Credits: WikimediaCommons, Laura Codruta Kövesi

The EU`s new anti-graft hero
By David Meier

The European Parliament and the member states of the EU have agreed to appoint former Romanian Anti-Corruption Chief Prosecutor Laura Codruţa Kövesi as EU Chief Prosecutor despite fierce opposition of the Romanian government. She has a reputation of being a tough corruption fighter and her new post enables her to prove this on a European scale.The decision is an important step for the EU`s quest for tackling the huge societal challenges of graft and misuse of public funding.

On 24 September 2019, representatives of the European Parliament and the Council (i.e. the governments of the member states) came to an agreement as it comes to the appointment of Laura Codruţa Kövesi as head of the EU`s Public Prosecutors Office (EPPO) or, in other words, its Chief Prosecutor. This newly-created institution`s task is to prosecute defendants in cases of crimes against the EU budget, e.g fraud, graft or cross-border VAT fraud. The EPPO will be in charge for the investigation of those offences in 22 out of 28 member states, all but the United Kingdom, Sweden, Hungary, Poland, Ireland and Denmark.

Laura Codruţa Kövesi has an impressive track record of fighting corruption. In 2013, she became chief prosecutor of Romania`s National Anti-Corruption Bureau. The establishment of this agency in 2003 was a precondition for Romania`s accession to the EU in 2007. During Kövesi`s tenure she investigated more than 4000 powerful people ranging from politicians and members of the public service to representatives of the judicial system such as prosecutors and judges. Thanks to her more than 70 politicians were convicted among them 2 former prime ministers.

However, the influential elites stroke back. Due to her oppositon towards a legal reform benefitting corrupt politicians and her intention to investigate the, at that time most powerful Romanian politician, ex-party leader of the Romanian Socialists Liviu Dragnea, Laura Codruţa Kövesi was sacked in June 2018 at the behest of the former Romanian justice minister Tudorel Toader. Kövesi has lodged an individual complaint with the European Court for Human Rights against her dismissal.  Her enemies did not even bother to incriminate her. Critics from civil society claim that the charges against her are purely politically motivated. Besides, Romanian prime minister Viorica Dăncilă lobbied in the EU Council, i.e. the EU institution gathering the Heads of member states and governments, against Kövesi`s appointment as head of EPPO which is very unusal as member states normally try to promote candidacies of their own nationals for influential posts in the EU.

The Council and the European Parliament have to agree on the appointment of the head of EPPO. This proved difficult as the majority of Council members preferred French candidate, Jean-François Bohnert, while the European Parliament pushed for the designation of Kövesi. The Parliament eventually prevailed thanks to Kövesi`s experience and the high simbolism of her nomination.

In the course of the last years many European citizens, especially in former communist countries such as Romania, Hungary or the Czech Republic, took to the streets in order to rally against endemic corruption. It is perceived as a major problem and one of the main causes of mass migration of young and educated people, striving for a better future, from eastern European EU member states such as Poland, Hungary, Romania, Croatia and Bulgaria but also western European countries, e.g. Greece and Italy to other member states.

The fact that corruption and the misuse of European funds constitute a huge threat to the existence of the rule of law in member states has been underlined in light of the murder cases Daphne Caruana Galizia and Ján Kuciak in October 2017 and February 2018. Both were journalists who had investigated corruption and the misuse of EU funds in their respective countries Malta and Slovakia.

It is Kövesi`s merit that she has proven that politicians can be made legally accountable in countrys suffering from endemic corruption. Her appointment as head of EPPO is a hopeful sign that the EU is both able and willing to enhance the fight against corruption.

“Europe is strong when it acts together”

An interview by David Meier

Europabüro Kerstin Westphal 

Kerstin Westphal has been a Member of the European Parliament and the group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats since 2009. She comes from the German state of Bavaria and is a member of the Committee on Regional Development and a substitute member of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. Mrs Westphal is standing again as a candidate for the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) in the European elections. 

Europe HOpes: Mrs Westphal, the current legislative term of the European Parliament draws to its end. In your opinion, what is the greatest accomplishment for young people (16-30 years) the EU has been able to achieve during this legislative term? 

Mrs Westphal: We have worked on numerous projects aimed at securing Europe´s future for coming generations. It is difficult for me to single out one of them. The fight against climate change is surely one of the most significant topics. Many EU rules aim for further decarbonisation of our society for the benefit of future generations. However, combating high youth unemployment in many countries is more tangible to me. We must not risk the arising of a lost generation. I want a Europe that cares and does not leave anyone behind. The increase of Erasmus+ within the framework of the EU budget benefits all young people in training as it comes to mobility and their ability to live abroad. 

Europe HOpes: Could this have been achieved on a purely national level or is it a case of “European added value”, i.e. an improvement that could only be realised within the framework of the EU? 

Mrs Westphal: Clearly, without pan-European rules the challenge of climate change cannot be tackled! In this case only cooperation works as the problems caused by climate change do not stop at national borders. That`s exactly what we want to make anti-Europeans understand: Making borders impregnable is no solution. What we have to do is address the root causes of migration and flight such as droughts and floods which are symptoms of climate change. 

Europe is strong when it acts together. This also applies to the labour market. When there is no perspective for young people in southern or eastern Europe, the EU can develop one by enabling them to work where they are urgently needed e.g. in Germany. 

Europe HOpes: Which crucial opportunities for the improvement of the living conditions of young Europeans has the EU let slip during the last 5 years? What have been the reasons for that failure of exploitation? 

Mrs Westphal: Many EU programmes aim at securing and enhancing a stable and sustainable economy which is a precondition for well-being and security. This is due to the fact that the EU has arisen out of an economic union. However, many young people miss feeling at home in the EU. We have to remember that we are more than a single market. European policy must also be made for those who are not able to contribute to economic growth. Young people bring above all social policy issues to the EU. That is where we can do better. 

Europe HOpes: According to you, what has been the European youth`s or at least a large group of young Europeans most significant contribution toward the European project, so far? Has there been a big mistake or failure on the part of young Europeans that has caused serious damage to the European project? 

Mrs Westphal: What does this ``European Youth`` look like, according to you? Attitudes regarding the EU vary significantly from one state to another. But besides that, I really appreciate and admire the high number of youth associations whose main objective is to promote understanding and appreciation of democracy, political participation and understanding between peoples. By enabling cultural exchanges among youngsters they create experiences that will stay with those people for the rest of their lives. We talk about experiences that correspond exactly to the EU´s motto “United in diversity”. The most important contribution of young people toward the European project is their common hope for well-being, security and peace for all Europeans. 

Europe HOpes: Which opportunities are related to the current developments as it comes to Europes urban and rural areas? Which risks are linked to these tendencies? What can the EU do to seize these opportunities or mitigate the risks? 

Is instability the new normal in EU member states?

 By David Meier

From: Presidenza della Repubblica Italiana

1 June 2018 was a historic day as a government in Italy was sworn in while another one in Spain was ousted. Only two days later, on 3 June 2018, parliamentary elections in Slovenia resulted in a complex constellation as the party winning the most votes seems to be isolated among potential coalition partners. All three events were just the climax of a series of national elections resulting in complicated political situations without a clear perspective, since the formation of a stable government. The European Union (EU) and the European youth take center stage concerning the underlying reasons for this development and its repercussions.

On June 1, the political landscape of the EU changed dramatically as the Italian parties Lega Nord (Northern League) and Movimento cinque stelle (Five Star Movement) formed a coalition government; while in Spain the Spanish Socialist opposition leader Sanchez won a no- confidence vote against the incumbent conservative prime minister Rajoy.

The inauguration as Italian prime minister of the non-affiliated law professor and lawyer Giuseppe Conte, who is close to the Movimento cinque stelle, marked the end of an emotional rollercoaster that had unfolded after the Italian parliamentary elections. The election result was a blow to the governing Partito Democratico (Socialists), and a triumph for the Movimento cinque stelle being the single party with the most votes (about a third) and the Lega Nord that surprisingly topped the conservative and far right electoral alliance of three right-wing parties. This alliance was the most successful of all electoral alliances.

Both coalition parties are considered populist parties but their programmes strongly differ. The Lega Nord is known as a eurosceptic and xenophobic party that originally advocated for the secession of northern Italy from the rest of Italy, in order to create a new state called Padania with Milano as its capital instead of Rome which is anathema to them. By contrast, Movimento cinque stelle focuses on ecology, direct democracy, and an anti graft as well as anti nepotism stance. However, both parties do also have some points in common, e.g. both reject the euro as Italy`s currency and fiscal discipline and austerity, imposed by the EU, that are attached to it. Therefore, many fear that it will be a eurosceptic government.

The coalition talks took three months, a period unprecedented in Italy`s history. Both parties argued about which parties would be part of the new government and who would lead it. In the end they decided that only Lega Nord and Movimento cinque stelle will participate in the coalition without the right wing allies of the Lega Nord. Instead of chosing one of the two party leaders Luigi Di Maio (Movimento cinque stelle) and Matteo Salvini (Lega Nord) as Prime Minister, they chose Conte.

In Spain, Mariano Rajoy, was reelected as Spanish prime minister in October 2016. However, his conservative Partido Popular did not dispose of a majority in Parliament and he did not succeed to find partners willing to form a coalition with him. As similar situations had occured in two election held very shortly before (December 2015 and June 2016), Rajoy was elected as head of a minority government with the support of the Socialists.

After a verdict of a Spanish court against former high ranking Partido Popular politicians for corruption charges and the judges expressed disbelieve of Rajoy`s claim that the top of the national Partido Popular was not involved in the scandal or did not know about it, Sanchez initiated a no-confidence vote against Rajoy. He won it by forming a short time alliance with the left wing party Podemos (We can) along with some regional and even separatist parties.

In Slovenia,

The Eurozone accession dilemma in Poland and other Central European member states: join or not to join?

Author: Elvita Mertins 

Image by Rene Fluger Josef Horazny/Czech News Agency

Poland obliged to adopt the euro when it joined the European Union (EU) in 2004, whereas no
specific deadline was set for its entry into the currency union. Just after the Poland’s accession to the EU there was a strong general support for joining the Eurozone. In fact, the entry to the EU has been an important source of prosperity for Poland. The EU support through European structural and investment funds, free trade and labor mobility, together with security integration, have not only brought positive changes to Poland’s economy but also significantly bettered overall standards of living. However, recent developments within the global financial and the Eurozone crisis in 2008 engendered widespread opposition to the euro among Poland’s political and economic elites but also in the society as a whole. The case of the Greek financial crisis has been recalled as a significant warning, showing the risks and weaknesses of the Eurozone accession. In addition, Brexit, the rise of euroscepticism and various political tensions within the EU, have caused great doubts and hesitations to introduce the euro in the country. In fact, the adoption of the euro became seen as a source of economic instability, and until now Poland has been strongly avoiding any declaration about joining the Eurozone in the foreseeable future, despite fulfilling the Maastricht criteria. The most common position of why Poland should not introduce euro among Poland’s political leaders is the floating exchange rate that helped them in regaining growth during and after the crisis in 2008. Indeed, monetary policy helped the country overcome the financial crisis, as a result Poland is strongly against to enter the fixed exchange rate mechanism. A flexible exchange rate helped Poland avoid a similar build-up of imbalances ahead of the crises, in contrast to the countries in the Eurozone. Poland’s economy has grown during and after the crisis, and there is a general conviction that Poland’s economic growth and competitiveness will slow down inside the Eurozone. Since, the stability of the Eurozone itself was and still is in question, and the country’s flexible exchange rate have proved to be beneficial in its recent economic performance – Poland is determined to stay outside the euro area with no near future obligation to adopt the common currency. In the short-time perspective, the abovementioned arguments against the Eurozone accession, in fact, may have some logic reasoning, but in the long-term perspective it will have the exactly opposite effect. Poland’s decision to stay with its national currency will run the risk of becoming both politically and economically alienated and marginalized within the EU. If the Eurozone’s integration policy fails and the EU splits into the two blocks, namely non-Eurozone member states and the Eurozone countries, there is a great probability that the Eurozone countries will have more political weight and a real impact on the most important economic and political decisions. Therefore, the non-Eurozone countries are at risk of being marginalized and become the periphery of the EU as long they it do not start implementing a viable plan of euro adoption. Poland is not the only the Central European member-state agitating against the accession to the monetary union. Hungary and Czech Republic also have the strong doubts whether to join or not the common currency. All these three post-Soviet countries provide the similar arguments why joining the Eurozone would clearly be not beneficial. One may say, that staying with the national currency is not a catastrophe. For example, Sweden is a member state which enjoys the benefits of its own currency as well as sound economic situation. Nevertheless, the Czech, Poland, and Hungary economies strongly differ from the Swedish economy. Sweden has a well-developed economy, with a low and stable inflation and a healthy banking system. Due to its high political and social standards, the country is considered as one of the greatest place for making business. Countries like Poland, however, have been dealing with a big variety of social and economic problems, political instability and uncertainty are still taking place. Considering all this, if Sweden’s economy can function well staying outside ‘the euro monetary club’, it is highly unlikely (at least in the long-term perspective) Poland and other post-Soviet countries can run their economies with its national currency so effectively and efficiently as Sweden does. In this context, the euro would work as a confidence booster that could help to convince international investors of political and economic stability of the countries. All in all, if Poland and other post-Soviet member states want to ensure their economic and social stability, the adaptation of euro is crucial, since long-term benefits greatly outweigh the short-term risks and costs.

Sources 

Emerging Europe, Poland Stays Cool on Euro Adoption, https://emerging-europe.com/in-brief/polandstays-cool-euro-adoption/;
NewEurope, Why Poland won’t join euro until currency is stronger? https://www.neweurope.eu/article/poland-wont-join-euro-currency-stronger/;
Polish Press Agency, PM's aide: No work currently on Poland joining euro zone, http://www.pap.pl/en/news/news,1230099,pms-aide-no-work-currently-on-poland-joining-eurozone.html;
Bilčík, V., et al, Rethinking V4’s Eurozone Dilemmas after the UK Referendum, https://www.amo.cz/wpcontent/uploads/2016/11/AMO_Rethinking-V4s-Eurozone-Dilemmas-after-the-UK-Referendum1.pdf ;
Centre for Euro-Atlantic Integration and Democracy, The Euro Dilemma: Success in the Baltics, Concerns in the V4 , http://ceid.hu/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/CEID-Euro-dilemma.pdf ;
Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International affairs, Graduate Policy workshop, Should Poland Join the Euro? An Economic and Political Analysis, https://wws.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/content/Should%20Poland%20Join%20the%20Euro.pdf; Czech, S. (2015);
The Political Economy of Staying Outside the Eurozone: Poland and Sweden Compared. Oeconomia Copernicana, 6(3), pp. 23-43, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10. 12775/OeC.2015.019 .

The Dublin system: the(un)solved refugee crisis in Europe

Author: Elvita Mertins 

Image by Peter Schrank

The refugee crisis in Europe, caused by the emergence of the conflicts from North Africa and the Middle East, has been one of the most important issues and centered attention of European headlines in 2015. However, today, it seems that attention shifted to other issues and we have simply forgotten about it. 

Does it mean that Europe has finally managed to solve the refugee crisis? What steps have been taken to solve the refugee crisis? 

If we look at the European Union statistics on the number of asylum applications, a total number of first-time applicants went down from 1.2 million in 2016 to 650 thousand in 2017. In fact, first-time asylum applications in some member states, for instance Belgium and Sweden, have dropped significantly. However, more detailed analysis of this migration flow suggests a different kind of scenario. While total asylum seekers arrivals in the EU has decreased, more migrants between 2016 and 2017 attempted to cross the sea from Turkey to Greece, or from Libya to Italy. Also, there was a significant increase in boat migration from Morocco to Spain. The Mediterranean crossing remained deadly, with 3,139 people dead or missing in 2017, while thousands of asylum seekers are stuck in Italy’s and Greece’s refugee camps. All this blurs the illusion that the problems of the last several years have vanished or disappeared. EU officials have been working on one issue in particular – reformation of the Common European Asylum System, or so-called ‘the Dublin system’, which the EU has been attempting to fix since its beginning. The system consists of regulations, which has been evolved over the time replacing one another, and they are considered to be the cornerstone of the whole system (Dublin Convention, 1990; Dublin regulation II, 2003; Dublin regulation III, 2013). 

The Achilles‘ heel of the Dublin system and the most controversial debated issue is and has always been the lack of solidarity and the fair sharing of responsibility between the member states. In other words, there is a principle that the responsible member state will be the state through which the asylum seeker first entered the EU. And that is where the problem lies. The vast majority of illegal immigrants or asylum seekers enter Europe through countries like Greece, Malta, Italy and Spain. These countries are economically too weak to deal with the extensive number of immigrants on their own. Almost from the beginning of the Dublin system, southern European countries complained that they could not cope with a large refugee flows. For example, back in 2013, when the Dublin III Regulation was adopted, all the countries of the southern periphery of the Union supported a proposal which would allow illegal immigrants to apply for asylum in the country in which they have been apprehended, instead of in the country in which they had entered the European Union. However, this proposal was not approved and included in the amendment of the Dublin III Regulation. Since all three previous versions of Dublin regulation proved incapable of organizing burdensharing, in May 2016, the EU Commission has published a proposal for Dublin IV regulation. The Dublin IV introduces a mandatory asylum seekers relocation from countries receiving disproportionate numbers to other member states. At the moment, the proposal of the Dublin IV regulation is ‘at a reading stage’ and the regulation needs to be approved by both the European Parliament and the Council to take effect. Ever since the Commission brought the new proposal for the Dublin IV regulation, tensions between EU member states occurred. Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland did not agree with the EU established refugee quota, while the United Kingdom not only refused the quota system proposed by the EU, but also decided to leave the EU. The new proposal of Dublin IV regulation clearly challenges the solidarity between the member states, and with rampant populism and xenophobia all over Europe, it is doubtful that all states will share responsibility of refugee problem this time. A lack of solidarity between the member states may be another stimulus towards weakening the community as a whole. The EU’s inability to find the solution of the refugee problem have contributed to the debate concerning the fundamental principles - such as solidarity, integrity and cohesion - on which the European Union is premised. The question even arises of whether the EU is capable to provide efficient solutions to this kind of issue, pointing to the EU’s stability and coherence altogether. Thus, not to lose faith of its own citizens and its credibility among other international and regional organizations, the EU leaders must find proper measures to solve the refugee problem.

Sources

European Parliament, Legislative train schedule towards a new policy on migration; 

European Parliament, Reform of the Dublin system, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2016/586639/EPRS_BRI%282016%2958 6639_EN.pdf ; 

European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council towards a reform of the Common European Asylum System, https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/sites/homeaffairs/files/what-we-do/policies/european-agendamigration/proposalimplementationpackage/docs/20160406/towards_a_reform_of_the_common_european_asylum_system_and_en hancing_legal_avenues_to_europe_-_20160406_en.pdf ; Eurostat, Asylum applications (non-EU) in the EU-28 Member States, 2006–2017, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Asylum_statistics ; 

Human Rights Watch, European Union events of 2016. World Report, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2017/country-chapters/european-union; 

Human Rights Watch, Europe’s migration crisis, https://www.hrw.org/tag/europes-migrationcrisis ; Centre for European Reform, Europe’s forgotten refugee crisis, http://www.cer.eu/sites/default/files/bulletin_114_cmm_article3_0.pdf; 

Kamil Matuszczyk, Migration crisis in 2017 – challenges for EU solidarity, https://www.opendemocracy.net/kamil-matuszczyk/migration-crisis-in-2017-challenges-for-eusolidarity.

Should I stay or should I go?

Author: Giorgia Esposito

Many people around the world have decided to live in a different country from the one that they grew up in. One of the main reasons is that a foreign culture may be more suitable to their personality than their native one. A lot of people are attracted to another country because they like different traditions and customs. Moreover, living abroad is the best solution to get away from it all. It’s great to leave your home country and explore something new but there are always two sides of every coin. You have to face the challenge of experiencing a different way of life. Let’s talk about the city I live in, Palermo. It is famous for its history, culture and food. Many people are also attracted to this city for its good weather. On the other hand, the city suffers many troubles. You may not feel comfortable with the way in which people interact with each other. An example could be that people tend to treat you as they are your relatives, being sometimes intrusive. Even the pigeons in Palermo have zero spatial awareness. Another issue is the public transportation system: if you don’t have a car, you’re very limited in your movements. The best way to get around is definitely on foot. By the way, it is also true that Palermo is a hidden city since you need to scratch beneath the surface in order to discover the “iceberg under the water".

In conclusion. you shouldn’t be afraid to try out new things. It is wonderful to live abroad and be immersed in a culture that is extraordinary to you. My advice to anyone who is thinking about going to a different country is to experience as much as possible every different lifestyle.

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.