Plans of the Ampel-Coalition: On the way to the European federal state

The 2018 coalition agreement between the Union and the SPD devoted the first chapter to European policy.

In the contract that has now been negotiated by the SPD, Greens and FDP, the subchapter on the “Future of the EU” begins on page 131.

But it starts with a bang: the coalitionists are calling for a constitutional convention and the further development of the EU into a federal European state.

However, this is unlikely to have any concrete consequences in this legislative period, as representatives of all parties admitted.

This is a long-term project, stressed FDP MEP Nicola Beer - and it is about "a federal, decentralized state as a counter-model to a central state from Brussels".

Hendrik Kafsack

Business correspondent in Brussels.

• Follow I follow

On the other hand, it could be more specific with the required transnational lists and the binding lead candidate system. For this, the greens are even ready to swallow a real toad. They have succeeded in ensuring that they have the right to propose the next EU Commissioner, but with one important caveat: "If the Commission President is not from Germany," that is, to nominate the Christian Democrats Ursula von der Leyen again. The rule of law plays a central role in the Europe chapter. The Commission is asked to use the existing instruments more rigorously. In addition, the treaty indirectly threatens a German “No” to the reconstruction plans for Poland and Hungary as long as the independence of the judiciary is not guaranteed. However, Germany does not have a right of veto here.

New coalition, better communication?

In relation to the ongoing discussion on the Stability Pact, the treaty repeats the wording from the exploratory paper: The pact has "demonstrated its flexibility". That is a rejection of a fundamental reform or the complete abolition of the Maastricht criterion on the debt level. At the same time, however, the pact is intended to ensure sustainable and climate-friendly investments. "We are not opposed to reforms, but the new government also stands for financial stability," reads the Green MEP Sven Giegold. The Corona development fund is described as an "instrument limited in terms of time and amount" - which for Beer is a rejection of permanent borrowing by the EU, for the SPD MEP Udo Bullmann, however, an "actual description" that further debates do not anticipates.

European policy also runs through the rest of the coalition agreement. He advocates European deposit reinsurance (Edis). The debate on this in the Council of Ministers has been blocked for years, also because of the previous German resistance. In addition, the coalition partners want to support the Commission's proposals on the EU minimum wage and the digital package to contain the Internet giants. The "off" for the internal combustion engine in 2035, as proposed by the Commission, is in fact accepted. It is quite explosive that the treaty supports the expansion of emissions trading to include buildings and transport as part of the Commission's “Fit for 55” climate package. The Greens in the European Parliament are strictly against it. On the other hand, approval is likely to be met therethat the coalition only wants to sign the controversial trade agreement with the South American Mercosur states if the protection of the rainforest is secured.

For readers who do not deal with European policy on a daily basis, the clear commitment to an active European policy, which also includes “to position ourselves clearly and early on in relation to the European Commission's projects through more stringent coordination”, should come as a matter of course. In fact, it is not at all. The SPD-led Environment Ministry and the CDU-led Economics Ministry have repeatedly blocked each other on important EU issues in recent years. Because the outgoing federal government was often unable to submit a position at all on proposed legislation and had to abstain from voting, the term “German vote” has even been established in Brussels. The central question is how better coordination should work in practice.The ministers would have to clarify that, it just said.