Germansplaining: How Merz can build his coalition
Scholz's successor, Friedrich Merz, will exceed expectations – if only because they are currently buried somewhere below sea level.
One more week and Germany will have a proper Bundeskanzler again, not just a managing director, as Olaf Scholz has been since the election. Actually, even before that.
In April, only 11% of Germans were 'very satisfied' with the work of chancellor-designate Merz. That's not exactly shocking, considering that the 69-year-old's ratings only ever hovered between 10% and 16%.
More telling is the surge in discontent. Back in February 2022, one in three Germans was very dissatisfied with Merz. That number has risen to nearly one in two (49%). And most of that jump has happened in just the last couple of months.
The reason? Voters ordered centre right, but what's arriving on the table looks suspiciously like reheated social democracy (apart from migration). Scholz's party, the SPD, whose members are asked to rubber-stamp the coalition agreement this week, played the coalition poker game like seasoned professionals. Which makes sense, because they are.
They secured an impressive seven out of 17 cabinet posts, a huge proportion if you take their meagre election result (16%) into account. Their asset: experience.
The social democrats have been in government coalitions non-stop since 2013. The CDU, on the other hand, was forced into opposition for nearly four years and went through the process of shedding its Merkel skin. Which means that a good chunk of the current party leadership – including Merz himself – has precisely zero experience in federal government. No wonder many people think he has promised more than he can deliver.
So far, Germans don't expect the turnaround in economic and migration policies to happen, which is why, in most polls, the far right AfD has either levelled with the CDU, at 25%, or even overtaken them.
It's just polls, some say. But is it? A majority now believe the AfD could actually win the next election in 2029. And Merz's cabinet choices aren't exactly dispelling that notion so far – several high-profile candidates turned him down. David McAllister, for instance, former Ministerpräsident of Lower Saxony and longtime member of the European Parliament, apparently declined the Foreign Ministry gig. Brussels and Strasbourg were more appealing than Berlin.
Then there's Carsten Linnemann, the CDU's general secretary with actual reform ideas. But the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs went to the SPD, as usual, and Linnemann decided to stay in his party post rather than become economics minister. Not enough real power.
Merz's surprising pick for culture and media secretary did at least unite the media. In disbelief. His choice, a publicist called Wolfram Weimer, immediately drew fire from both left and right. Süddeutsche Zeitung sniffed, 'It was not previously known that the media entrepreneur was interested in culture.' Frankfurter Allgemeine added: 'His concept of culture and his understanding of history indicate that he would be the wrong man in the wrong place. To put it mildly.'
Most of the CDU names will be as unfamiliar to the average German as to you. It's no wonder, then, that for a bit of escapism, the nation turned its gaze to two very familiar members of a different coalition – one that's been running far longer, with more twists and a more photogenic cast.
Former Bundespräsident Christian Wulff, 65, and his wife, Bettina, 51, have announced their separation. Which, usually, would be regarded as quite a drama, but as the couple have previously shown remarkable flexibility in their relationship, this latest turn of events is treated rather like the cliffhanger in a romcom.
The Wulffs have already been married three times – to each other – with a generous number of intermissions. It looks as if these 19 years – the tabloid Bild did the maths – of 'romantic rollercoaster' are gone. All because Mrs Still-Wulff allowed herself to be spotted on the made-for-being-spotted island Sylt, fittingly in the arms of a celebrity bodyguard nicknamed the 'Hüne von der Düne' (the giant from the dune). More telling, she has already 'cleaned his windows', as Bild helpfully reported.
Deutschland now wonders: will this new romance outlast the SPD-CDU coalition? Or will the Wulffs tie the knot for a record-breaking fourth time before Merz passes any major reform?
Wulff's office insists the separation is final – though, as FAZ website dryly noted, it sounded more like a hopeful memo to the boss than a done deal.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
7 hours ago
- Spectator
My plan for Prevent
In the autumn of 1940, British cities were being bombed every night by large aeroplanes whose provenance was apparently of some considerable doubt. While the public almost unanimously believed the conflagrations to have been caused by the Luftwaffe, the authorities – right up to the government – refused to speculate. Indeed, when certain members of the public raised their voices and said 'This is all down to Hitler and Goering and the bloody Germans!', they received visits from the police who either prosecuted them for disturbing the peace or put their names on a list of possible extremists. The nights grew darker. The number of towns and cities subjected to these nightly bombardments widened. Very soon everybody in the country knew somebody whose home had been destroyed or who had themselves been killed. The government was forced to take action, and so in November 1940 it came up with what it called its 'Prevent' strategy, which aimed to protect British cities from further destruction. In the introduction to this new policy, civil servants listed possible vectors for these bombing raids and top of the list, by some margin, were the Slovaks. A senior intelligence officer told the public: 'The greatest threat to our nation today is from the Slovaks. We must train our people in how to spot Slovaks and report them to the police whenever they can.' The Germans were also mentioned, further down the list of possible perps, but the wording here was heavily caveated. Yes, some Germans may have been involved, but over all the German population was utterly devoted to peace and regretted the nightly infernos every bit as much as did the people who suffered under them. Our own air force was directed to drop its bombs on Bratislava, Kosice, Poprad and (the consequence of an understandable confusion over the names of the two countries) Maribor. And yet for some mystifying reason, the raids on Britain did not lessen. This seems to me exactly the response of our government(s) and most importantly of Prevent to the threat from Islamic terrorism. Let me be clear: I am not remotely comparing Muslims with Germans or Islam with National Socialism – I am simply saying that, in effect, this is what our government would have done in 1940 if it had been gripped by the same cringing witlessness and outright lying that possesses seemingly all of our authorities today when it comes to terrorist attacks upon the British people. You may be aware of the manifestly stupid quote from the Prevent halfwits that people who believe that 'western culture is under threat from mass migration and a lack of integration by certain ethnic and cultural groups' are cultural nationalists at risk of becoming the kind of extremists who end up murdering people. People who believe the above probably consist of 70 per cent of the British population and, if his latest speeches are anything to go by, include the Prime Minister. And yet this stuff pervades everything Prevent puts out, while at the same time exonerating Islam and in some cases even those Muslims who do become terrorists (because they have suffered, you see). If people who support Brexit or worry about immigration are extremists, you're going to get pretty high figures So, for example, Bolton council's useful 'Prevent' handbook singles out 'right-wing extremists' as being at the forefront of terror attacks in the UK, and these extremists include people who are cultural nationalists: 'Cultural nationalism is ideology characterised by anti-immigration, anti-Islam, anti-Muslim, anti-establishment narratives, often emphasising British/English 'victimhood' and identity under attack from a perceived 'other'.' Islamic terrorism is also mentioned – but, again, heavily caveated. Then there's Prevent's own list of people who were picked up under its guidelines: 45 per cent were related to extreme right-wing radicalisation (230); 23 per cent were linked to Islamist radicalisation (118); the rest were related to other radicalisation concerns, including incels and those at risk of carrying out school shootings. But then I suppose if people who proclaim their support for Brexit or worry a bit about immigration are extremists, you are going to get pretty high arrest figures. If you add into the mix the fact that simply to associate Islam with terrorism you are guilty of Islamophobia, then you can see why we're in the state we're in. Incidentally, when she was Prime Minister, Theresa May, to her credit, drafted a new introduction to the Prevent guidelines which made it clear that the biggest threat to British security was al Qaeda, not Tommy Robinson et al. But that message does not seem to have sunk in with those in Prevent. It seems almost pointless to run through the facts. The truth is that almost every fatal terrorist attack in Britain since 2001 has been perpetrated by Islamists. All bar three. Have these people got a twisted or perverted understanding of Islam, as Prevent insists? I haven't a clue. I am no Quranic expert. I'm just, y'know, taking their word for it. Further, 80 per cent of the Counter Terrorism Policing network's investigations are related to Islamism (2023). Some 75 per cent of MI5's surveillance cases are Islamists. There are around 40,000 potential jihadis being monitored by our security services. There is not the remotest doubt as to the provenance of the gravest terror threats to our country. It's not the shaven-headed nutters with swastika armbands. It is Islamists. Nigel Farage's answer is to sack everyone working in Prevent. That seems a perfectly reasonable suggestion. But I may have a better one. Scrap Prevent entirely and initiate a new network of monitoring and reporting which focuses solely on Islamic terrorism. Junk the sixth-form philosophising over what is meant by the term 'extremist' and locate the problem precisely where it is: somewhere within our Muslim communities, even if we accept that our Muslim communities may not want them there. In short, get real and tell the truth. This kind of approach worked pretty well 85 years ago.
Belfast Telegraph
10 hours ago
- Belfast Telegraph
Genocide Convention not considered by Central Bank when approving Israel Bonds
However, Gabriel Makhlouf said the intensity of the conflict in Gaza does put 'a question mark over whether the financial viability' of Israel remains secure. The Central Bank is the designated authority in relation to the sale of Israel Bonds in the EU, and has determined the securities meet the standards of the bloc's prospectus regulations. Israel Bonds have been advertised as supporting the country's economy, and more recently, websites promoting the securities emphasise their role in supporting Israel's military operations in Gaza. Protesters and opposition parties have called for legislation that would give Ireland the power to refuse the sale of Israeli 'war bonds' over human rights concerns. They say the bonds are intended to fund the war in Gaza, while Ireland has an obligation under the Genocide Convention to use all means likely to have a deterrent effect on those suspected of preparing genocide. Demonstrators rallied outside Leinster House on Wednesday as the head of the bank appeared before the Finance Committee, before a Dail vote calling on the Government to take action to prevent the approval of the bonds. Mr Makhlouf said the Central Bank must carry out the statutory tasks and functions it has been assigned. He said it was 'incorrect' to say the bank could refuse to approve the Israeli bond prospectus on the basis of international law rulings and opinions. 'The Central Bank cannot impose sanctions on Israel, for example by refusing to approve the Israeli bond prospectus, in circumstances where the EU has not imposed any such sanctions itself.' Asked by Sinn Fein finance spokesman Pearse Doherty if the Central Bank subscribes to the Genocide Convention, the governor said the authority has to operate within the legal framework allocated to it, but added that the Genocide Convention does not feature in the EU prospectus regulation. Pressed on whether it applied to the bank overall, Mr Makhlouf said 'it applies to the state' and added that, with regard to approving prospectuses: 'In that sense no, it doesn't.' Under similar questioning from Social Democrats' deputy leader Cian O'Callaghan, deputy governor Mary-Elizabeth McMunn said: 'Ireland is the contracting party under the Genocide Convention. It does not explicitly say the Central Bank is a contracting party under the Genocide Convention.' Asked if he believed what was happening in Gaza was genocide, Mr Makhlouf said that was a legal concept determined by the ICJ and no one at the Central Bank could comment authoritatively as experts on that matter. He added: 'But what's clear is that what is happening in Gaza is appalling, horrific.' The governor said everyone at the Central Bank wants to see 'an immediate end to hostilities by all parties'. The Israel Bond prospectus is up for renewal in September. Asked by Labour finance spokesman Ged Nash what factors the bank would be looking for in engagements with Israel at that point, Mr Makhlouf replied: 'I think the intensity of the conflict in in Gaza probably does put a question mark over whether the financial viability of the state still remains secure. 'The fact that the European Union has indicated that it's going to look at its co-operation agreement of Israel, I think that's a factor. The fact that the [Israeli] finance minister has just been sanctioned by a number of countries, that may be a factor.' He said it would be up to Israel to assess whether these factors affect its financial standing when putting together the prospectus, but added that the bank would be required to approve the next prospectus if all matters are completely disclosed. Meanwhile, Mr Makhlouf said national restrictive measures could be imposed by the Oireachtas to stop the approval of the prospectuses, if they were consistent with EU law. However, he said he would find it 'difficult' to say that it is 'possible' to do that in this case, because one member state acting on its own would undermine the whole prospectus regulation. He said he had not taken legal advice on this and added that he was 'not ruling out' the possibility. 'Prospectus regulation doesn't just apply to states, it applies to corporates, it applies to anybody who wants to issue a regulation in certain circumstances. 'So what I'm not ruling out is the possibility that some domestic legislation could prevent an individual corporate being able to issue security in certain circumstances, but this is real hypothetical stuff.' Mr Doherty asked if the Central Bank would deem the ICJ findings a 'risk' for an investor who wishes to purchase Israel Bonds. Mr Makhlouf said the case taken by South Africa against Israel was included in the September prospectus that was approved by the bank. Gerry Cross, the bank's director of capital markets and funds, added that it was the authority's belief that it was articulated and disclosed to the level that is required. Mr Cross later told the committee that the Bank had made approximately 13,300 euro in fees through its work relating to the bonds since October 2023.
The National
13 hours ago
- The National
It's worth comparing defence spending of the UK and non-Nato countries
In 2024 the UK spent $82 billion on defence at 2.3% of GDP whereas the Republic of Ireland next door spent $1.5bn, or 0.25% of GDP. Switzerland, which potentially lies in the immediate path of the invading eastern hordes, spent $6.7bn or 0.7% of GDP on defence last year. Mind you, the Germans and the Russians stayed well clear of Switzerland last time, funny that. READ MORE: Scottish Government criticised over arms firms funding review Are we to assume that these countries will also eventually be expected to funnel 5% of their GDP into the coffers of the military-industrial complex to keep the Reds at bay? Maybe they will deal with all the casualties caused by the inevitable nuclear strike on Coulport, since there will be no NHS left by then if funding is diverted to defence. David J Crawford Glasgow
