Germany's massive spending deal in doubt as Greens reject plan
A massive plan to loosen Germany's debt rules and spend hundreds of billions on defence and infrastructure has run into potentially decisive opposition from the Greens, whose votes in parliament would be essential for the legislation to be approved.
The spending deal was struck by the conservative Christian Democrat (CDU)/Christian Social Union (CSU) bloc, which won February's German election, and the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD), who are expected to become the junior coalition partner in the next government.
Green politicians have been warning for days that the massive spending deal does not do nearly enough to address climate change and might be used as a way to finance tax cuts instead of dramatically higher overall spending.
Green parliamentary group co-chairwomen Katharina Dröge and Britta Hasselmann confirmed on Monday that they would recommend that Green lawmakers vote against the package.
"We are in no way interested in enabling play money, and that is why we will not agree to these proposals," Dröge told reporters. "The package will not finance a single euro more in investments in Germany."
Dröge said that the CDU/CSU alliance and the SPD wanted to create a massive fund of borrowed money to put towards things like tax breaks and diesel fuel subsidies for farmers.
The Greens have been demanding more funding for climate priorities and greater commitments about how the money would be spent.
A failure of the spending deal would be a major setback for the CDU/CSU and SPD coalition talks, which are set to formally get under way soon. Any budget agreement between the two parties would be far more difficult without the deal.
Senior CDU/CSU and SPD politicians on Monday expressed confidence that a compromise could still be struck to placate the Greens and get the deal through the Bundestag, the lower house of Germany's parliament.
The votes of the Greens are essential to enacting the deal, since Germany's strict balanced-budget rules are anchored in the country's constitution and any changes require a two-thirds majority in the Bundestag.
Greens to be persuaded?
The deal between the CDU/CSU and SPD would create a €500 billion ($542 billion) special fund for infrastructure investments to be spent over the next decade, and enable far higher long-term military budgets by permanently exempting any defence spending above 1% of German gross domestic product (GDP) from counting toward debt rules.
Not long after Dröge and Hasselmann made their opposition clear, leaders in the CDU, CSU and SPD signalled their willingness to negotiate with the Greens in order to seal a deal.
Carsten Linnemann, the secretary general of the CDU, said he expects negotiations over the deal to move forward with the Greens and described ideas put forward by the Greens as "constructive proposals."
CSU deputy leader Alexander Dobrindt, meanwhile, believes the Greens will eventually back down and support the plans.
"This will not be the last word from the Greens," he said. "The security situation requires a different approach. We are prepared to negotiate further."
SPD leader Lars Klingbeil likewise said he expects to find a compromise with the Greens despite their initial rejection of the deal.
"I am not giving up confidence that this can succeed," he said.
Klingbeil said he would seek talks with top Green Party politicians on Monday evening along with conservative leader and prospective chancellor Friedrich Merz.
The parties are hoping to pass the changes through the outgoing Bundestag in the coming days, since the results of Germany's February election mean that assembling the necessary two-thirds majority will become more difficult once newly elected lawmakers are seated.
A deal would then need to be struck with The Left, a hard-left socialist party that has been vehemently opposed to military spending. That would be far more difficult, especially for the conservative CDU/CSU.
Leaders of The Left on Monday announced that they had filed an emergency application with Germany's Constitutional Court for a temporary restraining order to block a possible vote on the proposal, which they described as an undemocratic attempt to cast aside the will of German voters.
Politicians with The Left said they have long demanded major reforms to Germany's debt rules, and urged the other parties to invite them to talks on spending plans.
But Linnemann said he does not believe that the CDU/CSU could reach an acceptable compromise with The Left.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
Russia, Ghana, 32 other embassies at risk of closure in Nigeria over unpaid ground rent
The Nigerian government, through the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA), has issued a stern warning to 34 foreign embassies in Abuja, threatening possible closure over their failure to settle ground rent arrears dating back 11 years. The Nigerian government has threatened to close 34 foreign embassies in Abuja over 11 years of unpaid ground rent. The embassies collectively owe over ₦3.6 million in arrears since 2014, violating land lease agreements. Some of the embassies, including those of Russia and Turkey, have denied owing any debts. According to a report by The PUNCH, these embassies in Nigeria have collectively accumulated over ₦3.6 million in unpaid ground rent since 2014, violating land lease agreements with the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA). Ground rent is a statutory obligation for all landholders within the Federal Capital Territory, including diplomatic missions, and is crucial for funding infrastructure and administrative services. The FCTA publication listing the defaulting embassies disclosed the specific countries involved, revealing that out of the 34 missions cited, the Indonesia Defence Attaché (₦1,718,211), Zambia High Commission (₦1,189,990), Government of Equatorial Guinea (₦1,137,240), and the Embassy of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (₦459,055) owe the highest amounts in outstanding ground rent. Others include Ghana High Commission Defence Section (N5,950); Embassy of Thailand (N5,350), Embassy of Côte d'Ivoire (N5,500); Embassy of the Russian Federation (N1,100); Embassy of the Philippines (N5,950); Royal Netherlands Embassy (N5,950); Embassy of Turkey (N3,350), and the Embassy of the Republic of Guinea (N5,950). Embassies react Some embassies have rejected claims by the Federal Capital Territory Administration (FCTA) that they owe ground rent in Nigeria's capital, Abuja. The Embassy of the Russian Federation firmly denied any debt, stating: ' The Embassy pays all rent bills in good faith and on time. We have all necessary documents confirming payment. ' Similarly, the Embassy of Turkiye questioned its inclusion on the list, suggesting a possible bureaucratic error. A Turkish official said, 'We make our payments regularly and have not received any formal notice. We'll investigate and resolve any misunderstanding.' The German Embassy clarified that no official notice had been received from the FCTA and insisted all obligations had been fully settled by the end of 2024. It reaffirmed its commitment to transparency and cooperation with Nigerian authorities. The Ghana High Commission also said it had not been officially notified but would engage the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to address the issue.
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
‘Who controls the present controls the past': What Orwell's ‘1984' explains about the twisting of history to control the public
(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) Laura Beers, American University (THE CONVERSATION) When people use the term ' Orwellian,' it's not a good sign. It usually characterizes an action, an individual or a society that is suppressing freedom, particularly the freedom of expression. It can also describe something perverted by tyrannical power. It's a term used primarily to describe the present, but whose implications inevitably connect to both the future and the past. In his second term, President Donald Trump has revealed his ambitions to rewrite America's official history to, in the words of the Organization of American Historians, ' reflect a glorified narrative … while suppressing the voices of historically excluded groups.' Such ambitions are deeply Orwellian. Here's how. Author George Orwell believed in objective, historical truth. Writing in 1946, he attributed his youthful desire to become an author in part to a ' historical impulse,' or ' the desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.' But while Orwell believed in the existence of an objective truth about history, he did not necessarily believe that truth would prevail. Winners write the history During World War II, the Nazis broadcast reports on German radio describing nonexistent air raids over Britain. Orwell knew about those reports and wrote: 'Now, we are aware that those raids did not happen. But what use would our knowledge be if the Germans conquered Britain? For the purposes of a future historian, did those raids happen, or didn't they?' The answer, Orwell wrote, was, 'If Hitler survives, they happened, and if he falls, they didn't happen. So with innumerable other events of the past ten or twenty years. … In no case do you get one answer which is universally accepted because it is true: in each case you get a number of totally incompatible answers, one of which is finally adopted as the result of a physical struggle. History is written by the winners.' As Orwell wrote in ' 1984,' his final, dystopian novel, 'Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.' Power, Orwell appreciated, allowed those who possessed it to create their own historical narrative. It also allowed those in power to silence or censor opposing narratives, quashing the possibility of productive dialogue about history that could ultimately allow truth to come out. The Ministry of Truth The desire to eradicate counternarratives drives Winston Smith's job at the ironically named Ministry of Truth in '1984.' The novel is set in Oceania, a geographical entity covering North America and the British Isles and which governs much of the Global South. Oceania is an absolute tyranny governed by Big Brother, the leader of a political party whose only goal is the perpetuation of its own power. In this society, truth is what Big Brother and the party say it is. The regime imposes near total censorship so that not only dissident speech but subversive private reflection, or 'thought crime,' is viciously prosecuted. In this way, it controls the present. But it also controls the past. As the party's protean policy evolves, Smith and his colleagues are tasked with systematically destroying any historical records that conflict with the current version of history. Smith literally disposes of artifacts of inexpedient history by throwing them down 'memory holes,' where they are 'wiped … out of existence and out of memory.' At a key point in the novel, Smith recalls briefly holding on to a newspaper clipping that proved that an enemy of the regime had not actually committed the crime he had been accused of. Smith recognizes the power over the regime that this clipping gives him, but he simultaneously fears that power will make him a target. In the end, fear of retaliation leads him to drop the slip of newsprint down a memory hole. The contemporary U.S. is a far cry from Orwell's Oceania. Yet the Trump administration is doing its best to exert control over the present and the past. The Trump administration has taken unprecedented steps to rewrite the nation's official history, attempting to purge parts of the historical narrative down Orwellian memory holes. Comically, those efforts included the temporary removal from government websites of information about the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the atomic bomb over Hiroshima. The plane was unwittingly caught up in a mass purge of references to 'gay' and LGBTQ+ content on government websites. Other erasures have included the deletion of content on government sites related to the life of Harriet Tubman, the Maryland woman who escaped slavery and then played a pioneering role as a conductor of the Underground Railroad, helping enslaved people escape to freedom. The administration also directed the removal of content concerning the Tuskegee Airmen, the group of African American pilots who flew missions in World War II. In these cases, public outcry led to the restoration of the deleted content, but other less high-profile deletions have been allowed to stand. Over the past several months, many of Trump's opponents have bemoaned the fecklessness of the Democratic Party in mounting an effective opposition to the president's agenda. Critics on the right and even some on the left denounced as little more than a stunt New Jersey Sen. Corey Booker's marathon 25-hour speech on the U.S. Senate floor detailing the constitutional abuses of Trump's first few months. But while words are no substitute for action, in the face of a regime that is intent on stifling voices of dissent, from media outlets to law firms, to university campuses, through a combination of formal censorship and informal coercion and bullying, the act of speaking out matters. Booker's protest will be written into the Congressional Record and remain a part of the nation's contested history. So too will the meticulous recounting of the administration's constitutional abuses in publications such as The Atlantic and The New York Times. The existence of such a record allows the potential for a critical historical narrative to be written in the future. But the administration is also looking ahead. Repressing thought Current proponents of the 'anti-woke' agenda at both the federal and state level are focused on reshaping educational curricula in a way that will make it inconceivable for future generations to question their historical claims. Orwell's '1984' ends with an appendix on the history of 'Newspeak,' Oceania's official language, which, while it had not yet superseded 'Oldspeak' or standard English, was rapidly gaining ground as both a written and spoken dialect. According to the appendix, 'The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the worldview and mental habits proper to the devotees of [the Party], but to make all other modes of thought impossible.' Orwell, as so often in his writing, makes the abstract theory concrete: 'The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as 'This dog is free from lice' or 'This field is free from weeds.' … political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts.' The goal of this language streamlining was total control over past, present and future. If it is illegal to even speak of systemic racism, for example, let alone discuss its causes and possible remedies, it constrains the potential for, even prohibits, social change. It has become a cliché that those who do not understand history are bound to repeat it. As George Orwell appreciated, the correlate is that social and historical progress require an awareness of, and receptivity to, both historical fact and competing historical narratives.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
‘Who controls the present controls the past': What Orwell's ‘1984' explains about the twisting of history to control the public
When people use the term 'Orwellian,' it's not a good sign. It usually characterizes an action, an individual or a society that is suppressing freedom, particularly the freedom of expression. It can also describe something perverted by tyrannical power. It's a term used primarily to describe the present, but whose implications inevitably connect to both the future and the past. In his second term, President Donald Trump has revealed his ambitions to rewrite America's official history to, in the words of the Organization of American Historians, 'reflect a glorified narrative … while suppressing the voices of historically excluded groups.' Such ambitions are deeply Orwellian. Here's how. Author George Orwell believed in objective, historical truth. Writing in 1946, he attributed his youthful desire to become an author in part to a 'historical impulse,' or 'the desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.' But while Orwell believed in the existence of an objective truth about history, he did not necessarily believe that truth would prevail. During World War II, the Nazis broadcast reports on German radio describing nonexistent air raids over Britain. Orwell knew about those reports and wrote: 'Now, we are aware that those raids did not happen. But what use would our knowledge be if the Germans conquered Britain? For the purposes of a future historian, did those raids happen, or didn't they?' The answer, Orwell wrote, was, 'If Hitler survives, they happened, and if he falls, they didn't happen. So with innumerable other events of the past ten or twenty years. … In no case do you get one answer which is universally accepted because it is true: in each case you get a number of totally incompatible answers, one of which is finally adopted as the result of a physical struggle. History is written by the winners.' As Orwell wrote in '1984,' his final, dystopian novel, 'Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.' Power, Orwell appreciated, allowed those who possessed it to create their own historical narrative. It also allowed those in power to silence or censor opposing narratives, quashing the possibility of productive dialogue about history that could ultimately allow truth to come out. The desire to eradicate counternarratives drives Winston Smith's job at the ironically named Ministry of Truth in '1984.' The novel is set in Oceania, a geographical entity covering North America and the British Isles and which governs much of the Global South. Oceania is an absolute tyranny governed by Big Brother, the leader of a political party whose only goal is the perpetuation of its own power. In this society, truth is what Big Brother and the party say it is. The regime imposes near total censorship so that not only dissident speech but subversive private reflection, or 'thought crime,' is viciously prosecuted. In this way, it controls the present. But it also controls the past. As the party's protean policy evolves, Smith and his colleagues are tasked with systematically destroying any historical records that conflict with the current version of history. Smith literally disposes of artifacts of inexpedient history by throwing them down 'memory holes,' where they are 'wiped … out of existence and out of memory.' At a key point in the novel, Smith recalls briefly holding on to a newspaper clipping that proved that an enemy of the regime had not actually committed the crime he had been accused of. Smith recognizes the power over the regime that this clipping gives him, but he simultaneously fears that power will make him a target. In the end, fear of retaliation leads him to drop the slip of newsprint down a memory hole. The contemporary U.S. is a far cry from Orwell's Oceania. Yet the Trump administration is doing its best to exert control over the present and the past. The Trump administration has taken unprecedented steps to rewrite the nation's official history, attempting to purge parts of the historical narrative down Orwellian memory holes. Comically, those efforts included the temporary removal from government websites of information about the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the atomic bomb over Hiroshima. The plane was unwittingly caught up in a mass purge of references to 'gay' and LGBTQ+ content on government websites. Other erasures have included the deletion of content on government sites related to the life of Harriet Tubman, the Maryland woman who escaped slavery and then played a pioneering role as a conductor of the Underground Railroad, helping enslaved people escape to freedom. The administration also directed the removal of content concerning the Tuskegee Airmen, the group of African American pilots who flew missions in World War II. In these cases, public outcry led to the restoration of the deleted content, but other less high-profile deletions have been allowed to stand. Over the past several months, many of Trump's opponents have bemoaned the fecklessness of the Democratic Party in mounting an effective opposition to the president's agenda. Critics on the right and even some on the left denounced as little more than a stunt New Jersey Sen. Corey Booker's marathon 25-hour speech on the U.S. Senate floor detailing the constitutional abuses of Trump's first few months. But while words are no substitute for action, in the face of a regime that is intent on stifling voices of dissent, from media outlets to law firms, to university campuses, through a combination of formal censorship and informal coercion and bullying, the act of speaking out matters. Booker's protest will be written into the Congressional Record and remain a part of the nation's contested history. So too will the meticulous recounting of the administration's constitutional abuses in publications such as The Atlantic and The New York Times. The existence of such a record allows the potential for a critical historical narrative to be written in the future. But the administration is also looking ahead. Current proponents of the 'anti-woke' agenda at both the federal and state level are focused on reshaping educational curricula in a way that will make it inconceivable for future generations to question their historical claims. Orwell's '1984' ends with an appendix on the history of 'Newspeak,' Oceania's official language, which, while it had not yet superseded 'Oldspeak' or standard English, was rapidly gaining ground as both a written and spoken dialect. According to the appendix, 'The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the worldview and mental habits proper to the devotees of [the Party], but to make all other modes of thought impossible.' Orwell, as so often in his writing, makes the abstract theory concrete: 'The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as 'This dog is free from lice' or 'This field is free from weeds.' … political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts.' The goal of this language streamlining was total control over past, present and future. If it is illegal to even speak of systemic racism, for example, let alone discuss its causes and possible remedies, it constrains the potential for, even prohibits, social change. It has become a cliché that those who do not understand history are bound to repeat it. As George Orwell appreciated, the correlate is that social and historical progress require an awareness of, and receptivity to, both historical fact and competing historical narratives. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Laura Beers, American University Read more: Nationalism is not patriotism: 3 insights from Orwell about Trump and the 2024 election Putin's brazen manipulation of language is a perfect example of Orwellian doublespeak Orwell's ideas remain relevant 75 years after 'Animal Farm' was published Laura Beers does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
