Germany is finally getting a new government – and it will be plunged straight into crisis mode
It was a curious way to announce the arrival of a new government, expected to be sworn in during the first week of May. Since the elections of 23 February, Germany will have been in limbo for two and a half months, and all while Donald Trump rampages across the world.
The circumstances could not be more inauspicious. The new chancellor, Friedrich Merz, must deal with an out-of-control United States, Russia taking advantage of the mayhem by feigning interest in a peace deal while making further military inroads in Ukraine, and China increasing influence as anti-US sentiment increases. Domestically, Germany's economy, already stuttering, faces the 20% US tariffs imposed across the European Union, plus further punitive levies on its all-important auto industry. To compound it all, a few hours before the Christian Democrats (CDU)/CSU and Social Democrats (SPD) took to the stage to seal their deal, an opinion poll put the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) in the lead for the first time.
All of this will concentrate minds. Germany and Europe can't afford a repeat of the last coalition, which foundered amid acrimony and under the lacklustre leadership of Olaf Scholz. The stakes were high then; they are stratospherically higher now.
'Germany is getting a government that is capable of action and is strong,' said Merz. 'We will govern well together,' he added, as he looked smilingly towards the SPD leader and probable next deputy chancellor and finance minister, Lars Klingbeil. It is an unlikely bromance, but they will have to get on. As both pointed out, the 'political centre', as Germans call mainstream parties, must show it can work. Otherwise the AfD is waiting in the wings for the next election, due by 2029 at the latest.
During the negotiations, which were carried out with little turbulence and few leaks, Merz was accused by party hardliners of giving away too much to the SPD. The result, as set out in the coalition agreement, is a necessary compromise, which as ever leaves all sides feeling they have won some and yielded some.
Merz has secured tougher immigration controls – checks at borders, no family for the first two years, and five years rather than three for citizenship applications. Corporation tax will be reduced. Rules around the minimum income guarantee will be tightened. Klingbeil and his team have preserved increases to the minimum wage and other welfare measures.
All parties were agreed on their approach to Ukraine and Russia. The introduction of a national security council within the chancellery to deal with the many emergencies the country faces is a welcome if belated move. Some form of national military service will be reintroduced, but it is expected to be opt-in, with benefits for participants, rather than compulsory. The climate crisis barely got a mention.
Everyone is talking the talk about modernisation and removing bureaucracy. A new digitisation ministry is designed to kickstart Germany's lamentable digital provision. Will this analogue and cash-based society finally join the modern world?
As ever in modern Germany, gloom has enveloped the country. Some of it is understandable – a country that craves stability is having to come to terms with a world more on edge than at any time since the formation of the Federal Republic in 1949. Yet much of it is self-indulgent. Having just voted in a general election, with the highest turnout since reunification in 1990, and having ensured a relatively stable two-party coalition (the CSU is not seen as a separate entity), Germans have turned on Merz before he has even been given the seals of office.
His biggest 'crime' was to force constitutional changes through the outgoing parliament rather than waiting for the new one to be formed. He knew he had to do this, as the far right and radical left would have voted the changes down. In so doing, he has paved the way for an injection of more spending on defence and an injection of €500bn to tackle the country's ailing infrastructure.
Sign up to This is Europe
The most pressing stories and debates for Europeans – from identity to economics to the environment
after newsletter promotion
As I wrote a few weeks ago, he used unprincipled means for principled ends, and he, the SPD and the Greens should be lauded for pushing it through.
Even in these desperately difficult times, and despite its fraught beginnings, this coalition could work. Merz and Klingbeil seem to work well; Boris Pistorius, the popular defence minister, is expected to stay in his job, providing much-needed stability.
Under Scholz, Germany was absent without leave. The EU was rudderless. The economy atrophied. Just over two months after the last government took over, Vladimir Putin had invaded Ukraine, and all the parties' preparations were torn apart. This time, darkness has descended even before the work has begun. There will be no honeymoon for Merz, no first 100 days. It is hard to imagine an accession as fraught as this one. This will be the last time anyone cracks jokes.
John Kampfner is the author of In Search of Berlin, Blair's Wars and Why the Germans Do It Better
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
26 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Good, mad and ugly: the US economy's performance under Trump
According to Donald Trump's White House, the US economy is booming, inflation is dead and jobs are surging. A blizzard of economic reports has cast a pall on such claims in recent days. This week's data on Trump's early economic record was mixed – good, mad and ugly – with jobs numbers so weak he reached for the catchphrase he once used to build himself into a reality TV star: you're fired. The picture is chaotic, with robust headline growth in the world's largest economy, wild swings in trade, and a remarkable slowdown in the labor market. For six months, Trump has staged an extraordinary campaign to overhaul the global economy and extract concessions from Washington's allies and rivals by threatening and imposing steep tariffs on their US exports. But the unpredictable, erratic rollout of this strategy has already had bizarre consequences. On the surface, at least, this week's deluge of data opened with good news: the US economy returned to growth in the second quarter, with gross domestic product (GDP) – a broad measure of economic health – expanding at a rate not seen since last summer. But this followed an unexpected contraction in the first quarter, and underlined some more concerning figures, such as a 15.6% drop in private domestic investment. Businesses have been struggling to keep up with the hour-by-hour jerks and jolts on sweeping economies policies. Yes, there was good growth in the last quarter but in the first six months, the US economy grew at a mediocre 1.2%. The Wall Street Journal called it 'the weirdest GDP report ever'. Delve a bit deeper, and you start to see how the US economy is grappling with a series of extraordinary forces as Trump hammers out his trade strategy. Firms spent much of the first quarter waiting for the president to reveal his plans for tariffs: which countries would be targeted, at what rates, and when. They stockpiled, triggering an unprecedented surge in imports that pushed growth into the red. In the second quarter, however, as Trump started to ramp up his economic attacks, imports tumbled at an equally astonishing pace. Net exports – how much a country exports more than it imports – boosted GDP. This is Trump's least favorite chart. Despite his many public demands, threats and attacks, the Federal Reserve has not yet cut interest rates this year. Why? Jerome Powell, the central bank's chair, has repeatedly argued it should wait and see the impact of the president's trade strategy before moving. Fed officials are worried that inflation – despite Trump's claims that it has collapsed on his watch – has actually remained stubborn, and might rise as a result of his tariffs. This has gone down extremely poorly in the White House, where officials are counting down the weeks until Powell's term as chair ends next May. Data released on Friday fundamentally changed the way US policymakers and politicians think about the economy. Until then, many inside the Fed thought everything was broadly ticking over nicely – and Trump administration officials claimed they were overseeing a boom in activity. But July's employment report revealed far fewer jobs were created that month than economists had expected, and revised down estimates for May and June by an astonishing 258,000. Job creation has stalled. 'Look, this jobs report isn't ideal,' Stephen Miran, chairman of the White House council of economic advisers, told CNN, before suggesting that fading uncertainty around trade and fiscal policy would lead to significant improvement. 'It's all going to get much, much better from here,' he added.
ITV News
2 hours ago
- ITV News
India rejects UK parliament report on transnational repression
India has launched a blistering counterattack against a UK parliamentary report that accused it of waging 'transnational repression' on British soil and misusing global policing tools like INTERPOL to silence political dissidents. In a strongly worded statement on India's foreign ministry denounced the allegations as 'baseless,' 'politically motivated,' and 'drawn from dubious and discredited sources.' 'The deliberate reliance on unverified inputs from proscribed entities with a long record of anti-India hostility calls into question the credibility and objectivity of the entire report,' said MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal, dismissing the claims as an orchestrated smear. The rare diplomatic rebuke was triggered by the release of a hard-hitting report titled 'Transnational Repression in the UK' on July 30 by the UK Parliament's Joint Committee on Human Rights — a powerful cross-party body comprising lawmakers from both the House of Commons and House of Lords. The report accuses multiple foreign governments of targeting exiled dissidents, activists, and journalists who have sought refuge in the UK, creating what it describes as a 'chilling effect' on diaspora communities. India was named among 12 countries, including China, Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, allegedly involved in such practices. While the report reserves its sharpest criticism for what it terms the 'three most flagrant perpetrators' — China, Russia, and Iran — India's inclusion, particularly the accusation of abusing INTERPOL's Red Notice mechanism for political ends, has sparked sharp pushback from New Delhi. The committee's findings draw heavily from evidence submitted by UK-based Sikh advocacy groups, including the Sikh Federation (UK) and Sikhs for Justice. These groups allege that Indian authorities have sought to weaponise international policing tools to harass and intimidate diaspora voices, especially those supporting the Khalistan separatist movement — a claim India has long dismissed as misinformation propagated by extremist elements. While the report has reignited debate within Britain over how to protect residents from foreign interference, India's sharp reaction signals a potential diplomatic flashpoint — particularly amid already sensitive ties following the killing of Sikh separatist Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada last year, which also raised questions around cross-border intelligence operations. As both countries navigate a delicate relationship shaped by strategic partnerships and domestic political pressures, the fallout from this latest allegation is likely to echo beyond Westminster and Raisina Hill.
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
In wartime, demonstrations in Ukraine can never be more than a peaceful protest
Once a decade, Ukraine has a moment in which street protests redefine the country's political direction. The Orange revolution of 2004; the Maidan revolution of 2014; and now, over the past 10 days, the first major wave of protest since the start of Russia's full-scale invasion. A series of unexpectedly boisterous and well-attended demonstrations forced Volodymyr Zelenskyy to execute a swift U-turn on his decision to scrap the independence of two anti-corruption bodies. On Thursday, MPs reversed the contentious changes they had adopted a week previously. Outside the parliament building, crowds whooped and cheered as the result of the vote was announced. The size, scope and demands of this latest protest movement have been much more modest than those of its revolutionary predecessors, but the spectacle has been no less remarkable, given the context of full-scale war in which it has taken place. The final, celebratory gathering came only hours after the latest massive Russian airstrike had hit Kyiv, killing at least 28 people including three children. Hardly anyone had managed a good night's sleep before arriving at parliament armed with banners and high spirits. This wartime context to a large extent inspired the protests: a common sentiment that when people are laying down their lives for the country on the frontline, the government has to live up to a certain set of values. But it also limited their scope. There was none of the revolutionary enthusiasm of Maidan present here; instead, there was a sober acknowledgement that all-out political unrest would only play into Russia's hands. 'There were some people chanting for impeachment and the vast majority of others said, 'Shut up, we do not undermine the legitimacy of the president, what happened is that the legitimate president made a mistake,'' said Inna Sovsun, an MP from the opposition Holos party who attended several protests. Dmytro Koziatynskyi, whose post on social media provided the initial spark for the protest, dismissed any comparisons to Maidan for exactly this reason. 'Even if they don't pass the law, this will never become anything other than a peaceful protest,' he said, in an interview before the parliamentary vote. Koziatynskyi was a masters student in the Czech Republic before returning to Ukraine after the full-scale invasion in 2022 and signing up to become a combat medic. After three years on various parts of the frontline, he left the army in May and now works for an NGO. When he saw the news last week that parliament had rushed through a law curtailing the independence of two bodies specially designed to go after high-level corruption, he found it 'insulting', he said. 'People are not fighting so that our government can do some crazy stuff, that destroys all our achievements since 2014,' he said. He penned an angry post on social media calling on people to protest against the new law. He expected 'maximum 100 people, mostly friends and acquaintances' to join the protest. By the second night there were about 10,000 people outside the Ivan Franko theatre, the nearest point to the presidential office that is accessible to the public. Most of those who came out were young – this has been a protest wave dominated by gen Z, with friends competing for the wittiest slogan or meme reference on their handwritten placards. On Wednesday evening, a man leading the singing of the Ukrainian national anthem through a loudspeaker was holding a sign that bore a single word: 'Cringe'. Suddenly, the fate of two relatively small institutions – the national anti-corruption bureau, known as Nabu, and the specialised anti-corruption prosecutor's office, Sapo – had become the issue of the day among Ukrainian teenagers. Nabu and Sapo were established after the Maidan revolution as part of a drive against the long-running scourge of corruption in Ukraine, financed partly with US money. Some western observers agree that there are problems with Nabu and Sapo: too many cases opened and not enough of them brought to a conclusion, for one. In theory, some streamlining would make sense; in practice, Zelenskyy's move looked a lot like bringing independent investigators under political control. With the Trump administration no longer pushing an anti-corruption agenda, and Europe on summer holidays, Zelenskyy's team appears to have felt they could push the bill through quickly, without anyone paying much attention. That might have been the case were it not for the protests. But the images of thousands of young people demanding the law's repeal forced European politicians to take a stand, and several leaders spoke privately to Zelenskyy to tell him he needed to find a way out of the self-inflicted mess. Sign up to Headlines Europe A digest of the morning's main headlines from the Europe edition emailed direct to you every week day after newsletter promotion 'This became a major breach of trust. It's problematic both from an EU accession point of view and in that it makes it much harder for friends of Ukraine to continue making the case that the country needs support,' said one diplomatic source in Kyiv. Zelenskyy's response was swift and decisive, even if somewhat embarrassing for the MPs of his Servant of the People party, who were instructed to vote against the very thing they had been ordered to vote for the previous week. Now that the status quo has been re-established, there are two very different readings of the whole episode. One sees a leader using wartime powers to try to stifle independent institutions, too out of touch to predict the obvious backlash. Another reflects on how, even in wartime, Ukrainian society is still capable of expressing democratic sentiment, and its leaders still able to react swiftly to it. Koziatynskyi, whose post started off the protest wave, leans towards the second view. 'The protests showed that Ukrainian democracy is as strong as possible in times of a full-scale war, and our society is mature enough to have a dialogue with the government, and the government is able to listen,' he said. Zelenskyy's five-year presidential term should have ended last year, but almost all Ukrainians, including his fiercest opponents, agree that elections are both legally and technically impossible during wartime. With Russia's nightly attacks continuing, and a hope that Donald Trump might finally start getting tougher on Russia, that consensus has not changed. Nobody wants upheaval, but the outburst of protest may yet change the political atmosphere. 'Legally, everything will go back to how it was; politically, it's more complicated,' said Sovsun. 'It's unpredictable what this might have done to Ukrainian society. We have basically lifted the unspoken rule that we don't protest during martial law.'
