SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Germany could hold new elections if Chancellor Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union fails to form a stable coalition government:
The breakdown of the coalition talks last weekend has done more than dent Ms. Merkel's seeming invulnerability and raise the prospect of new elections, analysts say. Although the Social Democrats agreed on Friday to meet with the chancellor's party next week — raising hopes for, if not a coalition, then a tolerated minority government — the current situation may well signal the breakdown of Germany's postwar tradition of consensus and the dawn of a messy and potentially unnerving politics.
"The distinctive political tradition of the Federal Republic of Germany is change through consensus," said Timothy Garton Ash, a professor of European studies at the University of Oxford. That was what was at stake, he said. "It hasn't worked so far this time."
The leader of the Social Democrats has said that the party's members would have to vote on joining a coalition led by Merkel.
Also at DW (alternate), BBC, The Hill, and NYT (11/20 editorial).
Related: Germany's jubilant far-right has Merkel in its sights
(Score: 4, Insightful) by looorg on Saturday November 25 2017, @11:07AM (16 children)
In essence I would say that this is probably true. She is now the symbol of something that is becoming increasingly unpopular, third world mass migration that brings nothing but trouble. Merkel claimed that "Wir schaffen es" (we can do it/this), clearly this was a much broader and general "we". Turns out that in reality nobody wants to be the 'we' anymore. Merkel is now somewhat tainted and others are afraid that it will rub off if they stand to close to her. So if you have any hope of staying in power in a post-Merkel era you try and get as far away as you can.
That said the opposite idea or ideas are not all that appealing either; a new election with an uncertain result that costs a lot of money, the result would be uncertain and they are afraid that AFD will increase their numbers and that their own numbers will be the same or worse. So the situation after another election might, or quite likely, be about the same. In which case they just wasted a lot of time and money and that will make "mutti" seem even worse. Perhaps a minority government, which is a giant pain since it might turn out that you can't really govern with it as you just spend time waiting for the next election. All bad choices for Merkel is seems, time and opinions just passed her by. Her political life is clearly coming to an end, time to decide if she wants to fade away somewhat gracefully or go down in some kind of blaze of failure.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @11:46AM (2 children)
Isn't a government that can't trouble citizens by its "governing", the very best option in most circumstances?
(Score: 2) by looorg on Saturday November 25 2017, @01:19PM (1 child)
Sometimes it might be. It clearly depends on the circumstances. If everything is great and nothing needs to be done about anything, then this might be awesome. If things need to be done, if there needs to be changes cause the system is fucked up then this is clearly quite horrible. Since it just passes time and then usually makes the situation much worse -- unless you believe somehow that time heals all wounds and doing nothing is ok and just hope that it will magically (or some other way) resolve itself. Since the government in this case has clearly fucked up by letting in a massive amount of "useless" people that cause nothing but trouble. Just leaving that system in place and doing nothing about it is probably not the best solution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:11PM
When and where has ever existed a government that fixed its own failures?
The very best those things can do, is not to compound them.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by fritsd on Saturday November 25 2017, @12:03PM (11 children)
Third world mass migration that brings a lot of trouble is not going away just because it is becoming increasingly unpopular in the host countries.
If people would rather die than stay in their own country, how are you going to stop them?
Merkel saw it as an acute problem with no good solutions. So, once in her career, she had to let go of her legendary carefullness, and just act impulsively because she was in the right political position to do it.
A Real Stateswoman(TM) tries to deal with problems as they occur, not just find a scapegoat!
That cost her dearly, and is very easy to exploit by populists such as the AfD, but on the other hand: the Wende didn't go perfectly either, and everybody was just suddenly forced to get along with those weirdos from the other side of the comforting Wall.
The Germans coped, both Ossies and Wessies (I like the film "Goodbye Lenin", can't imagine what the culture shock must have been like in reality). They weren't all happy about it but they just coped with it.
I seriously believe that was what Mutti tried to communicate when she said: "Wir schaffen das". "We will cope with this, also."
Even though I'm not German, for many years now I've occasionally had the following thought: Imagine that in an alternate reality dr. Angela Merkel was not the Bundeskänzlerin, but by some coincidence it was herr Bundeskanzler Silvio Berlusconi.
How would Berlusconi have dealt with the worldwide finance crisis?
How would Berlusconi have dealt with the Greek bankruptcy? Think about how creative the man is with his insults.
How would Berlusconi have dealt with the Russian annexation of Crimea and the "green men" and tanks in Donetsk?
How would Berlusconi have dealt with the flood of refugees in 2015-2016?
If you think the answer to any of these is: "He'd just have uttered some humorous clever remarks, and everybody would have gladly obeyed him and do as the great statesman proposed, and it would all work out", then you're DELUDED.
Merkel used her extreme cunning to keep her emotions under control, her foreign enemies off-balance, her domestic political back-stabbers subdued. She herself did away with her own mentor, Helmut Kohl; not many politicians could have managed that.
She's not some "nice old naive lady" at all, but she acts one brilliantly when needed.
It's inhuman, the way Merkel used her power and Germany's power against these various "shitstorms" as she calls it. And she managed it, without causing a single war.
Also I believe she really does her best. Combined with her proven competence, I'd vote CDU if I was German, even though I tend towards die Grünen or SPD.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by looorg on Saturday November 25 2017, @01:34PM (1 child)
Letting them in is clearly not the right answer. This is a problem that has to be resolved. There was actually a system in place, at least on paper -- but it collapsed as soon as it was tried in reality. The Schengen agreement was there to help people (and goods) IN Europe to move about freely. It was not to let foreigners move about as they wanted. The Dublin Regulation collapsed almost instantly since was what was supposed to control this, asylum seekers should apply for asylum at the first safe country they reach, ie a border country, not walk across all of Europe to reach their "dream", in which case they are not actual asylum seekers but economical migrants. So either way it is something to be resolved and not something that one just have to endure like the merger of East- and West-Germany. (But I do agree that Goodbye Lenin was an excellent movie).
There is no doubt that Angela Merkel was once a good leader, but she put all her power behind a failure and there is probably no coming back from this. She is personally associated with, and responsible for, a horrible failure that will plague Germany and Europe for decades. There is just no getting past that and the only reason she probably isn't gone already is that there is no one around to replace her. All the other power players in the country are weak, she has not groomed and heir either. The rise of the AFD is in that way a response to her failure.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:30PM
I agree with what you say about Schengen and the Dublin Regulation; I suspect that it was set up to deal with a stream of a few thousand Somalis and Congolese and Afghanis per year. No law or regulation was prepared for this "Great Migration Period", at least our modern-day Visigoths and Merovingians and Huns just fled from war, the vast majority of them didn't bring it with them (maybe in their heads though. One Syrian asylum seeker kid in my village couldn't speak anymore).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:34PM (3 children)
IF you get such people, and they're for real, you just need to plainly inform them of a couple rules that will be enforced. They flaunt your laws and follow their own, they get sent back. They try to clone their country within yours, they get sent back. Those who are not fake, will behave; those doing damage, get cast out.
If they really ran from what they've had out there, why they want to bring it with them?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by leftover on Saturday November 25 2017, @03:52PM (1 child)
Why bring it with them? Because it is what they know.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @04:11PM
So they need to learn something else.
Preferably without suicide bombers and IED's.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @05:22PM
Why bring it with them? Just like the pilgrims, they want to be in a place where they can be *their* type of assholes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @02:54PM (1 child)
If people would rather die than stay in their own country, how are you going to stop them?
You let them die.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday November 26 2017, @06:03AM
You shoot them on sight. NATO/EU Army want training? They have it. And they deliver the most effective discouragement of the infiltration of their outer border seen in centuries.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @04:09PM
"If people would rather die than stay in their own country, how are you going to stop them?"
Simple. Let them die. Easy Peasy Lemon Squeezy.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @04:14PM
Shoot them when they try to breach your border?
(Score: 3, Informative) by crafoo on Sunday November 26 2017, @06:14AM
"If people would rather die than stay in their own country, how are you going to stop them?"
Easy question. The same way Hungary, Poland, Israel, and any number of other countries stop them. Meet illegal immigration with violence, strong borders, and deportation of illegals found within your borders. Israel just deported 40,000 Africans. It's pretty easy, actually. It's called rule of law and protecting your citizens.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 25 2017, @07:29PM
If one population grows by a factor of 5 per generation, and another "grows" by a factor of 0.6 per generation, simple math tells us what will happen. AfD has proposed nothing to stop this.
In the end, one group will exterminate the other. I doubt the ethnic Germans will win this time, but we'll see. It won't take a century.