Enlarge image
Reluctant partner:
FDP leader
Christian Lindner
and Greens co-leader
Annalena Baerbock
(picture from 2019)
Photo:
Gregor Fischer / dpa
Imagination is required now. He was missing that, FDP leader
Christian Lindner
(42) had repeatedly declared before the federal election in order to imagine a traffic light coalition with the SPD and the Greens, which now suggests the election result. The major content-related conflicts between the FDP and the Greens would also have to be bridged in order to enable a Jamaica coalition with the CDU / CSU as a second plausible option. The leaderships of the two parties agree on one thing: that they should first clarify among themselves the conditions under which they could form a government, which then either
Olaf Scholz
(63, SPD) or
Armin Laschet
(60, CDU) could lead as Federal Chancellor.
What the teams around the Green bosses
Annalena Baerbock
(40) and
Robert Habeck
(52) and Lindner will negotiate in the coming weeks should set the course for the German economy - probably more than the upcoming official explorations and coalition negotiations with the Chancellor's party.
steer
The gap is greatest in financial policy - of all things, the field in which both Lindner and Habeck have fairly openly expressed interest in the ministerial post as a big prize in coalition poker. The FDP calls for "a fundamental rethink in tax policy", which means, above all, lower taxes for companies and high earners. The fact that the Liberals were unable to implement this central election promise in their previous government participation from 2009-2013 and were subsequently thrown out of the Bundestag is a mistake that must be avoided. On the other hand, the Greens see taxes as a "central lever for justice". They want higher top tax rates, a wealth tax and taxes on financial speculation that has not yet been subject to tax - all a horror for the FDP.Some want to redistribute from rich to poor, others the other way around. According to estimates by the economic research institute ZEW, the Greens program would strengthen the tax authorities as otherwise only the left-wing condemned to the opposition, while the FDP would empty the state coffers the most.
Compromise?
Either one side gives in, or the partners have to rely on symbols instead of substance: for example, cancel the wealth tax, as signaled by the Baden-Württemberg Green Finance Minister Danyal Bayaz before the election, and instead carefully adjust the inheritance tax. In terms of income tax, the tariffs could - presumably after a few years with a view to the "Kassensturz" mentioned as a condition by Lindner - be shifted so that many high earners would be relieved, which would benefit the clientele of both parties. To compensate for the social conscience and the state's ability to act, it would be possible to close tax loopholes, something that is justifiable for both sides. The FDP could also sell the fact that taxes are simplified as a result (except for tax advisors).At least the FDP and the Greens agree on taxing the profits of digital corporations in a targeted manner.
Investments
The FDP has made a clear commitment to the debt brake, the Greens want to reform it in order to "enable the investments that are so urgent".
Everyone wants to renovate schools, rails, roads and digital networks, but according to the FDP program, which leaves no room for taxes or debts, the money for this should come practically only from private sources - in the hope that the state will help with these investments can attract less bureaucracy and better depreciation conditions, although companies have so far hardly seen this as a profitable business.
Compromise?
Even before the election, Linder showed at least a bit of flexibility when he distanced himself from the black zero (a balanced budget, a stricter goal than the debt brake prescribed by the Basic Law).
A constitution-changing two-thirds majority is not in sight with any conceivable coalition, so there is probably only one creative solution left to deal with the debt brake and at the same time use the opportunity of the century of negative interest rates on the bond market: an investment fund outside the household or semi-private investments with help of the KfW development bank.
After all, the FDP wants to reserve budget funds amounting to one percentage point of VAT for education.
Apart from that, the very big state investment offensive under green-yellow is hardly possible.
climate
Green leader Baerbock names the central condition that the future coalition must form a "climate government". In principle, everyone also wants climate protection, but with very different ambitions and approaches. Throughout the election campaign, the FDP has been agitating against "bans and dirigism", meaning above all the Greens' program, which calls for concrete phase-out dates from fossil fuel technology from coal-fired power plants to oil heating to gasoline engines and a CO2 brake across all laws. The FDP, on the other hand, wants to move away from the current sector targets and regulate everything via EU emissions trading, which caps the amount of permitted CO2 emissions and regulates it via a price negotiated on the stock exchange. To keep the goal of global warming by a maximum of 1.5 degrees,However, this price would have to become very expensive very quickly.
Compromise?
The Greens also want to make CO2 more expensive, but warn of "considerable social imbalances" and that "some could buy themselves out", while "others no longer participate" if this were the only means. The fear of being responsible for a German yellow vests movement could move the FDP to move away from pure market theory. The alternative would hardly be conveyable to the Greens: to set an ambitious climate protection target, which, however, depends on a European or even global agreement and demands great economic sacrifices, which would delay the start by several years or, realistically, make it completely impossible. The concession to the liberals could therefore be more of a symbolic nature: more emphasis on the aspect of innovation and at least not calling bans that way.A little more market incentive via the CO2 price, combined with social compensation via a lower electricity tax and / or energy money as a lump sum, would be realistic.
automobile
It becomes particularly explosive when it comes to the specific effects on individual sectors, especially for the automotive industry, Germany's most important industry. The Greens are the strongest advocates of the transition to electromobility. The FDP, on the other hand, uses the formula of "technology openness" to defend the internal combustion engine - and then settles on favored, yet to be developed technologies: sometimes the hydrogen fuel cell, sometimes synthetic gasoline (e-fuels). With "Hyperloop, Drones, Air Taxis" there is even more dreams of the future to accompany the status quo. For many suppliers who fail to make the switch to electric, the Liberals could prove to be life insurance. Corporations that are already investing billions in the turnaround fear exactly that.The spokesman for Volkswagen boss Herbert Diess came out on Monday as a member of the Greens. As such, he would be "personally disappointed if they form a coalition with the Union after this election campaign," wrote Michael Manske on Twitter on Monday. Because of the large black and yellow intersections, the statement should also aim against a strong concession to the FDP. Boss Diess followed up with a specific catalog of requirements for the talks.Boss Diess followed up with a specific catalog of requirements for the talks.Boss Diess followed up with a specific catalog of requirements for the talks.
Compromise?
As the voice of economic reason, an appeal like that of Diess could also get caught up in the FDP.
Electric cars also stand for liberal, innovative, individual mobility - not a fundamental ideological hurdle.
A green-yellow alliance for mobility services such as ride sharing, e-scooter fleets or long-distance buses is just as conceivable.
The Deutsche Bahn as a state-owned company and the public transport operators threaten to become losers in the coalition talks, especially insofar as they cost a lot of money.
The FDP is likely to fend off anything that restricts motorists' freedom, such as speed limits, wheel lanes, environmental zones or city tolls, or at least try to hand them over to municipal responsibility.
energy
The energy transition as such is no longer in question. Here, too, large corporations have long since positioned themselves in such a way that the Greens program coincides with their interests. Siemens as a plant manufacturer, Eon as the operator and Volkswagen as the customer are calling for a drastic increase in the pace of expanding wind and solar power. Here, too, the FDP wants as little help as possible from the state: The EEG surcharge should be abolished, expansion paths and purchase prices should not be stipulated by law.
Compromise?
That is closer here than it initially seems.
After hundreds of billions of euros in start-up aid, the Greens also see renewables at the stage of proving themselves on the market without subsidies.
The EEG surcharge will therefore expire "in the long term" anyway.
And the magic word in the FDP's call for abolition is "step by step".
Grinding rules that prevent expansion is a concern of both parties - and increasing acceptance through more citizen participation, too.
The Greens want to bring the coal phase out from 2038 to 2030 at the latest, but not by decree, but with the help of the CO2 exchange.
That could also suit the FDP.
pension
The stock exchange fans of the FDP propagate a "share pension", the Greens want to abolish Riester and Rürup in favor of a public "citizen fund" into which everyone pays, and stabilize the statutory pension level at 48 percent of income. Different attitudes towards the welfare state and personal responsibility collide.
Compromise?
Both parties have been moving towards each other for years.
In purely symbolic terms, the liberals have a strong call for people by making the red-green ruled Sweden the role model for their model.
There is consensus that there is a need for reform.
And the pay-as-you-go system is not in question either, both the Greens and the FDP want to make it more flexible.
The Greens' proposals to secure the statutory pension funds are anything but a liberal fright: higher female employment through the right to return to full-time jobs, a "real immigration law" and more job opportunities for the elderly.
labour market
"We will immediately raise the statutory minimum wage to 12 euros," the Greens promised in the election. They want to "overcome" Hartz IV, once introduced by Red-Green, in favor of a "guarantee" against poverty. Pay compliance as a condition for public contracts, the right to mobile work, control of working hours, short-time work allowance for further training - the Greens are looking for close ties with the unions on many points. The longtime Verdi boss Frank Bsirske will sit for you in the Bundestag. Such impulses are alien to the FDP. It advertises a "liberal citizen's money" in order to make the welfare state a "springboard": with free opportunities for additional income as well as savings for beneficiaries.
Compromise?
With everything that means more regulations for companies, the Greens will have a difficult time with the FDP.
What stands for modernity and flexibility, on the other hand, could pass.
The "liberal citizens' money" and the green "guarantee protection" are not that different.
And the minimum wage?
The Liberals will refer you to the responsible, independent commission.
But it could soon come up with proposing 12 euros - not far from the 10.45 euros planned for next July.
ak
