SPD, Greens and FDP: On the way to “the space of possibility”

The SPD, Greens and FDP have not even explored for two weeks. Now the three parties are facing coalition negotiations – and they seem to be gripped by a wave of euphoria.

SPD, Greens plus FDP – how is that supposed to work? Many have asked themselves that when it all boiled down to this becoming the most likely new governing coalition. Many think that something like this can only be a kind of coalition of convenience in which one negotiates: Each side gets something, and in return each side has to painfully forego something.

Something new is developing

But anyone who saw and heard Olaf Scholz, Christian Lindner, Annalena Baerbock, Robert Habeck, Saskia Esken and Norbert Walter-Borjans in “Hub 27” when they presented the results of the red-green-yellow sounding, had the feeling: That’s it developed something completely new. The Gordian knot is severed! Squaring the circle: it is possible! Something new has arisen from thesis and antithesis! No lowest common denominator, but rather: This suggests a coalition that “is greater than the sum of its participants,” says Christian Lindner. “The scope of possibilities” has “expanded” for our country.

Even if you were not involved in the explorers’ meetings: They all seem to be inspired by a euphoria that they want to convey to the journalists present and, via them, to the population, which seems to be ready anyway for such a reconciliation adopt polarized times.

Not probed for two weeks

The will to such a merging of different, often opposing parties has brought about this optimistic mood among the politicians involved and among the voters. So the soundings didn’t even last two weeks. “Yes, we have to do something, and we want that” – the traffic light explorers have agreed on that.

Because many problems that have not been addressed or only unsatisfactorily addressed in 16 years of Union-led federal governments increasingly call for solutions: First of all, of course, increasing global warming, but also the embarrassing lag in digitization or the fact that even people who earn quite well , can hardly find affordable housing in big cities.

Much “we want”, little “we will”

But don’t forget: the twelve-page paper they presented is ONLY an exploratory result. There is a lot of “we want” in it and, first of all, very little: “we will”. Much can be understood as well-intentioned intentions, which have to be realized first. We already know a lot: reducing bureaucracy, accelerating the expansion of renewable energies, reducing employment hurdles, promoting innovation, affordable and sustainable building and living, sustainable public finances, a commitment to the Bundeswehr.

Many of the Gordian knots are still not really through: First and foremost, of course, the question has not been answered: How are all the investments that are planned to be financed? “In order to stabilize the pension level and the pension contribution rate in the long term, we will start with a partial funding of the statutory pension insurance.” So: pensions are to be financed in part from income on the financial market in order to reduce subsidies from the federal budget. But first of all, the pension insurance should get ten billion euros from the budget.

Financing still unclear

At the request of the FDP, no new property taxes (i.e. no wealth tax) will be introduced. And other taxes are not raised. To this end, the fight against tax evasion, money laundering and tax avoidance is to be intensified. Will that bring enough money for the federal treasury? Because: At the same time, the explorers want to give “a boost” to the economy with “super depreciation” for investments in climate protection and digitization.

Numbers are not given. The 500 billion euros that the Greens wanted to invest in climate protection and infrastructure in ten years are not mentioned. Are you sticking to the ambitious agenda of the Greens, or will they have to slim down considerably from it? And how much of it would you be willing to forego? Not a word about it so far.

Negotiators must now become specific

But if the coalition is to be negotiated from now on, the negotiators have to become specific. You will have to give numbers. You will have to discuss, wrestle, argue, negotiate and seek agreements. As with all negotiations, the outcome is uncertain. Just think of 2017, when the Jamaica Coalition (Union + FDP + Greens) project, which was also very confidently started, did not materialize in the end.

On the other hand, the exploratory results indicate that the will to succeed is there. At some points there was already a substantive proximity between the Greens and the FDP: For example, in the process of making the immigration of skilled workers more practicable. Here is the “point system” that the FDP wants and against which the Greens and apparently also the SPD do not want to oppose, in the paper.

There are also softer themes

Or the “lane change”, which was not possible in a government with the Union: to create the possibility that people whose asylum applications were rejected but who are well integrated are allowed to stay as specialists by simply writing on paper immigrate on a different “track”. Instead of Hartz-IV – that seems to have already been agreed – a “citizen’s money” will be introduced. Only what that looks like and how it will differ from the previous Unemployment Benefit II has not yet been negotiated.

And: In addition to the “hard” facts, which one will certainly fight hard for in the next few weeks, there are also the softer topics that cost little or no money and which can most likely be realized. What Robert Habeck called “the second glowing core” in the paper today – the “social modernization”: The nationality, family, parentage and transsexual laws are to be adapted. The Basic Law is to be supplemented by a ban on discrimination based on sexual identity. The term “race” is to be replaced.