Until the news that the FDP had rejected the coalition agreement with the Greens, the SPD and the Volt party, which had recently moved into Frankfurt's Römer, the mood among the Greens was almost euphoric.

At least as far as the discussion concerned the roughly 220-page coalition agreement.

Accordingly, the vote at the exclusively virtual general meeting of the Frankfurt Greens turned out: Of the 256 members who were added, 239 voted in favor of the coalition agreement that was drawn up in four weeks.

That corresponds to 93.4 percent of the votes.

Mechthild Harting

Editor in the Rhein-Main-Zeitung.

  • Follow I follow

    A result that may perhaps be more common at such a level with other parties - but not with the Greens. The only point of criticism of the agreement was the unanswered question, in the opinion of some members, of how the many ideas and projects of what everyone considers to be the “deep green” coalition agreement can be financed. “Where should the money for the great ideas come from?” One member wanted to know. Especially since out of consideration for the Liberals, an increase in the trade tax had been ruled out. Yes, it was even written into the contract that “as soon as economic normalization occurs after Corona”, a one-year reduction in the trade tax multiplier should be examined. "We have to offer the FDP more contractions and at least be able to take out more loans," demanded the speaker.

    Difference between election program and reality

    Party spokesman Bastian Bergerhoff pointed out that there is a difference between a Green election program and a coalition agreement.

    85 percent of the goals and wishes of the Greens are found in the coalition agreement.

    The party base should “not lose touch”, he advised.

    “Based on this contract, the city will become much greener.” The Frankfurt Greens emerged from the Hessian local elections on March 14th as the strongest force with 24.6 percent of the vote.

    At this point, nothing seemed to dampen the good mood.

    Even before the end of the debate with the Greens, the SPD party convention, which was taking place at the same time, announced that the delegates there had voted for the coalition agreement with 93 percent of the votes.

    Now it was just a matter of waiting for the result of the FDP, which, the Greens were aware of, had a difficult discussion to lead at its general meeting.

    A "serious incident"

    In response to the question asked for the first time at this point in time, “what happens if the majority of the FDP rejects the negotiated contract”, party spokeswoman Beatrix Baumann replied with the note: “There will be no renegotiations under any circumstances.” Later Bergerhoff added: “Renegotiations do not work . ”From then on there was talk of the“ termination ”of the planned cooperation“ by the FDP ”.

    Baumann called the reports about the negative vote of the FDP a "serious event".

    The party executive must first discuss this.

    Against this background, Bergerhoff called for the meeting to be interrupted despite the current debate.

    It does not make sense to "continue under these circumstances".

    At this point, the Greens had just started to deal with the only item on the agenda that promised fundamental differences of opinion within the membership: the planned filling of the five departmental posts that should be available to the Greens in the new city government.

    According to the will of the party executive and negotiating commission, three men and two women should take these positions in the new magistrate.

    Discussion about the women's statute broke off

    In order to do justice to the party's women's statute, that all bodies are made up of equal numbers, the planned staffing should be supplemented by an addition.

    Namely, that in two years, when the health department Stefan Majer resigns after the end of his term of office, the post will then be filled by a woman.

    "This is not the elegant solution, not a figurehead for the women's statute," admitted the new group leader Tina Zapf, but it was "sensible and a good suggestion" to achieve the goals of the coalition agreement.

    The former head of the women's affairs department, Sarah Sorge, did not agree with this statement.

    She accused the party executive of "reinterpreting" the women's statute.

    The statute is "something like our green constitution".

    You could "really not believe" that Green women advocate disregarding this.

    Concern called on the party executive committee to submit a personnel proposal that complied with the women's statute.

    While some members advised that a deviation should be allowed in this special case, others - men and women - were outraged that the Greens of all people did not want to respect the women's statute.

    "Are we here in an absurd theater?"

    In this slightly heated mood came the news of the vote by the FDP and its negative stance on the coalition agreement.

    And while the Greens were still discussing how and when to continue the staff debate, numerous members were already using the chat, which was used parallel to the online general meeting, to comment on the event.

    "Over and over again the FDP," wrote one. Another: "It would have been almost too nice" and another member added: "FDPists still remain FDPists". City councilor Stefan Majer wrote clearly tense in view of the discussion on the women's statute, which had not yet been finally broken off: “Are we here in an absurd theater? The coalition is over. A discussion about which personnel doesn’t make sense! "