The European

The day after the German electorate voted 33% for CDU/CSU (-9%), 21% for SPD (-5%), 13% for AfD, 11% for FDP (+6%), 9% for Bundnis90/Die Grünen (+0.5%) and 9% for Die Linke (+0.5%), a few things seem clear:
1. The SPD must go into Opposion
2. Die Grünen must refuse to take part in a coalition with CDU/CSU/FDP, and
3. Merkel must resign and new elections must be held


1. SPD as the parliamentary Opposition

It is rare for a junior coalition party to profit from the liason, the horrific example being the Tory/LibDem coalition under David Cameron: the LibDem's helped the Tories - their voracious natural enemy - to power in the hope of forcing them to introduce Proportional Representation, with the result that Cameron said "No!" and chose the perfect moment to call an Election, in which he achieved an absolute majority and the LibDem's were returned to obscurity, probably forever. Having been silly enough to enter a coalition under Merkel in 2005, the SPD promptly lost the following election in 2009, only to make the same mistake again in 2013. What would happen to the SPD in 2017 was pretty obvious then, and look what's happened! What the SPD need to do now is to start thinking about how they can save themselves from the fate of the LidDem's in England. In contrast to them, however, the SPD has every chanceof achieving this because of the German system of Proportional Representation. With that in place, even the horrific gerrymandering (electoral district re-allocation) activities of the Republicans in the USA would have no effect on the distribution of seats in the Bundestag. The SPD has still to recover from, firstly, Schröder's schism with Lafonaine at the start of the Rot-Grün government in 1998 which lead to the formation of Die Linke and, secondly, from the subsequent Agenda 2010 which miraculously revived the German economy (and thus probably the EU and beyond too, despite Merkel's disastrous refugee "policy"). These two political events are intimately connected, of course, providing a problem for the SPD independelty of Merkel, namely that the party found it impossible to make clear to the voters – in particular those at the bottom of the packing order – how things would look like today if the Agenda policies hadn't been introduced. Instead of trumpeting the success of its incredibly brave (one might say, suicidal) political decision in 1998, the SPD did little other than apologize for the apparent down side of Agenda 2010, while trying to position their Minimum Wage, pensions at 63, funding for geriatric care etc. (all achieved in the past few years despite the CDU/CSU!) as a little "Sorry!" notice during the election campaign. How embarrassing! – but the question remains: how will the SPD now square the circle? Alternatively, the SPD might decide to forget about the Agenda entirely: but what then is on offer for the future? More workers' participation in boardrooms, more women in boardrooms, more tax for boardroom members?

One the other hand, it indeed behoves the SPD to take over the role of the Opposition in the Bundestag because if they didn't, the role would be taken by the AfD. But when they are in Opposition, they also need someone who can put fire into a debate. Gabriel can do that (but his political star has fallen below the horizon, not that it ever was very bright), Gysi would have been perfect (if he weren't in a different party and it were 1994 instead of 2017), Steinbrook could have done it (but he didn't even stand for election this time).

2. Bundnis90/Die Grünen must refuse to take part in a coalition with CDU/CSU/FDP

Having seen what happens in coalitions with natural enemies (see 1 above), it would seem perfectly obvious that any idea the political pundits might have regarding CDU/CSU/FDP/Grünen being the only option* is just silly. Die Grünen might have won the environmental argument, but the other side of that coin is that the other parties have adopted these ideas in their programs. That makes it possible for die Grünen to enter into a coalition with anyone – but then the problem will arise that they will lose what little remains of their political individuality, namely that of a protest party. The other direction would be for the machos Lindner (FDP) and Cem Özdemir (die Grünen), to extend their close personal friendship to their parties. But that really would be the end for die Grünen.

3. Merkel must resign and call a new election

Having made at least two huge political mistakes (destroying the consensus reached by Rot/Grün with the electricity corporations to end nuclear power, only to revive it again a year later; opening the boaders to a million refugees without knowing what to do with them and without realizing that it might destroy not only CDU/CSU but also the EU) thereby losing 9% in popularity, it would appear obvious that it's time to go. Her purpose of being in power has never been very clear to me as she either directs policy very badly or not at all. She presented no political program and actively avoided political discussion during the election campaign, even after supposedly winning a TV duel refusing to take part in another. She learned her politics from Helmut Kohl: sit out political problems and cancel your rivals. In the end Kohl had no politics worth mentioning and no better successor than Merkel herself.

And that's her problem too. There is no one in the CDU to take over. Von der Leyen was cancelled with the help of the Defence Ministry, Maizière even sounds like Kohl's Volker Ruhe and is about as politically attractive, and that's about it except perhaps Schäuble who will be 75 next year. A CSU politician can't honestly fulfil the constitutional role of Chancellor and remain true to the "Bavaria first" party, and anyway CSU candidates have always failed. They were doing well with zu Guttenberg though until he was exposed a trickster and went underground in the USA, at least until recently (watch this space...).

Well, Merkel could step to one side and leave the rest to the democratic process – even if that's not how the CDU/CSU works. At least it would seem quite pointless for her to try to form a new coalition with the natural enemies FDP and die Grünen - unless the idea would be to block all political progress (sounds familiar somehow). In fact, the time would seem to be perfect to call a new election, now that the AfD have torn themselves in half within 15 hours of the voting stations closing.

*Alternativlos, as Merkel would say. With Thatcher it was the TINA Doctrine, "there is no alternative".

In 1984 (!) Stewart Brand wrote the following:

Information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it is getting lower and lower. Information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life.

Two weeks ago I was pleased to see a flyer enclosed with "Die Zeit" pointing out a whole range of things that the EU supports and has achieved. Remarkable, I thought – such a shame that all this work gets so little publicity. And then the significance of the brochure became clear when I saw that it wasn't paid for by the EU, but rather by the German Government. Of course, governments that use the EU as a rubbish dump for their own political disasters are not going to be stupid enough to fork out taxpayers' money to give publicity to the advances Europe has made despite them over the past 60 years. Perhaps because of Wolfgang Schäuble's economic policy in the EU, many a member state would need to be careful not to spend what little cash they have on advertisements for the EU – but at least the German government can afford and even do it.

Unfortunately, the institution that really should be promoting the EU is the EU itself. Most companies spend huge amounts promoting their brands and advertising their products, or, as it's called, "creating markets". What could be more refreshing when you're thirsty than – a Coca Cola bottle? It didn't do Christ any good, but where would the Christian Church be today without the Crucifix? The poor commuters in London have a pretty hard time on the Tube too, but in just the same way the symbol of London Transport somehow takes to pain away. It took Europe 30 years finally to adopt the Flag of Europe as her symbol, but it's been doing its job nicely ever since.

But you don't need to think too hard to see that Europe needs to do more than that that to work against her enemies. Unfortunately, though, there are plenty of them within the EU itself: imagine them agreeing to the Commission paying for advertising when the money could be used to subsidise their economies! On the other hand, the question arises as to what exactly the EU should be advertising? How do you "sell" an open boarder?

There is something, though, that Europe can "sell" very effectively: Europe herself, her mountains and valleys, cities and streams, and the cultures of her people. For that, hardly any advertising needs to be done. All that is necessary is to give people the chance to see her. This was the wonderful idea behind DiscoverEU and FreeInterrail, to give all young Europeans a free Interrail card on their 18th birthday so that they could see what's on offer.

I remember my first Interrail trip (in 1979!). All the strangers we met who put us up for the night in their own homes, accidentally visiting a local SPD election rally (in Ulm!) having only understood the work "Musik" on the poster, the guy who drove us to the campsite in München although we hadn't even asked, the ladies with their black scarves raking the field in Bayern.... These days young people prefer to fly – it saves time getting from A to B, and I'm sure they have a great time when they get there, but even EasyJet costs money, so if you're unemployed because of Schäuble's anal-retentive approach to economics, you might not be on board the 'plane as it flies over your neighbourhood. The free Interrail pass would have been a great way to get young people into the trains again too – "back to basics" as an ill-fated British Prime Minister said.

Unfortunately, the EU rejected the initiative today. How could that possibly happen, you might wonder? Simple: they don't have the money.

Now, you might argue that it would have cost nothing because the trains run anyhow - but apparently resources like half-empty train carriages have to be "costed" properly, despite the real cost of the European Community not becoming one. In the end the Commission only managed to scrape together €2.5 million for the project – far too little (it gives you a wonderful insight into how little money the EU actually has to spend). So here's a suggestion to solve the problem. Given that Germany is doing so well out of the Euro and still has an image problem with Hitler etc., I'd like to suggest that the German government help pay for the Interrail tickets directly by offering one Euro for every Euro the EU offers. Sounds like a good deal to me.