A potential turning point for European socialists?!

By David Meier

The party conference of the SPD has authorized the opening of alliance negotiations with the CDU/CSU for another grand coalition. However, the tight voting result showcases the divisions within a party whose members will have to ratify the final coalition agreement. Meanwhile, several European governments wait for a new German government. However, the situation in Germany represents trends as regards structural change such as the demise of socialist/social democratic parties and the rise of rightist/nationalist populist parties in a lot of European democracies. The referendum of the members of the SPD could be a tipping point or accelerate the trend.

On 21 January 2018, a slim majority of  delegates (56%) of a special party conference of the SPD, the German social democrates, has authorized its party leadership to start coalition talks with Chancellor Angela Merkel`s conservative CDU/CSU. Both parties have already been partners in grand coalitions under Merkel from 2005 to 2009 and from 2013 to 2017. Since the German federal elections in September 2017, a care taker government has ruled Germany as Merkel has not been able to form a new government so far.   

The crushing election blow (20%) was only the culmination of a series of devastating election defeats (23% in 2009  and 25% in 2013) which had started after the first grand coalition between the SPD and Merkel`s CDU/CSU, both traditional catch-all parties. The demise of a traditional socialist/social democratic catch-all party is not a merely German phenomenon. In 2017, the Dutch social democratic party PvdA  (Labour Party), which had received 24,84% of the votes in the 2012 elections, only scored 5,7% at the ballots. Its worst result ever after a five-year grand coalition with Prime Minister Mark Rutte`s conservative VVD  (People`s Party for Freedom and Democracy). In France, the socialist party (PS) suffered a major blow as its front-runner for the presidential elections, Benoît Hamon, only ranked 5th in the first round with 6,36% of the votes and no access to the second round, whereas the candidate of the PS in 2012 François Hollande had ranked first in the first round (28,63%) and in the second one (51,64%) and had consequently become president. The second devastating defeat for the PS was that the PS electorate for the National Assembly elections shrunk from 29,35% (280 seats) in 2012 to only 7,44% (30 seats) in 2017. In all of the three countries the decline of the socialist/social democratic catch-all parties coincided with the rise and successful results of rightist, nationalist and populist anti-EU as well as anti-refugee parties, such as the AFD in Germany, the PVV in the Netherlands and the Front National in France. 

The SPD´s result in the 2017 elections was the worst in the party`s history. Against this backdrop the SPD`s front-runner Martin Schulz, former President of the European Parliament,  announced on the evening of the 2017 election defeat that he and his party will not form a government with Merkel. He argued that the SPD must revolve as the leading opposition party in order to recover successfully.

According to him, this was not only essential for his party but also for German democracy, as with the AFD for the first time in decades a rightist and nationalist populist party had not only succeeded to attain the 5 % treshold  necessary to join the Bundestag (the German lower house of parliament) but it had even surpassed it largely by reaching a percentage of about 12% and ranking third. Schulz blamed the lack of controversy between both traditional catch-all parties for the success of the AFD as the grand coalition had left German citizens without any credible alternatives among traditional parties. Therefore, he claimed the SPD must take the lead of the parliamentary opposition in order to avoid that the AFD would become the leading opposition party in the Bundestag and blossom even more. Schulz referred to the example of Austria, where the polls and election results of the rightist and nationalist populist FPÖ had increased during several grand coalitions between the social democrats (SPÖ) and the conservatives ÖVP. After his election victory in the 2017 elections, the ÖVP´s front-runner Kurz even chose to form a government with the FPÖ.

In the aftermath of Schulz`announcement that the SPD would not join another government under the leadership of chancellor Merkel the CDU/CSU opened talks with the liberal FDP and the ecologist green party Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. Due to differing values, visions and and goals those talks failed. After that the pressure on the SPD to revisit its pledge not to form a coalition with the CDU/CSU rose considerably. Thus, the party leadership of both parties started exploratory talks. However, after Schultz promised not to form a coalition with Merkel a large part of the members of the SPD was highly critical to open those talks. Therefore, the party`s leadership stressed that the negotiations would be open and unbiased as to the result. Some members of the party leadership emphasized that the SPD could push through a number of major campaign promises such as higher taxes for the rich, an egalitarian health insurance scheme instead of the current bipartite public and private health insurance scheme and the protection of the rights of refugees. In January 2018, the party leadership of the SPD and the CDU/CSU published a findings document for the exploratory negotiations. A lot of members of the SPD complained that the findings document did not comprise any reference to major SPD campaign promises such as higher taxes for the rich, an egalitarian health insurance scheme etc.,and that the CDU/CSU had even been able to carry through a very tight approach on refugees.

In light of this delusion, the SPD`s party leadership had to pledge to try to push through a more egalitarian health insurance scheme, the prohibition of unjustified temporary work contracts and a hardship provision as regards family reunification of refugees with subsidiary protection status (such as the majority of Syrian refugees). All which in order to get the votes of 56% of the delegates for the opening of coalition talks at the special party conference. The coalition talks have already started in January and shall be finished on 4 February 2018. Afterwards all members of the SPD will have to ratify the final coalition agreement. Due to the tight voting at the party conference and the manifest delusion of a lot of party members with the prospect of another grand coalition it is not yet certain if both catch-all parties will actually form a coalition.

The leadership of both parties argue that the only alternative to another grand coalition would be early elections resulting in an impasse similar to the current one. Chancellor Merkel has been urging the people that the world is not waiting for Germany  to form a government as the country has already been four months without an elected government which is unique in Germany`s history. Nevertheless, in recent years many other European states such as Spain, the Netherlands and Belgium needed much more time, up to a whole year, in order to elect a government.

Additionally, the opponents of another grand coalition note that early elections are not the only alternative as Merkel could also lead a minority government. Furthermore, they contend that a minority government being a novelty for the German political culture could be even beneficial to the stability and vitality of the German democracy as it would enhance the controversy between traditional parties and thus underline the differences and similarities between them enabling citizens to choose between real alternatives.

Merkel and Schulz refuse this view, arguing that a crisis-stricken Europe needs a firm German government to reform the EU. Indeed, the first point of the findings document of the exploratory talks between CDU/CSU and the SPD refers to a different German EU policy and a EU reform effort together with and to a certain extent according to the ideas of the French president Emmanuel Macron, i.e. with a shared Eurozone budget and a European finance minister who could control national budgets. Moreover, a lot of European heads of state or government, such as Macron and the Italian Prime Minister Gentiloni, expressed their relief about the SPD`s party conference`s decision to open the coalition talks.     

On the other hand, Germany would not be the only EU country being ruled by a minority government as this approach currently exists in several member states such as Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom and Sweden. Besides, it is questionable wether another grand coalition government in Germany and consequently a push for an EU reform according to Macron`s template are a panacea to the EU`s multiple crises.

The political systems of many member states have been changing dramatically during the last decade. The demise of socialist/social democratic parties and the rise of rightist, nationalist and populist forces are only the most obvious symptoms. In some countries such as Austria, Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary those populists are even at least part of the government. Other less palpable consequences of this change are the significant losses in popularity for conservative catch-all parties, the emergence of new political movements such as La République en Marche! in France, Cinque Stelle in Italy and Podemos and Ciudadanos in Spain. What all those novelties have in common is that it becomes more and more difficult to form governments. The next important parliamentary election in a member state will be held in Italy in March and the polls suggest that it will be very hard to elect a government afterwards.

But what are the underlying reasons for this radical change in the political landscape of Europe? Some observers have identified the dominance of neoliberal economic and social policies as the root of all evil. Since the fall of the Iron Curtain a lot of former leftist parties such as the socialist and social democratic parties have shifted to the center, or even to the right and have adopted the neoliberal approach which has become a kind of common ground of the political elites in Europe. As a consequence, there was less room for controversial debates about fundamental societal, economic and social decisions. Yet, controversy, debate and the choice between real alternatives are essential features of democracies. In most western European states, the rightist, nationalist and populist parties have filled the void left by socialist and social democratic parties. In some eastern European countries such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Hungary there are no traditionally strong leftist parties for historical reasons, so it was even easier for populist forces to close the gap in the societal debate.

Nevertheless, there are also developments going in another direction. Since the election of its new leader Jeremy Corbyn in 2015, the British Labour Party has shifted to the left and in June 2016 it received nearly as much votes as the ruling conservative Tory party and currently it is even leading in the polls. In Portugal, António Costa and his socialist party, PS, refused in 2015 to tolerate a conservative government and formed a minority government accepted  by other leftist and green parties. They adopted measures aimed at alleviating the consequences of the austerity policies imposed by the former government and European creditors.

SPD members will have to choose which path to follow. A „yes“ vote to the coalition agreement would provide Germany and the EU with a firm German government, and probably it would be easier to push through some reforms of the Eurozone. On the other hand, it is questionable if those reforms are fit for solving the current crises or if they will even enhance them. The Austrian, Dutch  and French examples suggest that another grand coalition, i.e. the continuation of the neoliberal dominance among the traditional political parties, threatens to create further room for rightist, nationalist and populist forces. Maybe a „no“ vote could be a turning point to follow the successful British and Portuguese examples.         

The forgotten tragedy

By David Meier 

Some weeks ago, the UN rang the alarm on the threat of starvation of millions of people in Yemen due to a blockade of any Yemeni land, sea and air ports imposed by a Saudi Arabian – led military coalition. The incident turns the spotlight on one of the worst man-made disasters currently taking place: the war in Yemen. This conflict seems to be overshadowed by other conflicts with more severe repercussions for the West such as the wars in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. The UN’s solemn warning also shed light on the EU‘s conundrum how to address the situation in Yemen. The EU has to decide whether it prefers to maintain a rather passive approach to the conflict, in order to protect its economic and strategic interests in the region, or whether it wants to act in accordance with the values of its founding treaties by promoting and safeguarding human rights and international humanitarian law.

On 8 November, Mark Lowcock, the under-secretary general for humanitarian affairs of the United Nations Organisation (UN), warned that unless the blockade of any Yemeni land, sea and air ports imposed by a Saudi Arabian – led military coalition is lifted, ``it will be the largest famine the world has seen for many decades with millions of victims.`` According to Saudi Arabia, the embargo had been imposed in direct  response to a missile attack against the Saudi-Arabian capital Riyadh, which had been launched by the Shiite Houthi rebels on Monday 6 November, and its purpose is to prevent Iran from supplying weapons to those rebels. Due to international pressure, the ports of Aden and Mukalla were reopened last week, but humanitarian aid and aid agency workers, as well as dearly needed food and medicines supplies have been hindered from entering the country or some of its regions so far.

The origins of the ongoing war in Yemen date back to the Arab spring in 2011, when the government of president Ali Abdullah Saleh was toppled down. Three years later, in September 2014, Shiite Houthi rebels allied to the ousted former president Saleh, started to invade and occupy the north of Yemen and the country`s capital Sanaa and expelled the internationally recognized government of Saleh‘s successor president Abed-Rabbo Mansour Hadi. In March 2015, a Saudi-Arabian-led military coalition joined the Yemeni civil war in order to support and reinstate the government of president Hadi.

There is an internal and a regional dimension about the Yemeni conflict. The Shiite minority is almost as numerous as the slim Sunni majority. Yemen has only existed for 27 years. In 1990, the Yemen Arab Republic (North Yemen) and the (marxist) People‘s Democratic Republic of Yemen (south Yemen) merged to one united Yemeni state. Before, two wars had been fought between both states in the 1970s. After the unification, a civil war broke out in the middle of the 1990s. Southern Yemeni secessionists lost the civil war. The military conflict between the Yemeni government and the Houthi rebels began in July 2004 when Hussein Badreddin al-Houthi, head of the Zaidi Shia sect, started a rebellion against the government. Additionally to the Houthi rebels and the Hadi government, is a third party to the conflict comprising Sunni jihady forces associated with Al Quaida and ISIL. 

As regards the regional dimension of the conflict the war in Yemen is a proxy war between Saudi Arabia, which is a Sunni hegemony, and Iran, which envisions itself as the protecting power of all Shiites. Both regional powers struggle in Iraq as well as in Syria and in Bahrain. In Lebanon the next proxy war between both powers is looming.

In the European media the war in Yemen is not as prominent as the ones taking place in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. The underlying reason for the lack of coverage on this could be that only a very small number of Yemeni refugees have arrived in Europe, so far.

Even before the start of the war in 2014, Yemen has been the poorest of all Arab nations. The repercussions of the war on the humanitarian situation of the population of Yemen are very severe. About 10 thousand civilians have been killed and 2 million people have been displaced. According to John Ging, the UN's director of humanitarian operations, 15 million Yemeni citizens out of a total of 27 million lack proper access to clean water and health services. More than 17 million Yemenis are affected by an acute hunger crisis among them about 460,000 children who are severely malnourished. Additionally, Yemen has suffered from the worst cholera outbreak ever recorded, with more than 900,000 suspected cases and a death toll of about 2,190 people. Against this backdrop it is even more shocking that less than 45% of the country’s medical facilities are still operating.

Last October, the UN included the Saudi Arabia – led coalition on its annual black list for grave violations against children in conflict. All other warring parties in Yemen had already been listed before. The atrocities mentioned cover the recruitment of child soldiers, bombing of schools and hospitals, and the killing and maiming of children. On 29 September, the UN human rights council set up a panel with the purpose of investigating all alleged human rights violations in the realm of the war in Yemen.

Considering the devastating consequences of the conflict and the ongoing and looming famine catastrophes, the EU must mull how to address the situation. The best solution for Yemeni citizens would be a quick peace agreement between the warring parties. For that to happen a carrot and stick approach towards all parties is required. However, this means the EU would have to exert pressure on Saudi Arabia as well as on the Houthi rebels. But Saudi Arabia is a very important ally to the West in economic terms as well as in geopolitical terms; and its operations in Yemen are backed and supported with western intelligence. Thus, the EU is confronted with the ethical conundrum to chose between its economic and strategic interests and its values, such as the promotion and safeguarding of human rights and international humanitarian law, that are enshrined in the EU`s founding treaties.

One way to incentive peace talks is to impose arms embargoes on the warring parties. On 15 April 2015 the UN Security Council adopted an arms embargo on the Houthi rebels and blacklisted some of their leaders and allies freezing their assets and imposing travel bans on them. According to the latest EU arms export report at least 17 EU member states sold weapons to Saudi Arabia in 2015. Consequently, the incentive for the Saudi-Arabian-led coalition to compromise in peace negotiations with the Houthi rebels could be hampered due to the asymmetric access to arms of the conflicting parties in Yemen.    

Last October the leaders of four groups of the European Parliament send a letter to the EU‘s foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini urging her to propose an EU arms embargo on Saudi Arabia. The signatories of the letter are the leaders of the Socialists & Democrats (S&D), the Liberals (ALDE), the European United Left and the Greens. The four groups comprise 48% of all members of the European Parliament. Their main argument is that selling arms to Saudi Arabia is a violation of the EU´s Common Position 2008/944/CFSP, which defines common rules governing the control of exports of military technology and equipment.  According to article 2 of this common position there shall be no arms exports from EU member states to a third country (i.e. a country, which is not a member state of the EU) if at least one of 8 criteria listed in article 2 is met. Criterion 2 states ``Having assessed the recipient country‘s attitude towards relevant principles established by instruments of international humanitarian law, Member States shall: deny an export licence if there is a clear risk that the military technology or equipment to be exported might be used in the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law.``

On 25 February 2016, the European Parliament had already adopted a symbolic resolution asking for an arms embargo on Saudi Arabia. However as a spokeswoman for Federica Mogherini explained correctly ``The final decision whether to authorize or deny an export remains at national discretion of member states. Decisions on issuing an arms embargo lie fully with the council of (foreign ministers); deciding an arms embargo would require political agreement by unanimity within the council.”

Exerting pressure on all warring parties in Yemen could help tackling one of the worst humanitarian situations there is on earth. The EU could contribute to this challenge by imposing arms embargoes, asset freezing and travel bans on several perpetrators of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Yemen. It should do so as it is believed that it could help alleviating the grievances of a war-torn nation and thus put into practice the honorable high standards that are enshrined in its founding treaties. This way, the EU could gain credibility in its promotion of those values. Actions speak louder than words!   

Co-building an Erasmus+ made up European Union.

From 28th november to 1st dicember Europe HOpes have had the pleasure to support the direction of the project I.T.Y.I., International Training for Youth Integration, settled in Catania and funded wihin the Erasmus+ project.
Indeed, when we have co-written down this project it was astonishing thinking about the fact that many people, mostly unknown, would have travelled around Europe to a unique destination to meet each other, discuss, building theirselves, finding new friends and so many other things we couldn't imagine yet.

The state of play of the Brexit negotiations: The clock is ticking!

By David Meier

 

 

 

The Brexit talks have missed their first big deadline as the 27 Heads of State or Government of the remaining member states of the European Union (EU) have adopted the conclusion that the divorce negotiations have made insufficient progress for starting to negotiate on the future relationship between the EU and the UK. In view of the already tight timetable for the negotiations the spectre of a Brexit without an exit agreement is looming.

On 19 and 20 October 2017, a two-day‘s summit of the European Council, which consists of the 28 Heads of State or Government (in other words, the Governments of the member states of the EU), took place. In the realm of this meeting, Brexit was at the core of the discussions. Originally, the summit was meant to enable the start of the second phase of Brexit negotiations. However, the prerequisite for that to happen was the agreement of the members of the European Council that there has been enough progress in the first phase of the negotiations.

 

The decision that there shall be two negotiation phases had been taken by the European Council on 29 April, when the Heads of State and Government of the 27 remaining member states enshrined it in their guidelines for the Brexit negotiations.  According to those guidelines, the talks should focus on an orderly withdrawal of the UK from the EU during the first phase, while the focus should be on the future relationship between the UK and the EU in the second phase.     

Actually, the European Council`s judgment was no surprise to the majority of experts and observers, as Michel Barnier, the EU´s chief negotiator, had regularly complained about the slow pace of the talks with his British counterpart David Davis the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU. He warned against the threat of stalling negotiations resulting in a loss of dearly needed time.

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU), which regulates the exit of a member state, limits the negotiation period to two years. This already very tight timetable has been exacerbated by Theresa May`s (the British Prime Minister`s) decision to hold early elections. So although Theresa May had already triggered article 50 TEU on 29 March, the negotiations could only start on 19 June. Furthermore, any agreement between the EU and the UK can only enter into force if the UK, the European Parliament and all remaining member states ratify it according to their constitutional orders. In the end, several parliaments will have to discuss and adopt it, some referenda on the agreement could take place and it could even be challenged before the constitutional courts of some member states. Consequently, the ratification process within the EU will at least take 6 months, which means the negotiations should be finalised until October 2018 if both parties want to avoid an exit of the UK without any agreement (hard Brexit).

This option of a hard Brexit is associated with political, economic and social chaos as the remaining member states and the UK are highly intertwined. The membership in the EU is tantamount to the membership in its Customs Union and in the European Single Market.

Thanks to the Customs Union, all goods can be bought and sold duty-free within the EU; and, all 28 member states levy common customs duties on all goods entering the EU. Moreover, only the EU is entitled to conclude trade agreements with foreign trade partners for its member states.

The European Single Market guarantees the 4 freedoms for all EU citizens and businesses alike all over the territory of the EU and without any discrimination. Those freedoms cover the opportunity to sell goods (free movement of goods), the freedom to invest (free movement of capital), the right to establish a business and to provide services (Freedom to establish and provide services) and the right to migrate to other member states in order to work there (free movement of workers).      

Due to the Customs Union and the European Single Market many British companies have established affiliated companies or plants in other member states, or they have integrated suppliers from there within their production chains and vice versa. A hard Brexit would destroy those production chaines and cause economic turmoil. Consequently, a lot of jobs are at stake.  

Besides, because of the 4 freedoms 3.6 million citizens of the remaining 27 member states live in the UK and 1.2 million British citizens live in another member state.  A hard Brexit scenario would leave them in total legal uncertainty about their permission of residence, work, national insurance and social benefits etc.

Thus, the European Council has identified three priority areas for the first phase of the negotiations. The first priority area focuses on the rights (after Brexit) of EU citizens living in the UK and British citizens living in the EU. The focus of the second priority area is on the financial settlement of the committments of the UK towards the EU as Brexit will cause a lot of costs. Last but not least, the third priority area concerns the status of the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland which is part of the UK. 

In general, the UK and the EU agree that the rights of EU citizens already living in the UK and British citizens living in the EU must be preserved. Still, the EU insists that those rights have to be a part of a Brexit agreement and that citizens must be enabled to enforce their rights before the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the court of the EU. Meanwhile, the UK government prefers to guarantee those rights through domestic laws that can be enforced before British courts.   

The most complicated bone of contention between both parties is priority area two – financial settlment, as the EU wants the UK to pay an amount ranging from 60 bn euro to 100 bn euro, while Theresa May has only offered 20 bn euro by now. On 20 October, the French President Emmanuel Macron`s response to this offer was “I would say we are far from having reached the necessary financial commitments before we can open phase two. We are not halfway there.” Other Heads of State or Government such as the Maltese prime minister Joseph Muscat, the Austrian chancellor Christian Kern and the Lithuanian president Dalia Gribauskaite urged Theresa May to tackle the issue of the financial settlement as well.  The UK Prime Minister explained that her 20 bn euro offer was “not the final word” and she did not even rule out that the Brexit bill could amount to 60 bn euro.

As to the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, both parties agree that there must not be a physical border - e.g. with border control (hard border) - as the openness of this border is primordial for the peace process in the conflict-stricken Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, currently there is no agreement on how to avoid a hard border. As the UK wants to leave the Customs Union as well as the Single Market border control between Ireland and Northern Ireland is necessary to protect the integrity of the Customs Union and the Single Market. A possible solution is that Northern Ireland remains a part of the Customs Union but this is strongly rejected by the Democratic Union Party (DUP), a right-wing protestant pro British party from Northern Ireland that is part of the ruling coalition in the UK. The DUP is anxious about preventing Northern Ireland from being isolated from the other parts of the UK.   

Theresa May and the German chancellor Angela Merkel both expressed their optimism that those differences can be overcome, but Merkel added that phase two “ is undeniably going to be more complicated than the first stage”. At least the 27 Heads of State or Government have decided to start internal talks (without the UK) on the second phase of negotiations. The next opportunity for a green light for phase two will be during the European Council summit on 14-15 December. After all, the clock is ticking!   

 

 

Looking for Digital Activists and Freelancers

Europe HOpes is looking for Young freelancers and digital activists, 18-30 years old, interested to cooperate for our campaigns, blog and other social media activities. For more information write to: beready4eu@gmail.com

 

 

 

Turmoil in Germany! Stagnation in Europe?

By David Meier

German voters fundamentally changed the national power balance in last Sunday`s federal parliamentary elections. For the first time in more than 60 years right wing populists/extremists will enter the German federal parliament and for the first time three different parties with strongly conflicting views and values will probably form a coalition government with potentially dramatic repercussions for all of Europe.

 

At first glance there is nothing special about the results of the German parliamentary elections. Angela Merkel, who has been the German chancellor for 12 years, was reelected for another four year`s term. But she will only be able to govern Europe`s economic powerhouse if she succeeds in forming a coalition, which could prove more difficult than ever in the nearly 70 years of history of the Federal Republic of Germany. After a rough electoral defeat (20.5 % of the votes) Merkel`s recent coalition partner the centre-left SPD (social-democrats party of Germany) has excluded to be part of the next government.

The demise of the SPD has begun in 2009 when the last grand coalition i.e. the common government of the CDU/CSU and the SPD ended. Both are traditional catch-all parties which means that they were able to obtain at least 30 % of the votes each for decades. So it was a shock when the SPD got only 23 % of the votes in 2009, which had been its worst post war result until then. In 2013, its performance at the ballots was only slightly better with a proportion of 25.7 %.

In January 2017, the SPD nominated Martin Schulz as its frontrunner for the national parliamentary elections. Martin Schulz had been the president of the European Parliament from 2012 to 2017. During this period he somehow represented the face of the European Union to the German citizens. On the other hand he had never had a role on a national scale. His nomination blew a breath of fresh air to German democracy as a lot of citizens felt enthusiastic about him and hoped for an alternative to Merkel. This caused a spike in the polls for the SPD, a phenomenon that was called Schulz effect.  But those hopes have been blasted once and for all on Sunday.   

The delusion about the decline of the party as well as the perception of the grand coalition as a trap for the SPD are among the main reasons for its refusal of another cooperation with Merkel. However, there is another argument for an opposition role of the SPD. According to this approach grand coalitions are bad for democracy because they limit the space for controversy and the choice between alternatives, which leads to the appearance of radical views that bridge those gaps. The success of the party AFD (Alternative for Germany) in the last elections is perceived as a proof for that analysis.

 Consequently, the only coalition option on the table is a tripartite coalition between Merkel`s centre-right CDU/CSU, the libertarian FDP and the leftist and ecologist party Bündnis 90/Die Grünen. The three parties are opposed to each other due to historic hostility, conflicting interests and even partly mutually exclusive values. 

At the heart of the complex situation in the aftermath of Sunday`s national elections is the success of the AFD a right wing populist or even extremist party that ranked third in the electoral competition obtaining about 12,6 % of the votes and 94 seats in Germanys federal parliament (Bundestag). The AFD is associated with xenophobic, racist, islamophobic, anti-Semitic, anti-European, anti-American, homophobic and misogynic views and values.

Infact until Sunday Germany has been one of the last European Union member states without a radical right wing populist or extremist party being represented in its national parliament. From the „True Finns“ party in Finland to the „Golden Dawn“ party in Greece, from the British „UK Independence party“ to the Italian „Nothern League“, from Belgium`s „Vlaams Belang“ to Hungary`s Jobbik, from Marine Le Pen in Paris to Geert Wilders in The Hague, Populism and right wing Extremism are on the rise all over Europe.  Nevertheless, Germany is a special case due to two reasons: its history as well as its current role and position in the EU.

In 1933 Adolf Hitler the head of the anti-Semitic, militarist and authoritarian „NSDAP“ rose to power in the aftermath of an electoral victory. The consequences of his reign were about 60 million dead people and a devastated Europe because of World War II and an unprecedented break down of civilization exemplified by the Shoa the killing of 6 million people of Jewish origin. So it is no surprise that the return of right wing extremists to the German national parliament is a source of huge concern. The fact that a party like the AFD can even enter the parliament of modern Germany underlines the extent of Europe`s populism crisis.    

As to Germany`s nowadays position and role in the EU the country is the continents economic powerhouse, export champion and by far the member state with the highest population. Due to its economic strength, its role is to guide Europe’s path. And this strong guidance is dearly needed in a crisis ridden Europe. Crises like the Eurocrisis, the migration crisis, the (military) security crisis in the EU`s neighbourhood,  the social crisis, the aforementioned populism crisis and global challenges such as climate change, terrorism and hunger urgently need to be addressed.    

However, a tripartite coalition government of CDU/CSU, FDP and Bündnis 90/Die Grüne is highly unlikely to contribute to the solution of those crises. This is due to the conflicting and even mutually exclusive approaches of the three parties with respect to nearly all of those crises and challenges. Any compromise is capable of alienating each of the parties from their electoral basis and thus threatening their political survival.

The rise of the AFD is the underlying reason for the dilemma of the choice between no government or a weak one as its entry into the parliament has reduced the number of coalition options to one. Thus, last Sunday's election has really shaken the political landscape of Germany and could lead to stagnation in the EU at the same time as Europe needs to be as dynamic and firm as possible.  

The 60th anniversary of the Treaties of Rome

Image from Financial Review

 Author: Stefania Guzzo 

On 25 March 2017, the EU Member States have celebrated the 60th Anniversary of  Rome Treaties, the international agreement that brought to the creation of the European Economic Community that represented the starting point of the European integration process. In the frame of Rome, the “eternal city”, the 27 national leaders recalled the stages of an adventure undertaken by the six pioneering countries when on 25 March 1957, the representatives of Belgium, West Germany, Italy, Netherland, France and Luxembourg signed the Treaties of Rome also known as the Treaties of the European Community (TEC): the EEC (European Economic Community) and the EAEC (the European Atomic Energy Community, also known as Euratom).

"Today, we celebrate the perseverance and the cleverness of EU's founding fathers, which has its best proof in this crowded hall"- Italian prime minister Paolo Gentiloni  said in his opening speech in the very place where the Treaty of Rome was signed 60 years ago. In his speech, Gentiloni also recalled the several achievements of the European integration project, while acknowledging that EU has found itself unprepared and responded late before major recent challenges such as migration, economic crisis, and unemployment among others.

"We don't want a divided Europe!" - Gentiloni said - "Europe is united and indivisible, but we want to move forward on a common idea of Europe in areas such as defence, security. We need greater integration and we claim a global role for Europe".

The event  marks the foundations of our Europe. The celebration intends to remind to the citizens the main aim of the founding fathers: to bring peace and development in Europe after the second world war. 
The declaration of Robert Shuman - "Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity” – represents this aim.

Many steps further has been made by the EU Member States after the foundation of the European Community: the fall of the Berlin Wall (1989),