My record of successful predictions is…mixed, but, as I guesstimated the other day, it does indeed look as if there is a decent chance that the GroKo, Merkel’s ‘grand coalition’ with the center-left SPD, is going to be resurrected.
Merkel’s fourth term was cast into doubt when the pro-business Free Democrats (FDP) walked out of three-way coalition talks with her conservative bloc and the Greens last Sunday, causing a political impasse in Europe’s biggest economy.
But on Friday, the SPD reversed a previous decision and agreed to talk to Merkel, raising the possibilities of a new “grand coalition” which has ruled Germany for the last four years, or of a minority government.
Reuters argues Merkel had faltered in Germany’s recent election as a result of losing votes to the populist right AfD (in reality the story is more complex than that: The AfD did take plenty of support from the CDU/CSU, but it also attracted a large number of previous non-voters as well as defectors from elsewhere). And while we’re on the subject, let’s not forget that the AfD is very much a part of Merkel’s legacy: It was created in response to her attachment to the euro, but then mutated into a party defined by its opposition to mass immigration for reasons that are not hard to guess. It should be remembered that the allegedly ‘cautious’ Merkel’s reckless and self-indulgent decision to throw open her country’s doors in 2015 was only the culmination of years of irresponsibility in this area.
But the new coalition is not a done deal yet.
Reuters:
In a nod to her CSU conservative allies, [Merkel] also said she aims to limit the number of migrants entering Germany to 200,000 per year.
The Financial Times’ Philip Stephen notes that Merkel still believes she did the right thing in 2015, but she has promised “never to do it again”.
As the FDP recognized, Merkel’s promises in this area are less than credible. “Migration”, said Merkel, “ was an absolutely central topic” to the talks (and by implication) their breakdown. If it is to retain its credibility, the CSU (the CDU’s Bavaria-based, more conservative partners) should hold Merkel to that promise, and be prepared to walk from any coalition if she does not stick to it. I will have the world’s smallest violin ready should this overrated and destructive figure be driven from office as a result.
The problem is that such limits on immigration will play badly with the other side of the equation, Merkel’s potential SPD partners.
Reuters:
“A cap, which may not be called that, breaches the constitution and the Geneva Convention. With the SPD there will be no limit put on family members who want to join asylum seekers,” SPD deputy leader Ralf Stegner told the Funke media group.
Schulz, who had until Friday rejected any deal with Merkel, said there was nothing automatic about the outcome and promised party members a vote on talks.
The SPD is split as many members fear that renewing a grand coalition would be political suicide. It scored its worst result since 1933 in the September election.
Nevertheless, the likelihood has clearly increased that the SPD will come round.
Axel Schäfer, a SPD member of parliament, said on Friday: “Democratic parties have to be able to talk to each other and find out where there is common ground . . . There should not be new elections.”
Because what could be less democratic than elections?
Meanwhile, writing in The Spectator, Fredrik Erixon, a right of center Swede (they exist, but tend to be more pro-EU than they should be), worries about what Merkel’s departure would mean for “Europe”.
No leader is indispensable, but it does feel like the future of Europe stands or falls with Angela Merkel. She’s been the godmother of the European Union for almost 15 years, and other leaders have learnt to accept one unspoken rule: Merkel is the adjudicator. Her aura of supreme power infuriated Nicolas Sarkozy, who wanted it for himself. Greece’s leftist leader, Alexis Tsipras, fumed that Merkel wanted to make his country a vassal state, ruled by Berlin and the gnomes of Frankfurt. But now she’s at risk of losing her power, and even her enemies fear that her absence will pull Europe in different and conflicting directions.
“Different and conflicting directions”! The horror. Well, true democracy can be like that, and it’s a risk well worth running. The sad fact remains, however, that with or without Merkel, the EU’s ‘ever closer union’ will grind on, if (perhaps) at a slower pace.
And nobody should think that Merkel has been a unifying figure for the EU. Whether forcing through the Lisbon Treaty or mishandling the eurozone crisis or unilaterally breaking the EU’s asylum regime or insulting Eastern Europe’s Visegrad 4 over immigration or failing to take the Brexit referendum as seriously as she should (although, to be fair, she was eclipsed in that respect by then British Prime Minister David Cameron) she has proved herself to be almost exactly the opposite.
Still, we should thank Mr. Erixon for this delightful anecdote about the eurozone elite at work:
One newly elected European leader once explained Merkel’s role in Europe to me. He arrived in Brussels for a crisis summit, and wasn’t sure that the currency union would live to fight another day. His anxiety got bigger during the long dinner meeting. Several leaders were in multiple shouting matches. Two were tipsy. One had spilled the béarnaise over his trousers and sprayed the room with vinegar and tarragon. Another had to leave for what everyone suspected was an appointment with a mistress. But the room suddenly turned quiet when ‘Mother [“Mutti”, ie Merkel] started to speak’.
The tragedy was that they listened to her.