Postponed vote on top judge pitches German coalition into crisis
Other parties, including his Social Democrat coalition partners, charged the Christian Democrats with bringing Germany's highest court into disrepute and using spurious plagiarism allegations as a pretext for shelving a vote the coalition would not have won.
The conservatives had initially sought to postpone a vote only on appointing Frauke Brosius-Gersdorf, a law professor and the Social Democrats' nominee, who was opposed by many conservatives because of her support for abortion rights.
"I never imagined we'd see debates in our country reminiscent of those on appointing justices to the United States Supreme Court," the SPD's Dirk Wiese told parliament.
"The kind of witch hunt we've seen against a distinguished law professor this week should make us fear for the state of democracy in our country," he added.
The failure to muster a majority is an embarrassment for Merz and for his ally Jens Spahn, the conservatives' parliamentary leader, whose job it is to ensure his legislators toe the coalition line - something he had been confident of achieving as recently as Monday.
The conservatives blamed their volte-face on allegations published on Thursday evening by Stefan Weber, a self-proclaimed "plagiarism hunter" who has claimed a string of politicians' scalps despite widespread doubts over his methods.
Brosius-Gersdorf did not immediately respond to an e-mailed request for a comment on Weber's allegations, which appeared to accuse her of plagiarising footnotes in her thesis from one published after her own.
"This man brings plagiarism charges against half the republic," said the Green's Britta Hasselmann, calling the conservatives' decision a disaster that would harm the court's reputation.
Weber later backtracked, telling the Sueddeutsche Zeitung that he had merely flagged "possible unethical authorship" and had not accused Brosius-Gersdorf of plagiarism.
The Constitutional Court is one of Germany's most respected and powerful institutions. Its decision to overturn a budget helped trigger the collapse of the last government.
While judges often have open party affiliations, public disagreements over topical cultural issues are rare. Its members speak with pride about its political neutrality, frequently comparing it favourably with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
5 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Border Force chief who ‘suggested game of Naked Attraction' with colleagues was able to leave civil service with unblemished record
A Home Office investigation has found one of its most senior officials harassed and behaved inappropriately towards a female colleague, before being able to leave the civil service with an unblemished record after a 'shambolic' disciplinary process. The case has caused such alarm in the department that the new permanent secretary, Antonia Romeo, has ordered an immediate review of complaints, conduct and disciplinary procedures to 'ensure confidence in the integrity of the system'. Steve Dann, the former chief operating officer (COO) of Border Force, was effectively banned from visiting the organisation's offices in Paris in 2023 after he suggested to female officers that regional directors could play a game of Naked Attraction, the Channel 4 dating show in which contestants stand in front of each other fully nude. He told investigators he did not recall the incident. Dann, who was in the £120,000-a-year post for four years, faced other allegations of misogynistic name-calling and making comments to women with sexual connotations, according to Home Office sources. He denied the allegations, suggesting comments had been taken out of context and that selective evidence had been used during the investigation by the Home Office's professional standards unit (PSU). He acknowledged during the process that some of his comments may have been careless, but said he had never intended to upset or offend. After a chaotic HR process, which one source said was littered with 'procedural errors and delays', the original grievance was eventually upheld on appeal. However, Dann was not informed about the process until the initial stage was completed. He was also subject to a parallel misconduct investigation into the claims which was not upheld. Dann decided to leave the Home Office in December last year, standing down as the COO of Border Force, a role that placed him at the centre of the organisation's key responsibilities, including securing the UK's borders by enforcing immigration regulations and patrolling coastlines during the small-boats crisis. He has since entered the private sector in the field of security and law enforcement operations, and public safety. The complainant first reported Dann in February 2024, after working with him for 18 months. An initial internal grievance inquiry was launched two months later, with the final PSU report quoting named Home Office officials who appeared to confirm a series of sexist and misogynistic comments, according to sources. While the complaint was not initially upheld, it was later upheld on appeal in October 2024. Dann was not involved in this process and was not given the opportunity to respond. At the same time a separate misconduct process was launched, also based on evidence in the PSU report. This was not upheld, no formal disciplinary sanction was imposed, and there was no record of it on Dann's file, although Home Office sources said he was asked to undergo training in response. The claims being investigated included the colleague being told in a voice note that she was 'very pretty', which the PSU report concluded was 'reasonable' for her to have interpreted as harassment. Other comments were described by the report as 'inappropriate and offensive' and 'unprofessional topics with a sexual connotation'. According to sources, the report said he messaged about one person who attended a meeting suggesting that she had a 'porn star name', which he told the inquiry was meant in a 'lighthearted' way. On a separate occasion, he was said to have misnamed a female colleague 'kinky', although he later admitted this had been a 'careless' thing to say. During a discussion on the diversity of his office, Dann allegedly said: 'Don't forget the sweaty woman in the corner', referring to a colleague going through menopause. In the report, he denied making this comment. In another meeting, in December 2022, he asked junior colleagues if they knew what a 'fluffer' was, and then explained it was 'someone whose job was to keep a porn star's penis erect', sources said. He denied to investigators that he had made the remarks. On the official visit to Border Force in Paris in April 2023, he brought up the Channel 4 naked dating show Naked Attraction to two female officers working in intelligence. In remarks corroborated by witnesses, he added: 'We were thinking it could be all the regional directors and, you know, people had to look at it and guess whose penis it was.' The officers were 'very shocked' by the conversation and felt 'incredibly uncomfortable', a senior official told investigators, but when they were asked if they wanted to make a complaint they said they would prefer that Dann not return to the Paris office. This was reported to Border Force chiefs. Dann told them he did not recall the incident. One senior official who witnessed the exchange said they were 'disappointed' by Dann's conduct, which they felt was 'inappropriate'. Several others said they considered that he was 'prone to oversharing' about his private life at work, sources with knowledge of the report said. The appeal, which was based on the same evidence in the PSU report, was finally concluded eight months after the initial complaint. It was after the Labour government entered office, and six weeks later Dann left his role, declaring that after nine years at the Home Office it was time to 'embrace new challenges'. In a letter to the complainant in October 2024, the Home Office upheld the grievance, acknowledging that Dann's conduct had fallen below the standards expected from a senior official and was in breach of the department's policies on appropriate behaviour, sources said. However, Dann – who was previously a 'people champion' and diversity lead in the civil service, roles that focused on improving the workplace environment, as well as representing the organisation in parliament and in the media – avoided any formal consequences because the separate earlier disciplinary process had already concluded and the rules meant it could not be reopened. According to sources, Dann told the initial investigation he had worked incredibly hard in a stressful frontline environment. Much of his time running Border Force operations was when the Tory government was struggling to get control of irregular migration, including small-boat crossings. Several of the witnesses said they had not been offended by his behaviour. However others, including senior civil servants and junior frontline operational staff, found his conduct inappropriate and unprofessional, according to sources who have seen the final PSU report and with knowledge of the final outcome. During the PSU investigation, Dann denied some of his conduct and said other incidents had been taken out of context, and that selected evidence had been used. But sources said he added that 'on reflection' there had been times when some of his comments had been 'careless', although they were not meant in a malicious way. When approached by the Guardian, he declined to comment. Yvette Cooper, who was home secretary throughout the latter part of the grievance process, has repeatedly and vocally called out workplace discrimination, misogyny and harassment. The case was flagged with her office although she is understood not to have been personally aware. A Home Office spokesperson said: 'While we do not comment on individual HR cases, where there are allegations of inappropriate behaviour or sexual harassment the Home Office will investigate and take appropriate action. 'The Home Office expects the highest standard from all members of staff and does not tolerate anyone displaying or taking part in unacceptable behaviour. 'The new permanent secretary has already commissioned a review of complaints, conduct and disciplinary procedures, to ensure absolute confidence in the integrity of the system.'
Telegraph
5 minutes ago
- Telegraph
France is ditching bank holidays and so should we
Our Gallic neighbours have instructed us in the ways of many things. I'm thinking particularly of white Burgundy, champagne, béchamel sauce, mistresses and surrendering. More recently the UK's political leadership has taken on President Macron's habit of hugging everyone. Thus Sir Keir Starmer can't see the likes of President Zelensky across a crowded room without clambering over a sea of suits to give the guy a hug. And last week Sir Keir was with Europe's great hugger-in-chief and thus enveloping 47-year-old Emmanuel Jean-Michel Frédéric in his arms. But here's another thing: as bold as Dijon mustard, as sensible as the line judges at Roland-Garros and as perky as garlic, it has just been announced by the French Prime Minister François Bayrou. He's ditching two bank holidays. 'The entire nation has to work more,' he said this week, adding, 'so that the activity of the country as a whole increases and so that France's situation improves.' Bayrou's plan comes as he attempts to lower the country's spiralling public deficit and debt and, in next year's budget, save €43.8 billion. His plan is, he says, the 'last stop before the cliff edge'. And sounding more like Idi Amin, the Ugandan president of the 1970s, than a centrist European politician of the 2020s, he is insistent that, 'everyone will have to contribute to the effort'. The immediate practical problem, aside from the cacophony that is the sound of 68 million grumbling frogs, is which days to scrap. France has 11 national holidays and Bayrou has suggested scrapping Easter Monday (fair enough in a nation of croissant-munching atheists – only 5 per cent attend Mass on Sundays) and May 8, which is Victory Day. The latter should logically be renamed Surrender Day, occurs on June 22 (the date in 1940 of the Armistice) and on which the nation should definitely be put to work. The plan may sound harsh, particularly for a people famed for their love of leisure – most people take a month off in summer, they must work a maximum of 35 hours a week, lunch for a minimum of an hour and can dwell over a coffee long after it has gone cold. And indeed politicians, left and right, were spitting out their vins de table in rages this week. '[It's] a direct attack on our history, our roots and on working France,' said Jordan Bardella of the far-Right National Rally. Fabien Roussel of the French Communist party described it as 'an organised hold-up'. But hang on, it's actually a fabulous idea. And one that we should embrace as firmly as a Starmer/Macron hug. The UK has eight bank holidays. There's Christmas Day, Boxing Day, New Year's Day, Good Friday, Easter Monday and then a load of early summer ones that charge at you out of the blue normally when a heatwave has come and gone and it starts to rain and a random one at the end of August that enables people at the tail end of the Notting Hill Carnival to smoke cannabis in the street without impunity before a few stabbings at dusk. And they are now – in concept and practice – out of date and a contributor to national decline. And, before you squeal about the idea of my tearing apart a cornerstone of Britain's cultural history, they are relatively new. It was 1871 that an Act of Parliament was passed officially designating a number of days that workers should have off and on which banks would be closed. The man behind the Bank Holidays Act was the liberal reforming MP Sir John Lubbock who believed that religious holidays should be formalised. There was otherwise no way to ensure that a factory worker wasn't forced to toil, in gruelling conditions, for six days a week. The 'St Lubbock's Days', as they were called for a while, reflected the shift in Victorian England to more formalised leisure. But that was then. More than 150 years later and Britain dwells in a state of lugubrious idleness at which Lubbock himself would raise an eyebrow. Indeed post-Covid, most of the UK enjoys a four-day jolly every weekend. Offices are lucky if workers deign to join them Tuesday to Thursday and they can only tempt them in by offering free cereal, table tennis, comfy sofas in so many break-out areas, a drinks trolley on a Thursday afternoon (non-alcs catered for so as not to offend the Gen Zs) and a promise not to send the poor lambs too many emails on a Monday or Friday. Because the end of the week is firmly the beginning of the weekend and Monday is a recovery day and who wants to get on a horrid train when you can Zoom from home in your jim-jams. Our work patterns are also considerably less Victorian. Almost 7.5 million people now freelance – full- or part-time – and bank holidays lurk around the corner for them as pestilent days of childcare and lost revenue. Each bank holiday costs the nation some £2.4 billion in economic output so while politicians publicly support occasional additions such as that for King Charles's coronation in 2023, privately they shudder at the damage it does to the nation's books. And they are patently not 'bank' holidays of course, because nowadays you can bank online 24 hours a day. Furthermore, most high street banks are now upscale bars and people only wander into the remaining banks by mistake when they're drunk. Bank holidays are no longer precious, quiet days, and they are conspicuously not religious. The only notable religion featuring being that of unabashed consumerism. That France is enacting this policy while, according to the Office for National Statistics, actually being more productive than us should shame us into working more. So let's scrap two of them, the random May one and the August one, the extra days worked can merit a proportionate pay rise and hospitality need not grumble because, with more money in one's pocket, we can all afford to nip to the pub after work.
The Guardian
17 minutes ago
- The Guardian
How can Democrats win back working-class voters? Change their tune
Doing the same thing and expecting a different result – that's the definition of insanity. So I fall into despair when I hear yet another news story, and yet another politician, talking incessantly about assaults on democracy. It's as if folks have read no post-2024 election polling. Defense of democracy was a top issue for Democrats but way, way down for those who voted for Donald Trump: their top concerns were inflation and the economy. Democrats lost the popular vote. They need to attract voters they lost in the last election. What's complicated about this? Assaults on democracy are driven by narcissistic authoritarianism, for sure – but they're also a strategy to control the narrative in ways that aid and abet the far right. Democrats need to stop walking into the same old trap, and supplement defense of democracy with a viable strategy to lure back enough non-college-educated voters to win elections. The first step is to understand why defense of democracy doesn't work with non-college voters. Both white voters and voters of color without degrees typically care more about the economy than democratic norms. Inequality predicts low trust in political institutions, and the US has a serious inequality problem. Many feel democratic institutions have failed them: while over 90% of Americans did better than their parents in the decades after the second world war, only about half of those born in the 1980s will, with particularly sharp declines in 'blue wall' states Democrats need to win. Democrats' failure to connect with non-college voters has been analyzed as an institutional problem of 'the groups' inside the beltway – the web of non-profits that reflect the values of the 8% of Americans who are progressive activists. But Democrats' problem is less an institutional than a cultural problem. Many Democratic candidates feel compelled to keep talking about the issues their core college-educated constituencies care most about – defense of democracy, the climate crisis, abortion rights – in language that appeals to college graduates. What a gift for Maga: in 2024, 84% of voters cared more about the cost of living than the climate crisis and 79% cared more about the cost of living than abortion rights. Only 18% of voters said 'preserving American's institutions' was more important than 'delivering change that improves Americans' lives' (chosen by 78%). Remember the famous ad: 'Kamala Harris cares about they/them. Trump cares about you.' That definitely attracted the transphobic – but it also attracted working-class people angry that Democrats weren't campaigning on the kitchen table issues that mattered most to them. The path forward for Democrats is to learn how to connect with non-college voters, using three arguments. First, Trump is not focused on the kitchen table issues he ran on. Second, he has cut government programs that provide security for ordinary Americans in order to finance huge tax cuts for big business. Third, he's playing checkers in a world where the big boys play chess, making American weak again in the process. For college grads, the key point about Trump's tariffs is that they're chaotic and 'dumb'. But the key point for voters without degrees is that Trump isn't delivering on his core election promise to make middle-class life work for hardworking Americans. The most effective ads of 2024 focused on economics: one called out the cost of rent, groceries and utilities; another decried Trump for fighting 'for himself and his billionaire friends' to finance a national sales tax that would raise prices on middle-class families (which is precisely what tariffs do). Democrats should provide a clear contrast, insisting on a society 'where hard work is repaid with a stable life' (to quote Zohran Mamdani's acceptance speech). Tariffs take us in the opposite direction. Not only do they raise prices for American consumers but they also hurt two constituencies non-college voters care about: farmers and small business. America's most farming-dependent counties went for Trump by 77%; tariffs cut American farmers off from key markets abroad for soybeans, almonds and other agricultural products. Trump's tariffs also threatened to destroy small business supply chains – the small flower shop that imports flowers from Mexico and the small manufacturer whose supply chains includes Canada – which is why more than half of 600 small business owners surveyed expressed concern about tariffs. That's important because they represent twice the proportion of voters as compared to Europe. Non-college grads hold small business in high esteem; it's the most trusted institution in the US. Many non-college Americans' fondest hope is to own a small business so they can stop being order-takers and become order-givers instead. College grads are upset that the 'department of government efficiency' (Doge) has terminated National Science Foundation grants (including mine), and fired climate scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency. But for non-college voters the key message is that Doge is robbing the settled middle class of the security they yearn for and deserve. Ethnographies show again and again that stability and order are highly valued by the blue-, pink- and routine white-collar voters who are flocking to the far right. Trump's budget cuts include blue-collar jobs, such as federal firefighters. Also targeted is the Federal Emergency Management Agency (Fema ), which helps ensure that ordinary Americans don't fall out of the middle class when their house floods or burns down in a wildfire. Doge also has fired so many Social Security employees that people now face long waits at Social Security and Medicare – benefits Trump promised to protect. Doge also eliminated USAID programs that bought grain from hard-pressed Kansas farmers. Why are all these assaults on the middle class necessary? To enable huge tax cuts for big business and Trump's billionaire friends. Three-fourths of Americans are dissatisfied with the size and influence of major corporations, and 58% believe upper-income Americans' taxes are too low. As a central theme, Democrats should insist that government defend small business and stop catering to big business. Anti-elitist rhetoric is important, as evidenced by both research and the big crowds at the Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez Fighting Oligarchy rallies. The third crucial theme is that Trump's foreign policy is not Maga but 'Mawa' (Make America Weak Again). His Taco (Trump Always Chickens Out) tariffs are making the US look foolish and ineffectual. He plays into our enemies' hand by insulting allies while sucking up to dictators who stroke his ego: Russia and North Korea were among the only countries not included in his initial tariff plan. His administration is trying to fire nearly 1,000 FBI agents whose only fault is that they followed orders, threatening our chief anti-terrorism agency's ability to do its job in a dangerous world. Fired, too, is the head of cybersecurity, a four-star general summarily dismissed on the advice of a known dingbat after a distinguished 33-year military career. The 'Mawa' theme taps into working-class patriotism, security-mindedness, and masculinities. As compared to elites, non-elites are more patriotic, because everyone stresses the highest-status categories they belong to and being American is one of the few high-status categories non-elites can claim. For similar reasons, non-elites endorse traditional masculinities at higher rates: unlike class ideals, gender ideals are social ideals they can fulfill. Blue-collar families are more security-minded for a different reason: they often feel the world is a scary and uncertain place – which, for them, it often is. The left needs to get as conversant in working-class values as the far right is. Masculinity is a good example. We need a lot more jibes like Taco tariffs and political cartoons (Instagram, TikTok, anyone?) that contest Trump's macho self-image. He's not a Real Man; he's a little rich boy so vain and frantic for attention he's readily manipulable. His fragility is his Achilles' heel, which is fast becoming America's Achilles heel. None of these themes resonate as much with college grads as does defense of democracy. But if you care about democracy or immigrants or LGBTQ+ issues or the climate – and I care about them all – we need to build a coalition with working-class people whose values center kitchen table economics, security and patriotism. We haven't done so yet, and who's paying the price? The climate and marginalized groups. Not to mention our democracy. Joan C Williams is distinguished professor of law and Hastings Foundation chair (emerita) at University of California College of the Law San Francisco. She is also the author of Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back
