden.“ In Teilen der SPD wird der Koalitionsvertrag mit der Union von 2013 heute kritisch gesehen.Auf 185 Seiten wurde alles bis ins letzte Detail verhandelt und dann vier Jahre lang in Gesetze gegossen – am Ende war vielen Bürgern nicht klar, wer zum Beispiel für die Durchsetzung des Mindestlohns verantwortlich war. Die SPD fürchtet, wieder als Verlierer aus einer „GroKo“ heraus zu gehen. Wenn bestimmte Themen offen bleiben, könnte sie – so das Kalkül – beim Ringen um Projekte deutlicher machen, wer wofür steht und was auf wessen Betreiben durchgesetzt wird, notfalls auch mit anderen Mehrheiten. Als ein Beispiel gilt die gegen die Union durchgesetzte Ehe für alle. |
Добави мнение Мнения:14