Merkel and a nail-biting election
It was a Berlin summer party. A Monday evening, with the city sweating. There was a guest list of 4,000. The smoke from the hog roasts and the Spanferkel drifted between the tents serving champagne and beer. A high school band from Lower Saxony played Land of Hope and Glory. Among those settling onto the benches in front of the small stage were power players. Understated men like Ferdinand Piech, the boss of Porsche, and Martin Winterkorn, the head of Volkswagen.
They had gathered here for a bland politician who would be president, if the vote goes his way on Wednesday. Christian Wulff is a political insider, a centre-right politician from Lower Saxony. A presidential election in Germany rarely attracts attention. It is largely a ceremonial post. But a late arrival at the party gave the clue to why this vote matters.
Angela Merkel, off a plane from the G20 in Canada, edged through the crowd and settled at a table. She was an unexpected guest, but Mr Wulff is her candidate. The election has turned into a vote of confidence in her leadership. If Mr Wulff loses, her government could be in trouble.
Mrs Merkel gives little away as a politician. She looked drawn, but relaxed, with a glass of white wine. There is no trace of anxiety about her.
Her difficulty is that Mr Wulff's opponent is a man with a great life story. Joachim Gauck struggled against the Communist regime in East Germany, and suffered for taking a stand. He's a pastor who was in charge of the archives left behind by the secret police, the Stasi. He has moral authority in spades. Ironically he and Mrs Merkel are friends. But this is politics, and she had to back someone from within her own party.
If it was a popular vote Mr Gauck would get it. It is not. The vote is taken by a Federal Assembly made up of MPs and delegates from the 16 federal states. It's an electorate of just over 1200. If everyone were to vote on party lines Mr Wulff would win by around 20 votes.
Now, in less agitated times, Mrs Merkel could shrug off a defeat. The post of president has moral authority rather than political power, and the chancellor could happily co-exist with Mr Gauck.
But Mrs Merkel has been battered by events and mistakes. Her first problem is that her coalition with the Free Democrats is strained. They bicker and disagree, and Germans don't like that.
Secondly, Germans are still angry that, at the last moment, they had to bail out the Greeks. Under the Maastricht Treaty there were not supposed to be bail-outs within the eurozone. Some say that Mrs Merkel dithered and the cost of saving the euro grew as a result.
Thirdly, she has introduced her own austerity package. She didn't need to, but she wanted to set an example to the rest of Europe that financial houses must be put in order. Many felt the package hurt the vulnerable the most.
Then there are fears about the euro, which is losing value, and that really frightens people.
What has drained away is Angela Merkel's authority, that sureness of grasp that marked her earlier period in power.
The result of the vote could be close on Wednesday. The winner, in the first round, needs an overall majority plus one. When I spoke to Peter Altmaier, the chief whip of the CDU - the man who must deliver the votes for Mr Wulff - he conceded it could go to three rounds. He expects Mr Wulff to win, as does most of the political class here.
If the unexpected happens, Angela Merkel's authority will be undermined. It would also mean that some Free Democrats had voted for Mr Gauck. She would not resign but, as her biographer Gerd Langruth said, "it would be the beginning of the end for this government".
She is a shrewd, patient politician who plots her moves. She would not be hustled out of power. But there would be uncertainty as she restructures her coalition. And there would be uncertainty in Germany at a time when, more than ever, it holds the key to resolving the crisis in Europe. A crisis that is not yet over.
I'm 
© 2012~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~08~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
That analysis is on the spot, mr. Hewitt.
Especially this part is noteworthy:
"If the unexpected happens, Angela Merkel's authority will be undermined. It would also mean that some Free Democrats - her coalition partners - had voted for Mr Gauck. She would not resign but, as Gerd Langruth, her biographer, said, "it would be the beginning of the end for this government". "
It sums up quite a few problems that not only lead to democratic problems, but also suffocate political decision-making.
That`s why members of the Federal Assembly need to be elected directly, similar to the way senators are elected in the USA.
Same for the president.
The party discipline and trading of political posts need to be reduced significantly.
Complain about this comment
Governments throughout the EU fail to comprehend that the people understand that their political leaders sold them out for the bankers. It is not all that complicated but rather a matter of trust and most people do not feel that the governments are looking out for their interests. Banks and the governments that should have been watching them betrayed the people. They will not admit that they are complicit and therefore provide cover for the bankers and that will cost them their positions. Defending bankers is like doing public relations for the Taliban.
Complain about this comment
Yes, it is also my view that this article hits the matter, only with the remark that Germany actually has borrowed quite a few billions of Euros, and the borrowing is coming to an end.
The majority of Bundestag has written this into the constitution, and this piece of legislation is aimed at politicians.
I hope Gauck will be elected but actually I don't think so.
Complain about this comment
"""Secondly, Germans are still angry that, at the last moment, they had to bail-out the Greeks. Under the Maastrict treaty there were not supposed to be bail-outs within the eurozone. Some say that Mrs Merkel dithered and the cost of saving the euro grew as a result."""
DurstingerMann, I won't commend on how bail-out was really the EU-bail-out but really has any German citizen ever heard if the Greek government (of Jeffrey-man) was offered by both Russians and Chinese loans at a 3% (... for short term ones!!! i.e. even under the average healthy EU country... let alone being loans whose payback is really up to the discretion of Greeks...(!!!)) all that for Greeks giving way to such "evil" things like port leasing and gas pipeline construction.
... or are you the first German to know this? I bet yes you must be the only otherwise Angela would had 10 times harder time explaining to Germans this bail-out that could had been evaded with a bit of Russian & Chinese investement, real investment.
I guess the 99,999999% of Germans ignore that Aegean is not only for holidays but also for oil drilling, serious oil drilling. Be the first to know that Greece right know has the potential to solve not only its deficit but actually the whole debt of the country in virtually 1 single day. No sorry, in 10 seconds, as long as an old man needs to bent over a table and put a signature over a paper pre-selling the oil for the benefit of the Greek state. But Europeans think otherwise and fight off any effort to drill that oil. Well if they do think so why not pay at the end of the day (while none asked them anyway in the first place)?
Really, at some point we have to talk seriously here. In spite of my extravagant writing style which will stay with me for more (haha!), down to the basics, I am really fighting for this more than 3 months now. Speak directly to the point:
Why do we have this discussion on Angela? And why the article speaks of little seisms under the office of Angela? Does it have to do with choices she makes in relation to the disagreements existing inside Germany, inside perhaps the EU? Or is it because of the disagreements with US? But Angela is a US-girl, quite the contrary of Schroedder who is hit the red for Americans when he signed for the Northstream becoming Russian consultant after the end of his governship.
Weird thus interesting article I think.
Complain about this comment
Well done Gavin Hewitt...
back to my favorite, your good old days, Greek-German-Merkel firefox theme...Ops!...article
and once again here come the Yankees...
"...Germany at a time when, more than ever, it holds the key to resolving the crisis in Europe..."
but let's not forget the Indians (Native Americans)...
The yesterday's emerged winner on the summit. David Cameron and his view that "confidence and growth would spring from fiscal consolidation.
...so sad for everybody that john Wayne (Bush) is not among us anymore...Where are you Bush?...European Alamo needs you more than ever...
Complain about this comment
I have a sense of having been here before. Could it be that Frau Merkel finds herself in much the same position as Mrs. Thatcher just before she was tipped over the edge? Is she beginning to look just a little desperate? Has she lost the plot?
Complain about this comment
@2 ghostofsichuan
Would thinks have worked out better if the banks had been left to collapse? Serious question, please explain your viewpoint.
As I understand it (and I do not pretend to understand it very well) without the bailouts many banks would have been finished and it would have crashed the many Western Economies that have become over reliant on credit.
Surely by bailing out the banks our Governments were looking out for the people? Pragmatism over Ideology it seems.
Complain about this comment
I would love to be at the party. Berlin is a great and 'real' city. It bares the scars of so much of European history in the 20th century.
Enjoy your party and your freedom - you more that deserve it.
Regards from Mike in Barcelona
Complain about this comment
To Gavin
Germany's contribution to what you are pleased to call the 'bail out' of Greece will be €22 billion over 3 years. France and Spain will be contributing €24 billion. Every Euro country is contributing in proportion down to little Malta.
If you are worried about the future of the Euro I would suggest you should be much more worried over the medium term future of the GDP and the US$. See 'Destined to Fail - Magical thinking at the G20' blog by Chris Martenson. Linked in Stef's blog.
Mike, Barcelona, Spain.
Complain about this comment
#6. At 4:46pm on 29 Jun 2010, threnodio_II
It is too early to say (that Frau Merkel finds herself in much the same position as Mrs. Thatcher). Tomorrow surprises are possible in Bundestag, but actually most people expect the coalition to put through their idea of things. In any case, it would not have any immediate consequences for the Federal Republic or its partners.
Complain about this comment
I agree that Berlin is a very great city.
Cheers!/Prosit!
Complain about this comment
7. Benefactor:
No one knows what would have happened if the banks had been allowed to fail or even if they would have failed. It is only what we were all told.
The governments had the responsbility to oversee the workings of these bank and were told at least 6 to 8 years in advance that the systems was a house of cards, but because of banking lobbyist, the decided not to intervene and thus the taxpayers now have assumed the bad loans of the bank. It is important to recongize that much of this bad debt is because the governments assumed these bad loans created by the banks and the banks took all their money upfront. The impact on the economy has created declining tax revenues, thus higher taxes and cuts in services. All the while the governments placate the bankers and hold them harmless for the mess they have created. The bailout was to provide capital to create jobs, yet that has not happened and more likely the money is being invested in Asia. Had the governments chosen to make the people whole to some extent I think things would be better. No one has calculated nor addressed the amount of personal retirement accounts that were diminished along with individual investments. The governments rushed to make sure the wealthy were made whole but not the people who actually lost money. As individuals try to save funds to replace the money stolen by the banks, they spend less, that is a rationale thing to do. Had the governments made some effort to replace those individual accounts, people would have resources to spend and the economies would be moving forward. Most economic activity is the daily purchases of the average citizen. Citizens face reduced personal wealth and higher taxes and the banks give out bonuses. I would call this a disconnect. Even though the governments own large portions of the banks they seem to be unable to impact interest rates on money the government is borrowing from itself. 1 in 5 of debt payements will be interest to the banks. This was the greatest transfer of wealth upwardly in history. I am amazed that there is public order.
Complain about this comment
And on the issue that simply will not go away:
BBC Reports World Stock Markets have fallen sharply all day on "..renewed fears of the insecurity of EUropean Banking.."
1) Apparently several EUropean Banks are due to "..repay loans taken out a year ago at low interest rates."
2) Apparently there is concern the "..EUropean Central Bank.." which is due to "..offer funds to EUropean Banks on Wednesday looking to repay 442 Billion EUros worth of Loans later this week.." may not be in a position to offer the *12 month loans* again and is likely to revert to '6 month loan' deals, and this causes the "..concern EUropean Banks may again face funding difficulties..".
3) Apparently the EUropean Banks most likely to be struggling as a result of this ECB Policy will all be in the EUro-zone & as a result the "..EUro fell against all other major currencies..".
At a leading global Financial services firm 'Forex.com' their senior Research Director commented, "..tension in the banking sector is running high and the EUro/Zone will remain under significant pressure..".
So, just once more for the hell of it: Why is there a EUropean Union - - what is the puspose of an EU having a Currency that is dragging down EU Members such as Germany to the level of Greece?
If these EUro-zone/Fiscal pressures continue to rapidly mount-up & if by chance a Bank or 2 in any other Nation does go under & Germany's Citizens perceive their Nation must again put its hand in its Tax-wallet, then I predict Ms Merkel's "..vote of confidence.." candidate Mr Wulff may well start to distance himself from the German Chancellor at an equally rapid pace to the declining value of the EUro!
Complain about this comment
It appears that Chancellor Angela Merkel has been outmaneuvered.
Cause:
The sudden resignation of the country's president and head of state, Horst Köhler.
Problem:
Finding a suitable replacement for Köhler. Whomever Merkel picks that person must get the backing from her center-right Federal Assembly. (It is this parliamentary body which will convene on June 30 to elect the next president.)
Merkel’s candidate: Christian Wulff, a deputy leader of Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats (CDU). Merkel was confident (too confident?) in her parliamentary majority that she rejected an offer from the opposition parties to select a more compromising sort of candidate.
Admittedly Wulff would have been a natural, but…
The Social Democrats and the Greens have put forward Joachim Gauck, 70, a Protestant pastor from eastern Germany. After the of east and west Germany, Gauck spent 10 years managing the archives of East Germany's secret police, the Stasi, thereby assisting to identify the crimes of East Germany.
The German media, including SPIEGEL and Bild am Sonntag are supporting Gauck, and even a few eastern German members of the pro-business Free Democratic Party (FDP), part of Merkel's center-right coalition, are leaning towards Gauck.
It would take very few rebels in Merkel's coalition to deprive Wulff of the required majority. That alone would appear to damage Merkel's authority as leader & chancellor.
Left-wing Die Tageszeitung devotes its front page to reprinting a speech Merkel gave on Jan. 22 in Berlin on the occasion of Gauck's 70th birthday in which she showered him with praise, calling him an "outstanding speaker," an "exciting personality," a "true teacher of democracy," a tireless advocate of "freedom, democracy and justice." Wow, why didn't Merkel nominate Gauck?
Many believe that if Wulff does not win, fresh elections to the Bundestag must follow. Such a crisis is not Gauck's will. Directly to the German Press Agency dpa Gauck said: 'There are many liberals and conservatives who support me, and they do not want an end to the chancellorship of Merkel.'
But Germany's constitution does not give the people a free choice for president. Instead, it is decided by a special Federal Assembly made up of some 1,200 delegates reflecting the political representation. The president is the choice of the political elite, not the people; Gauck however presents himself as being of the people, not of the elite.
So, with a man of Gauck’s stature and political acumen, he and Merkel might see eye to eye more than people think, or at least more than German politicans think.
It will be interesting...
Complain about this comment
"If the unexpected happens, Angela Merkel's authority will be undermined."
Why is it unexpected? Many Germans feel she sold them out. Their interests took a back seat to saving the EU and the Euro. It came straight out of their pockets. They were sold as big a bill of
Spanferkel as the British were. They were promised it would never happen. But when it did, were they consulted? They don't think so. In a democracy, the time when you send a message to those in power who do not understand that they are subservient to the popular will is election day and the message is good-bye. This may well be the first occasion they've had since the sellout to send her that message. It won't be the last.
Complain about this comment
Wait a few weeks until the 2nd Quarter profits are out for German business.
THEN begin stone throwing !
´Its the economy stupid´ !
Complain about this comment
marcus wrote:
"In a democracy, the time when you send a message to those in power who do not understand that they are subservient to the popular will is election day and the message is good-bye. This may well be the first occasion they've had since the sellout to send her that message. It won't be the last."
That sounds great, but we all know that all the parties were in agreement about the bailout. All the politicians on offer to the german people are sponsored by the banking and corporate sector. All of them would have done exactly the same. We know, because they all voted for it.
Expecting that the "democratic vote" in Germany will alter the outcome of policy is frankly absurd. It is no more sensible than expecting one of the communist party officials on offer in Chinese elections to alter the communist party line radically. It isn't going to happen, because HAHA... that is not why they are sponsored to be there!!!
This is not conspiracy theory. It is just how the system operates. We all know it. We all see it. Both the sponsorship AND the outcomes.
And America is no different. Obama is Wall Streets man. But so are the republican candidates. They all voted for the US bailout. Of course they did!! Look at who pays for their TV advertising!
No party is going to nominate folks for safe seats if they cause headaches for those who contribute to the party campaign war chest. Not the left, not the right, not the centre. It is plain straight political suicide to do so. So they don't.
All the voter can do in a system of representation is ask for another carefully groomed candidate to carry out the will of those who sponsor the party. That is the extent of their power, as citizens and voters. They can't WHAT happens, they can only change WHO does it.
That is your democracy, if you believe representation is the same as democracy.
You may as well be voting for the colour of tie the leader wears for the next term.
Complain about this comment
The difference Germany offers is that Governments DO try to raise the standard of living of its citizens. Merkel is no exception.
The Sozialmarktwirtschaft principle is adhered to when possible.
Complain about this comment
quietoaktree wrote:
"The difference Germany offers is that Governments DO try to raise the standard of living of its citizens. Merkel is no exception.
The Sozialmarktwirtschaft principle is adhered to when possible."
Great, you've sold me. The system works fairly in Germany because the Germans are better people than the Americans.
WHHHEEEEEE!
Complain about this comment
#19
No, they have only learned from their history.
Why did you have to spoil your #17 with prejudice ?
Complain about this comment
#7 Benefactor:
#12 ghostofsichuan:
But if governments hadn't bailed out the banks, the banks would have run out of money and then businesses would have run out of the money they borrow from the banks on an almost daily basis and the whole system would have collapsed. The result would have been mass unemployment. No?
Complain about this comment
dt;
"That sounds great, but we all know that all the parties were in agreement about the bailout. All the politicians on offer to the german people are sponsored by the banking and corporate sector. All of them would have done exactly the same. We know, because they all voted for it."
I didn't say the policy would change, I just said they will IMO likely vote whoever Merkel is supporting out as the first chapter of the message they will send when she comes up for re-election.
If Germany is controlled by a banking mafia the way Switzerland is, well that's too bad for the Germans. So they have no democracy. You and Ghost of Sezchuan Chicken can form your own anti-banking party. Who knows, it might go transnational the way the green party has.
Complain about this comment
Angie!
Thank you for not inviting me to the party!
I could not bear to be with all those people who supported the imposition of the Lisbon Treaty on the unwilling people of the UK and other parts of Europe.
Thank you once again!
Complain about this comment
As a background for the presidential election today and the analysis of Merkel’s situation one should know that she and her part have just lost the election in Nordrhein-Westfalen, which is the largest (16 mio) and most important federal state.
Secondly the opinion polls tell that Merkel would lose her position as chancellor, if we had general elections on next Sunday.
Thirdly, it is important to know that the second chamber of Bundestag has quite a bit of power, and it can block legislation. Its members are elected in the federal states, and the result in Nordrhein-Westfalen means that Merkel’s government has lost the majority in the second chamber. In other words, Social democrats and Greens have now defacto returned to power and are likely to remain there for the rest of this Bundestag period.
In the reading of German politics one should realise that most of time very large majorities covering every part of Germany are behind a law. The voters are asked time and again about their opinion, since we not only have the elections of Bundestag but also the elections in the federal states (which again have their own political structure).
Complain about this comment
Re #17
&
Re #20
Why spoil with "prejudice"?
Simple: Because though it is always cleverly disguised with overlays of sophistry & verbiage, 'prejudice' is at the core of the content & intent of the author of Comment #17.
Complain about this comment
@22 MAII
Most Governments, unlike the USA, have there head of Government and there head of State as different people. Generally the head of Government is elected and the head of State is appointed.
The Head of Government runs things on a day to day business, sets out the agenda for Parliament, etc. etc.
The Head of State represents the country, generally has an emergency veto, etc. etc.
One position is important and one position is basically ceremonial...
(In an EU context Barossa, the Commission President, is basically the Head of Government and Rumpoy, the Council President, is basically the Head of State. Again, one position is important & one is not. One is (in this case) semi-elected & one is not.)
Complain about this comment
cbw, if you gnash your teeth any harder they will break.
Marcus wrote:
"I didn't say the policy would change, I just said they will IMO likely vote whoever Merkel is supporting out as the first chapter of the message they will send when she comes up for re-election."
Yes, OK. So what is the message? 'We don't want you doing this to us, we want the other person doing this to us.'
Marcus then wrote:
"If Germany is controlled by a banking mafia the way Switzerland is, well that's too bad for the Germans. So they have no democracy."
But Marcus, you seem to have dropped the ball here. Switzerland is not in a recession driven by rampant debt and has not been bailing out banks like crazy. That is Germany and the USA.
Furthermore, the Swiss don't vote for a president. They don't need to, because they vote on the law itself.
If you substitute the word "Switzerland" for the word "USA", what you have written makes sense. As it stands, you fail to admit the fundamental facts.
I think both you and CBW need to have a lie down, and leave the debate alone until you've settled down.
Complain about this comment
9. At 6:41pm on 29 Jun 2010, MikeE-BCN wrote:
"""Germany's contribution to what you are pleased to call the 'bail out' of Greece will be €22 billion over 3 years. France and Spain will be contributing €24 billion. Every Euro country is contributing in proportion down to little Malta."""
Problem is that, even after all those tragic errors of the past leading to the current situation, still nobody needed to that when Russia and China were offering short terms (i.e. in market terms more expensive) loans at ridiculous for this case rates of 3% and with an understanding that "if Greece cannot pay, it will be ok, it can take its time...".
So I will repeat it again and again and again, ask yourselfs what all this mascarade is all about. Tell (especially you in Germany who were fed with lies) your cocitizens that they fool you around like nursery school kids to eat the untasty plate it has on the menu of the school's cantine. They might as well use it as justification to tax you. Unthinkable. If for Germans it would be much more preferable for Greeks to get Russian and Chinese loans then aren't their leadership with Angela on top liable in this case for lying to them (just like Jeffrey in Greece lied to people who of course learnt the truth anyway) telling them there is no other option when there were other options and really remarkable options as the Russian and Chinese offers were followed by business packets which involved real projects and no jokes.
Complain about this comment
d_m wrote:
"#7 Benefactor:
#12 ghostofsichuan:
But if governments hadn't bailed out the banks, the banks would have run out of money and then businesses would have run out of the money they borrow from the banks on an almost daily basis and the whole system would have collapsed. The result would have been mass unemployment. No?"
Aha! Here we come to the single biggest absurdity of the entire "banking crisis": the claim that the whole thing would have fallen over because THERE WAS NO MONEY.
But there is a big problem with this reasoning: There was money. The government came up with a stupid amount of it. And the gave it to the banks.
But don't be fooled, that wasn't really the government's money. It was the taxpayers money, given to the banks by the government.
So if the taxpayer had enough money to give to the banks so the banks could lend to the taxpayer.... surely you can see where this is going?.... why couldn't the taxpayer simply have given the money to themselves?
Let the banks die, and pick up the pieces at the bankruptcy sale. THEN, once the taxpayer owns what is left of the banks, use that PLUS the vast sums of taxpayers debt to recreate a new banking sector. With new people, new firms, new policies. Let the failures fail, and be broke.
Gordon brown wanted to do that, but he lost his nerve. Everyone called that "communism", or nationalization, when in fact it was pure free market behaviour.
At the end of the day, the governments gave away the taxpayers money to the shareholders of the banks because that is what the banks told them to do. That is not paraphrasing, that is actually what happened. The bankers said "We are broke and the system will collapse if you do not give us money." And then the governments gave them the taxpayers money.
There was no objective third party adjudicating matters. It was the bankers talking to the politicians, and that was all it was.
If you ask "What would have happened if they didn't get the money?", be careful to note that nobody asked this question of anyone except the bankers. They are the experts, you see.
But any way you cut it, the taxpayer had to pay thousands of billions of dollars to the banks because otherwise the taxpayer wouldn't have any money.
If someone came up to you on the street with that kind of logic, you'd pepper spray them in the face and call out for the police.
"Give me all your money because otherwise you wont have any money."
You what?
Complain about this comment
Everyone is writing (talking) about Germans bailing out the Greeks. Everyone comes up with numbers: that much Germany paid for Greece bail out, that much the German people are paying for Greeks laziness and so on. I wanna see some numbers showing up how much money German companies earned from Greece in the last 10 years and how much more money are they gonna earn from Greece. I want someone to compare how much will have to loose Germany and German companies if Greece will fail.
Despite all this tabloid type journalism Germany did not help Greece bail out for Greece or for Greek people, Germany paid all this money to save their own interest and earning in Greece.
This is one sided journalism.
If Merkel will loose elections in Germany is not because she helped bailing out Greece with German money. That is what some journalists MAKING "news" wanna be but is not gonna happen. German people want a change and that's why Merkel is gonna loose elections.
Complain about this comment
#26. At 09:06am on 30 Jun 2010, Benefactor wrote
"Most Governments, unlike the USA, have there head of Government and there head of State as different people. Generally the head of Government is elected and the head of State is appointed."
Right - exceptions are Poland and France (more?). Add to this that some countries still have royal heads of states. Circumstances, which time and again make it difficult for Americans to read Europe correctly.
Complain about this comment
Gavin said “And there would be uncertainty in Germany at a time when, more than ever, it holds the key to resolving the crisis in Europe.”
I don’t think this is true, because the measures being proposed by the German government cannot solve this crisis. All they propose is public sector deficit reduction, with possible penalties for eurozone members that do not reduce their deficits. But the public sector deficits and accumulated debt in the eurozone periphery is a symptom of the problem rather than its cause, and the German government has no proposal for how to treat the cause, which is the single monetary policy for the whole eurooone which encourages private sector over-consumption during the upswing part of an economic cycle in the eurozone periphery, inevitably followed by loss of competitiveness and ultimately a bust with an associated blowout in the public deficit and tax revenues fall and unemployment climbs. Until Merkel proposes a remedy to root cause, the German government cannot claim to hold any key to resolving the true crisis.
The current priorities of the German government are akin to Nero playing the fiddle while Rome burns. Avoiding root causes and instead discussing the symptoms of eurozone monetary policy may seem to work for a while, but will likely result in a larger and more widespread bust at the end of the next economic cycle, e.g. in 2020 give or take a couple of years. That is probably the time when some countries that are too big to bail out (e.g. Italy) will leave the eurozone. By then Merkel will be long gone, and no-one will remember who the German president was in 2010.
Complain about this comment
I agree with those who have stated here that Berlin is a wonderful city. I could imagine moving there.
My memory of Stuttgart suggests that Stuttgart is even better.
I prefer either of them to London.
Clearly the Brits have a lot to learn from the Germans. We don't have to be in a political union to do that.
There are ways in which being in apolitical union with the Germans makes it more difficult to learn from them.
Complain about this comment
"""Give me all your money because otherwise you wont have any money.""""
"""If someone came up to you on the street with that kind of logic, you'd pepper spray them in the face and call out for the police.
DT: I reading it over and over again and I still cannot stop laughing! So true!
"""German people want a change and that's why Merkel is gonna loose elections."""
... yes Germans want a change, Greeks a revolution... the point is whether we are going to see any difference...
Complain about this comment
Austrian Radio website reports that the "EU" is to accelerate negotiations with Turkey about its membership of the "EU".
SICK!!
This could be even sicker than the Lisbon Treaty.
However it does do us the favour of reminding us how sick and arrogant the "EU" is.
It reminds that representative democracy is not working.
It reminds us that many (most?) "representatives" are sick, disgusting, arrogant, anti-democratic people.
It reminds us that the "EU" is the enemy of the people who are supposedly its citizens.
Complain about this comment
@ Nik
"... yes Germans want a change, Greeks a revolution... the point is whether we are going to see any difference..."
No. You we are not gonna see any difference.
Complain about this comment
2. At 3:10pm on 29 Jun 2010, ghostofsichuan wrote:
"Governments throughout the EU fail to comprehend that the people understand that their political leaders sold them out for the bankers. It is not all that complicated but rather a matter of trust and most people do not feel that the governments are looking out for their interests. ..."
EUpris: Please could you tell us how you know what "the people" and "most people" "comprehend" or "feel" on these matters?
Complain about this comment
dt;
"Yes, OK. So what is the message? 'We don't want you doing this to us, we want the other person doing this to us."
No, the message to her successor is that if you do this to us also, you won't be around very long either. Interesting that in Germany there are no viable candidates who oppose this bailout policy even when that appears to be the preference of many voters, perhaps even the majority. Same for those in Britain who oppose the kind of concessions the government has made to the EU or even belonging to the EU at all given what it has become. It is not a question of whether these policies are right or wrong but that the only candidates who can get elected don't reflect the majority will, in fact there isn't even what amounts to a national debate. This proves they are not democracies any more than the Socialist Democratic Republics that were Soviet controlled dictatorships were. They can call their tyranny anything they choose but it does not meet my criteria for democracy.
"But Marcus, you seem to have dropped the ball here. Switzerland is not in a recession driven by rampant debt and has not been bailing out banks like crazy. That is Germany and the USA."
There is no correlation between whether or not a nation is prosperous at any given moment and whether or not it is a democracy. Are you a Swiss citizen? Are you disenfranchised? If the answer to both is yes then Switzerland is not a democracy. Switzerland is not some later day ancient Athens. BTW, only about 10% of Athenians participated in democracy, the rest who were women, slaves, too young, or otherwise disqualified were no better off than in any other dictatorship.
Either you really don't understand the underlying principles of democracy which would not surprise me one bit since European tradition is numbed and bewildered by it or you are using lawyerspeak to rationalize Switzerland being a democracy when it isn't and American not being a democracy when it is. That argument may work with many Europeans but it won't get you very far on this side of the pond.
Complain about this comment
opinion;
The rationalization for bailing out Greece is that Germany was in effect bailing out the Euro and itself because it tied its own fate to it. That same rationalization will be inescapable when the Euro is in trouble again and again in the other PIIGS countries. What Germans bought into was a pack of lies about the rosy future they would enjoy with no risk if they bought into the Euro. It is a lie that was not scrutinized at the time it was being decided and is not being debated in public now. Germany like all of the other EUSSR slaves have voluntarily given up much of their sovereignty, that is their control over their own destiny to that of one more megalomaniacal preposterous European grand scheme. And as with every other one in the past it has blown up in their faces. They are therefore doomed to go down with the sinking ship they have imprisoned themselves in.
President Obama should just shut up and stay out if it. This is not an American affair, it has nothing to do with America which might even benefit from it. American involvement will only invite recriminations and demands that it too help in bailing out the bilge as the ship sinks because it will be perceived as having helped create the conditions which caused the ship to sink in the first place. Mr. President, I implore you,....zip it!
Complain about this comment
"Ironically he [Glauck] and Mrs Merkel are friends."
Gavin, there's no irony in it.
Angela, raised in DDR, knows very well what the East German regime was like and what was a cost of even the slightest opposition to it.
I'm sure had it not been for party loyalty, Merkel would vote for Glauck in a New York minute and/or nominated him for a high office if feasible.
Complain about this comment
"Under the Maastricht Treaty there were not supposed to be bail-outs within the eurozone."
And when such a thing as a treaty has ever stopped Brussels if it has wanted to get its way?
"The crisis is not over yet"?
Gavin, have you seen what's happenining at stock exchanges in view of gloomy estimates of European banks' health - bail out or no bail-out?
And what's been happening to mighty euro in the last 72 hours?
Please, stand by.
Complain about this comment
"But Europeans think otherwise and fight off any effort to drill that [Greek]oil."
Nick, but why would they if they prefer to be more and more dependent on putinesque Russia [its unpleasantries with Belarus or not] for its oil and gas supplies?
Complain about this comment
Had I been a Swiss banker who has laundered Nazi gold and money and in the last decades simply German tax-evaders money perhaps I would also claim that "Germans are better people than Americans".
And if an American GI had raped my mother, to boot.
Complain about this comment
@29
I understand that, even if I don't agree 100%. However the core question was basically 'Would things be better for us (the people) now if the Banks had not been bailed out?'
Complain about this comment
Marcus, weren't you predicting for the last months that the Euro should be dead by now...?
Complain about this comment
I am wondering whether we will ever learn what this bail-out was really about, from some official sources. Or there will be another thousands of news about the results, and nothing about the decisions behind it. But I guess this is the right way to confuse people, and distract their attention from the main subject, so well done, BBC!
It is also disappointing how people blame the EU for everything, without noticing that it is controlled by the very same corporations that control their countries.
Complain about this comment
'35. At 11:18am on 30 Jun 2010, EUprisoner209456731 wrote:
Austrian Radio website reports that the "EU" is to accelerate negotiations with Turkey about its membership of the "EU".'
Even if that were true, considering that Turkey first applied for associate membership in the European Economic Community in 1959, the term 'accelerate' should be considered as relative only.
Complain about this comment
Why is mighty euro falling?
We finally got an explanation:
Chinese economy grew much slower in April than predicted.
[not by 1.7%, but by 0.3%].
Boy! Who are those EUSSR types going to blame next for their woes?
North Korea?
Complain about this comment
Regarding the eggs issue...it was all hot air..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/10461548.stm
Complain about this comment
Generally the head of Government is elected and the head of State is appointed."
Right - exceptions are Poland and France (more?).
______
and Russia. as min, theoretically, we vote for the President and direct.
Then he appoints his PM.
Complain about this comment
Though lately it became kind of strange :o)))) Our Presidents tend to appoint the next Presidents ...:o))))) But then it's a tsar tradition so is seen as approx. excusable.
Still, a President in Russia is more like a tsar, whether voted for by the people or having inherited pwier from the prev. President.
While a Prime Minister - just an appointee.
Not so sacred, I mean.
Complain about this comment
43. At 12:27pm on 30 Jun 2010, powermeerkat wrote:
"But Europeans think otherwise and fight off any effort to drill that [Greek]oil."
"""Nick, but why would they if they prefer to be more and more dependent on putinesque Russia [its unpleasantries with Belarus or not] for its oil and gas supplies?"""
Powermeerkat I cannot see necessarily the link between Greeks drilling their oil in collaboration with European companies (thus benefiting not only the country but also all Europe at the same time) and the European dependence on Russian energy provisions. If anything, another source of local energy is more than welcome to increase the energy independence of Europe (and thus from Russia) isn't it?
From there on, your remark on Russia & Bielorussis is unsuccessful. Because it does not tell the real story. USSR had a whole network providing central Europe (back then eastern...) with gas which was then used to export to west Europe (it was exporting even before the fall of the wall small quantities), but then this network passed via countries like Bielorussia & Ukraine (from the ex-USSR) and Poland and Hungary & Chechoslovakia and Romania & Yugoslavia (from the ex-block). Russia initially tried to lure countries to collaborate by providing cheap gas. However for the case of Poland, Hungary and the likes, their deeply (and often too much, afterall Russia is not USSR, Russians suffered more than them under the communist regime which was imported from the west and imposed on them) anti-Russian feelings hindered them in collaborating. Bielorussia and Ukraine accepted the cheaper gas pricing but by early 00s they demanded more. Bielorussia, under the regime of a communist leader, remained close to Moscow, while Ukraine under heavy influence from US agents (including the huge funding of the likes of George Soros) did a mock-rebellion against a democratically elected leader on the basis of marginal election problems (that occur in ALL democratic countries by the way...) and gave rise to a pro-US government that stopped all talks with Russians and presenting quite abnormal demands for a country that simply found itself having installed a pipe network. In return Russians naturally responded by telling them to pay real market prices for their gas which of course exploded the Ukrainian economy (and imagine that Russians were lenient: they told them to pay from 40% of the market price they were paying for only sitting and looking the gas folowing in the pipelines, a 75%, i.e. really again not the full price!). Ukrainians refused to do so, thus legally Russians followed the normal procedures in such cases started gradually reducing the quantity of gas exported to Ukraine. However, Ukraine in response tried to take hostage Russia by revenging and cutting those pipelines that transferred gas to the west (and it is NOT the same system... ). Hence it is Ukrainians that cut the gas to Europe not Russians, yet all anglosaxon media run to spill venom against Russians which is incradible.
Of course, Ukrainian economy was crippled. Ukrainians lost face in Europe. Finally not only they were forced by necessity to comply but their leadership lost all credibility and thus lost to the very same opponent whom they tore down 5 years back. A huge defeat and "a victory of the evident"!
Similar pipework situation in Bielorussia only that the motives were different. Russians, having augmented the price of gas everywhere (following the global trends) decided to augment Bielorussia also to keep the balance (it is not that they will win much out of the consumption of Bielorussia). This is also a means of pressing Bielorussia on other fields (i.e. to stop being such an isolated and cocooned market and activate its economy in tune with the international one, thus necessarily with the Russian one - no wonder on that!).
The Lukashenko's socialist government had a cash-flow problem. He recognised Moscow's valid demands but then he asked in turn to increase a bit the "passage rights" to compensate. Moscow refused but did not shut doors. In the meanwhile the debt of Bielorussia started augmenting dangerously. Lukashenko made an offer to pay the price difference not in money but in goods (industrial parts, machinery, etc.) but naturally this was not accepted by Gazprom which started closing the tap. Bielorussia did not shut the tap of the pipeline flowing to the west directly but as its network was more intrinsically bound to the network going to the west (unlike the case in Ukraine where they are independent), the provision of gas to the Baltic states like Lithuania and Latvia was visibly lower without risking their supplies however.
Finally, Lukashenko & Medvedef found the solution, Lukashenko promised to pay in money the full price (which is still reasonable), Medvedef promised higher passage tax (knowing of course that in 2 years, the Northstream will be completed) so they reached an accord that satisfied both. Big deal. That is how Russia does business nowadays with countries which US in similar cases would had invaded and bombed them back to the middle ages for half of the reasons provided!
The energy independence of Europe, powermeerkat, will not be gained by reducing on Russian gas imports but by reducing on Middle Eastern overly expensive oil & gas imports. The secret for cheaper and more secure power provision for Europe is renewing and expanding its nuclear sector and importing more European gas. Nobody forbid on the sides to import gas from everywhere else in case Russians think it is a good idea to make it more expensive. There are big taps of gas in Northern Africa so why should Europeans worry about getting indebted to Russians? The only one that does not like this involvement is the US but tell me just 1 reason why should Europeans care about it.
Complain about this comment
Re #27
Oh dear! It appears some of us are not quite up to the quality of debate required to participate on this Blog:
Quote, "..I think both you and cbw need to have a lie down..", is DemocThreat's generous advice.
Oh surely we can be allowed to stay up just a little longer? Especially when there are so many intellectual gifts to be pondered from such as the man himself:
E.g. May 2nd 2009 - - ".. we have enough rampant insanity on this blog without losing more folk to the condition.." - - such an unplifting, considered view of fellow contributors by the font of reason, DemocThreat.
E.g. May 3rd 2009 - - "..Hewitt has the world view of a 2nd-rate University graduate... his journalism is insulting to his readers and it is the product of sloth.." - - doubtless, we all appreciate the finer thought made to the debate by that contribution from DemocThreat.
E.g. May 4th 2009 - - ".. ever since, you (i.e. USA/MAII) and your shower of brain-washed hooligan flag-grabbers have been dancing to the tune of..." - - it doesn't get much more complete than that as an example of reasoned, stimulating debate by DemocThreat.
All any of us can really say is thank goodness DemocThreat never **personalises** his contributions or reduces his points of debate to the level of a street slanging-match.
No, these and many other illuminating Comments just reveal how high is the standard of the Swiss domeciled pontificator: I'm sure we can all respect and feel humbled by that level of intellectual prowess.
Complain about this comment
"Even if that were true, considering that Turkey first applied for associate membership in the European Economic Community in 1959, the term 'accelerate' should be considered as relative only. "
Agreed. I'd prefer to have Russia.
Complain about this comment
@38 MAII
"No, the message to her successor is that if you do this to us also, you won't be around very long either. Interesting that in Germany there are no viable candidates who oppose this bailout policy even when that appears to be the preference of many voters, perhaps even the majority. Same for those in Britain who oppose the kind of concessions the government has made to the EU or even belonging to the EU at all given what it has become. It is not a question of whether these policies are right or wrong but that the only candidates who can get elected don't reflect the majority will, in fact there isn't even what amounts to a national debate. This proves they are not democracies any more than the Socialist Democratic Republics that were Soviet controlled dictatorships were. They can call their tyranny anything they choose but it does not meet my criteria for democracy. "
Dear lord, I am to agree with you?
But who couldn`t, especially the second part of that paragraph holds a lot of truth.
I`d still like to add that it`s not so that nobody is opposing the bailout. A prominent politicians from the CSU in fact filed a constitutional challenge against it: Peter Gauweiler.
The problem is not the individual, but our system of political parties running the nation. The individual politician is pressured in order to vote for the party.
We already had cases where members of the parliament, after not voting as the party wished, were harassed in order to make them submit to party discipline.
"What Germans bought into was a pack of lies about the rosy future they would enjoy with no risk if they bought into the Euro. It is a lie that was not scrutinized at the time it was being decided and is not being debated in public now."
Germany had to agree to the Euro as a price for reunification. That was what the government told the people.
In hindsight, I`d say that neither Thatcher, nor Mitterand or whoever could have prevented it and, therefore, it was all a lie.
Complain about this comment
The US Senate just passed banking regulations and removed the tax on banking to pay for it and instead decided that the taxpayer should pay for the regulation costs. The free market Republicans and the banking owned Democrats agreed that campaign contributions are much more important to the economic future (their individual economic future) than the welfare of the people. The Republicans who insisted that any saving in the TARP would go to deficit reduction now have decided that this fund can be used to pay for the banking regulations...hypocrits..as usual. As the world followed the US Bankers into this greatest transfer of wealth upward and the resultant global financial crisis they will surely follow with the continuation of burdening the taxpayers to insure the protection of the wealthy. I wonder how long citizens will continue to be passive as the governments continue to transfer their hard earned money to the bankers.
Complain about this comment
Re #56" Germany had to agree to the Euro as a price for reunification. That was what the government told the people.
In hindsight, I`d say that neither Thatcher, nor Mitterand or whoever could have prevented it and, therefore, it was all a lie."
Guess what: I completely agree.
Just like a concept of United States of Europe was a result of illness known in psychiatry as mania grandiosa.
[yes, it can be eventually cured. But it takes time]
Or a vision of 'European identity' which turned out to be merely a wishful thinking.
Complain about this comment
Berlin 17:10
Merkel's candidate, Wulff, has lost the two first votings because he didn't get the absolute majority. In the third voting he just need a majority.
It is crucially to notice that Merkel's government has a comfortable majority in the assembly that elects the president. Merkel is in other words not getting the votes from her own group, and therefore it can be said already now that no matter if Wulff wins the chancellor has taken a hard political blow.
Complain about this comment
# 58,
Such comments do a great disservice to the people that actually came up with the concept of a United States of Europe - which, ironically, included quite a few Americans & Englishmen - . Seeing as it grew out of a rather philanthropic strain of bourgeois-thought ... one that forsaw an eventual United States of the World, by the way ... it's quite off the mark to call it 'mania grandiosa'. Hell, even George Washington thought it would be a good idea. Just as did Victor Hugo or Charles Lemonnier or the first winners of the Nobel Peace Prize. Obviously, none of these people were thinking in a time-frame perspective of 50 years. This is a long term vision. Same thing with a 'European' or 'Cosmopolitan' identity. It's rather silly to claim it can't work because in 50 years it hasn't come to fruition. Seriously, these are things that will take centuries, if you take a bit of time to think about it, you'll see that it's quite obvious to just about anyone.
On another note, I'm quite amused at the dichtomy people vs. politicians that's being displayed on this board again. The politicians are not in some sort of secret cabal in which they take decisions and then act them out contrary to your will. They're usually rather ordinary people with ordinary ideas that come out in rather ordinary ways. Talking about politicians as if they're a different species only accomplishes one thing: It takes the weight off your own shoulders, because now YOU can avoid having any 'responsability' for the way politics are done.
Complain about this comment
#58 - powermeerkat
The treaty of reunification between West and East Germany was signed in May 1990. The Maastricht Treaty, which introduced the Euro was in 1992. Britain had no interest in the monetary union project anyway and negotiated an opt out. Margaret Thatcher left office in 1990 and Maastricht was negotiated by Major and his team. So the idea that there is an linkage between reunification and the euro is patently absurd.
Complain about this comment
#59 - Mathiasen
This is what I meant about a Thatcher moment earlier on. The first sign that members of her own party may be turning against her.
Complain about this comment
"""...Just like a concept of United States of Europe was a result of illness known in psychiatry as mania grandiosa.
[yes, it can be eventually cured. But it takes time]
Or a vision of 'European identity' which turned out to be merely a wishful thinking."""
European identity there is. In fact it existed even 1000 years back, and if anyone is to really stretch things ... even back during Persian wars in 490-480 B.C. ancient writers stated strangely that Greek states resisted Persians maintaining their freedom and protecting Europe from enslavement to Persians - whatever that was.
It is another thing to have a European identity and another thing to think that this so called "European identity" is anything like close to making an EU-citizen feeling like a US citizen.
You should know that U.S.E. is something that was refered more often by EU detractors than EU friends. In fact it was noticed mainly by the most EU-phobics of all. 20 years back they were saying "don't do it, don't do it... almost pleading", now they say "see? see what happenes when you try to do it?". Whatever.
Nobody spoke of U.S.E. But a common EU-Defense/Space/Energy policy is something that won't affect really the whatever independence European states have right now - in fact it will largely increase it.
And I think that is the real problem for a group of the hardcore EU-phobes (not the ones who are against because they know the real bank-based background of EU with whom I am 100% in acocrdance of course...anyway it is because of that background that the EU cannot function properly and from a Chinese Wall of protection of the EU countries it becomes a Trojan Horse).
Complain about this comment
#60. At 5:02pm on 30 Jun 2010, Leo_Naphta wrote:
"The politicians are not in some sort of secret cabal in which they take decisions and then act them out contrary to your will. They're usually rather ordinary people with ordinary ideas that come out in rather ordinary ways."
Indeed. They are conservative, liberal and social democrats like their voters, and none of them spend time here to enligthen a group of citizens that are not capable of reading an election result, but none the less lecture everybody about their private ideas of democracy.
By the way: We have a great democratic performance in Berlin today.
Complain about this comment
@61 threnodio_II
"The treaty of reunification between West and East Germany was signed in May 1990. The Maastricht Treaty, which introduced the Euro was in 1992. Britain had no interest in the monetary union project anyway and negotiated an opt out. Margaret Thatcher left office in 1990 and Maastricht was negotiated by Major and his team. So the idea that there is an linkage between reunification and the euro is patently absurd."
There is. You just need to open a good book and some newspapers.
German central bankers and experts were opposed to the idea of joining the EMU. After all, the DM was strong and most other currencies were quite weak due to a different attitude towards inflation within nations such as France.
Thatcher strongly opposed to reunification, but did not force upon the EMU. That`s true.
She had another view: "you have not anchored Germany to Europe, but Europe to a newly dominant Germany"
Fortunately for Germany, most of Britains diplomats were in support of reunification.
But Mitterand used the process of reunification to blackmail Germany by threatening to use the French "right" to veto.
Is that how you handle a nation that you call a "friend"?
Anyway, the agreements were made in 89. Maastricht was just the final point where everything came together.
And Germany refused to sign without a ECB located in Germany.
At least they managed to get that much.
Complain about this comment
@63 (Nik)
I am a hardcore EU-phobe. But also a nazi-phobe, communistophobe and religion-phobe. I just don't like collectivist and undemocratic setups.
And yes, I'd rather be an EU-phobe than a democracy-phobe like some here.
35.EUprisoner209456731 wrote:
Austrian Radio website reports that the "EU" is to accelerate negotiations with Turkey about its membership of the "EU".
Is that even a surprise? The EU knows full well the people are against Asian country Turkey in the EU, but they don't HAVE to care. The EU is deliberately undemocratic so a mutually appointed elite could make the decisions without chance for us to block it. The EU-philes will undoubtedly love this since they don't really seem to like democracy all that much.
Complain about this comment
It`s official: in the 3rd round, Christian Wulff was elected with 625 votes.
I`m still a little bit surprised that Wulff, as a minister president, could vote for himself and Gauck as well as other candidates had to sit outside without being able to vote.
Democracy at work!
Complain about this comment
#65 - DurstigerMann
We have discussed Thatcher's role in this before and agreed that, while she personally was vigorously opposed to reunification but we have also agreed - as did most of her colleagues at the time - that she was not only wrong but destined to fail.
I am more confused by what you say about Mitterand. What on earth was he going to veto? The EU had no competency to effect the reunification process, surely?
Complain about this comment
68. At 8:20pm on 30 Jun 2010, threnodio_II wrote:
"I am more confused by what you say about Mitterand. What on earth was he going to veto? The EU had no competency to effect the reunification process, surely?"
And I'm very surprised about your question as you are the one that impresses me the most here in this blog.
Germany (East and West) was de facto split into 4 zones and occupied by the 4 WWII allies until the "reunification" in 1990 as no peace treaty was ever signed.
That's why there was this so called 4+2 conference regarding the German "reunification".
So any ally could have vetoed the "reunification".
Complain about this comment
Having resided for a period of time, and traveled numerous times to the beautiful country of the Federal Republic of Germany, and routinely kept myself informed on the news about the country, I have become saddened and dismayed at the situation of the politics that have been transpiring in recent years.
The most recent issue, regarding the resignation of Germany's President, Horst Köhler raises the question of a politician holding the position of head of state for Germany. According to the constitution of The Federal Republic of Germany, the role of President is simply ceremonial. What President Horst Köhler has done by resigning, has caused harm to the country, and to the people and government of Germany, at a time when the country can ill afford such chaos. The government is in the midst of trying to grapple with a tumultuous economic situation that is not only putting undue pressure on the government, but the people as well. And lets not forget the ongoing mission in Afghanistan. Couldn't President Horst Köhler have given ample time for Chancellor Merkel to find a replacement?
After keeping silent for years about the ceremonial role of German President, I can keep silent no more. Having studied Germany history, mainly from a 19th century stand point, which sadly many German students do not study much on, but rather delve into the twelve years of the National Socialism regime quite heavily on. I came upon a solution that will help bring stability, honour, continuity, and I might add... tourists.
Germany has traditions that go back many generations, and traditions that should be honoured and cherished, and not thrown away into the recycling bin of history because some one tells you so. My solution would be to reinstate, on a constitutional basis, the new head of state as the current head of the House of Hohenzolleren, Georg Friedrich Ferdinand, Prinz of Prussia. If modeled on like Germany's Nordic neighbors; Norway, Sweden and Denmark, which are constitutional monarchies, based upon democratic values, Germany can draw upon the good and honorable from it's past. With a monarch as head of state, they would be bound by the constitution, would be able to be a great mediator on behalf of the various political parties, as the monarch would be impartial because they would not be beholden to any political party, therefor time and resources would not be wasted on trying to appoint a new president.
Germans for far too long have been held hostage to their own history, but now is the time to say enough is enough, and to say that we cherish the good in our past, and that not all should be thrown away because it is old, or that some would say that the past traditions are irrelevant.
Georg Friedrich Ferdinand, Prinz of Prussia is a much respected individual, who would be able to help unify the growing divisions that are growing in Germany, from the left, center, and right. Georg Friedrich Ferdinand also has the added benefit of being related to most of Europe's royal families, which helps embrace the tradition of European unity.
Call me old fashioned or traditional, but borrowing from the past, yet embracing the future sounds like it would be a welcome respite from the nonsense of a resigning president in the middle of a crisis, and terror tactics from Communists (leftist), and National Socialists (far right) thugs.
God Save Georg Friedrich Ferdinand, Prinz of Prussia, and Gold Bless Germany!
Complain about this comment
#70. At 02:05am on 01 Jul 2010, napasada wrote:
“According to the constitution of The Federal Republic of Germany, the role of President is simply ceremonial. “
The role of President is not simply ceremonial. The president signs the new bills, and Köhler has denied to do that twice, because he found the bills inconsistent with the constitution. In both cases he was right.
The president also has a role to play, if the government in Bundestag loses a vote of confidence.
#67. At 8:18pm on 30 Jun 2010, DurstigerMann wrote:
“I`m still a little bit surprised that Wulff, as a minister president, could vote for himself and Gauck as well as other candidates had to sit outside without being able to vote.
Democracy at work!”
As president of ministers in Niedersachsen (Lover Saxony) Wullf is (was) member of the federal assembly that elects the president. Gauck is not a member of the assembly.
!
Complain about this comment
"62. At 5:32pm on 30 Jun 2010, threnodio_II wrote:
#59 - Mathiasen
This is what I meant about a Thatcher moment earlier on. The first sign that members of her own party may be turning against her."
I wonder if her current associates will regret their betrayal in the years ahead as well....even if that regret is helped along with rose tinted glasses. She may have the last laugh.
Complain about this comment
@71 Mathiasen
"As president of ministers in Niedersachsen (Lover Saxony) Wullf is (was) member of the federal assembly that elects the president. Gauck is not a member of the assembly."
I am from Niedersachsen ;)
And I consider Wulff to be a competent MP.
Some commentors on TV mentioned it yesterday: he really did a good job and reduced bureaucracy significantly.
But all that aside, I cannot agree with a system, where someone who has access to the Federal Assemply due to his/her position, has an actual advantage of one vote just because of that position.
Complain about this comment
@70 napasada
"Germany has traditions that go back many generations, and traditions that should be honoured and cherished, and not thrown away into the recycling bin of history because some one tells you so. My solution would be to reinstate, on a constitutional basis, the new head of state as the current head of the House of Hohenzolleren, Georg Friedrich Ferdinand, Prinz of Prussia. If modeled on like Germany's Nordic neighbors; Norway, Sweden and Denmark, which are constitutional monarchies, based upon democratic values, Germany can draw upon the good and honorable from it's past. With a monarch as head of state, they would be bound by the constitution, would be able to be a great mediator on behalf of the various political parties, as the monarch would be impartial because they would not be beholden to any political party, therefor time and resources would not be wasted on trying to appoint a new president."
I can understand where you are coming from and there certainly are people who would support your idea.
I for one would rather have a constitutional monarch than the charade we have had for the last 50-60 years.
But the Federal Republic of Germany does not consider itself to be the successor of the the German Empire.
As you probably know, the national flag and anthem were chosen in remembrance of the German Revolution of 1948.
It is true that the usage of the colors themselves on banners of German nations can be dated back over 800 years.
But the reason for them to be chosen as the national flag of the Weimar Republic and, after WWII, of both the GDR and FRG lies within the uprisings for democrac in 1848/49.
Germany has, for the better or worse, severed ties with her monarchy.
Complain about this comment
Gheryando wrote:
"Regarding the eggs issue...it was all hot air..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/10461548.stm"
Well someone ended up with egg on their face. (boom tish!)
Complain about this comment
74.DurstigerMann wrote: My solution would be to reinstate, on a constitutional basis, the new head of state as the current head of the House of Hohenzolleren, Georg Friedrich Ferdinand, Prinz of Prussia.
I for one would rather have a constitutional monarch than the charade we have had for the last 50-60 years.
I believe that only people who are against equality and against democracy are in favor of the discriminatory system called monarchy.
I believe in equality and democracy and believe that all heads of state and government should be either directly elected by the people or indirectly elected by a democratic national parliament (on a national basis only, no appointments of people to serve on supranational councils that can bypass national parliaments and governments).
Monarchies are obsolete, outdated and against equality and democracy. Most important of all, they are utterly discriminatory since they apparently elevate 'one particular family' above the rest. Once upon a time an arrogant antidemocratic elite awarded themselves titles and privileges and declared those to be hereditary. They, like the Hohenzollern, robbed and exploited the people (whom they regarded as lesser folks).
I declare: all hereditary titles should be abolished and forbidden.
I demand an equal chance to be head of state! For equality, against monarchy.
Complain about this comment
70.napasada wrote: After keeping silent for years about the ceremonial role of German President, I can keep silent no more. Having studied Germany history, mainly from a 19th century stand point, which sadly many German students do not study much on, but rather delve into the twelve years of the National Socialism regime quite heavily on. I came upon a solution that will help bring stability, honour, continuity, and I might add... tourists.
I would like to declare that it is an utter myth that monarchy brings tourists. Old palaces might, but monarchies do not. Besides, monarchies are undemocratic and discriminatory.
Why should others not be have even a theoretical chance to be head of state? Why do you like discriminating between common nationals based on birth?
Complain about this comment
@75 mvr512
"I believe that only people who are against equality and against democracy are in favor of the discriminatory system called monarchy.
I believe in equality and democracy and believe that all heads of state and government should be either directly elected by the people or indirectly elected by a democratic national parliament (on a national basis only, no appointments of people to serve on supranational councils that can bypass national parliaments and governments)."
I agree about the direct voting of the President.
That would be the best way.
But I absolutely don`t agree about indirect elections.
The President in Germany has some powers. For example, he could have stopped the bail out by not giving his signature.
The way this position is voted for right now is nothing but a charade and a disgrace.
Why do you think the CDU and FDP had ONE common candidate they supported together?
Because that guy will be in favour of their policy.
It was lovely to see how some politicians got angry on TV because some members of the fraction apparently didn`t vote for Wulff.
Wheee democray go!
If you look at the votes by fraction, you will see what I mean. Most votes went to the respective fraction candiates.
And it has been like this for the most of 60 years. The government decided on the President.
and I don`t see equality when a MP who is candidate can vote for himself, but the other candidates don`t get to vote. It`s neither fair nor equal.
So I really fail to see what`s so much worse about a monarch or whoever independed in that position without the need to rely on votes?
At least a monarch would have some sense of patriotic responsibility for his/her country. Something every politicians should have, but which is not the case in my experience.
And its not like the President could actively make politics.
Complain about this comment
@75 mvr512
It is a shame that you are unable to see the benefits of a restoration of a constitutional monarch in a modern Germany. Modern European monarchs are unlike what they were one hundred or two hundred years ago, and have in fact proven to be quite beneficial and impartial when it comes to handling disputes.
I have had the unique pleasure to have viewed Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, who happens to be a cousin of His Royal Highness, Georg Friedrich, on her Canadian tour during the Canada Day celebrations, and the Canadians still very much love their Queen, who has very much helped in unifying the French, English and native peoples. Just seeing how many people came out in Ottawa just to see the Queen on July 1st on Canada Day was a special gift to the people of Canada, and people had someone to look up to other than an empty politician that only cares about getting reelected and raising campaign funds for themselves and their political party.
It has been said that there have been eleven prime ministers of the UK that Queen Elizabeth has had in her government, since Winston Churchill, and she has a wealth of knowledge that makes her indispensable because of this. This alone is reason enough to have a restoration of a monarch in Germany, because politicians have just become so entrenched in their political parties, and have corporations, donors and their parties to honour instead of the people.
If given a referendum, the Germans would have opted to have kept the Deutsche Mark, and restore a constitutional monarch in place of the President.
On another note, I for one love parades, and changing of the guard, like in Stockholm or London. This is something that Berlin has lacked since 1918 at the Neu Wache, and Berliner Stadtschloss. Much nicer and grandeur than seeing the typical drunken parades Berlin has had in recent years.
So, there are benefits to a restoration beyond the constitutional duties of signing in new laws and promoting the country on the international stage, just as Queen Elizabeth does now, and quite well I might add, and His Royal Highness, Georg Friedrich has the knowledge and capacity to represent his country with honour and dignity that Germany needs and requires at this time.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS