After the first closed meeting of the traffic light coalition, the journalists have a lot of questions. Hardly any of them are answered, and if so, then by Habeck or Lindner. Only at the end does Chancellor Scholz become a little more specific.
It was certainly not as fun as in the guest house of the federal government in Meseberg, where the governments of Chancellor Angela Merkel usually held their cabinet meetings and also sat together with wine in the evening. “Normally we would have gone somewhere else for a day or two, but that’s not possible under the current conditions,” said Chancellor Olaf Scholz at the press conference after the end of the traffic light coalition’s first meeting.
But I guess it was nice nonetheless. Although the distance was kept, it was possible “to laugh a little together, but also to clarify official matters on the short way over the long day,” says Economics Minister Robert Habeck. “When you see the groups standing together, they are no longer organized according to party colors,” Habeck continues, “and when you think about how conflicts are resolved, you don’t say that the Greens have to prevail against XY, but you see a conflict on the matter and is working to resolve it.”
So there was conflict. Which? It’s not talked about. And there is still a lot left unsaid.
This is mainly due to the chancellor. Scholz’ opening statement in this press conference is hardly more meaningful than his brief appearance on the morning before the conference. He speaks to journalists in much the same way as Chancellor Angela Merkel used to do with citizens – in the simplest possible terms. That sometimes sounds a bit strange. About the G7, which Germany holds the presidency of this year, he says: “This is a gathering of democratic industrialized countries that are trying to give direction to developments in the world through the discussions that are being held there.” There is nothing wrong with that. However, one can assume that those present were already aware of this. It is left to Finance Minister Christian Lindner to mention that the program for the G7 presidency was not only discussed by the cabinet, but also approved.
Many questions, no answer
Scholz answers questions in detail, but usually not in fact. A journalist asks if the coalition partners agree on sanctions against the Nord Stream 2 Baltic Sea pipeline if Russia attacks Ukraine. The Chancellor replies that the situation we are in is “a very serious one”, the security situation in Ukraine is difficult, and the troop deployments across the border are very depressing. It is correct that the EU and NATO have made it clear “that any military aggression against Ukraine would have a high price.” It was even more important to prevent such military aggression from occurring, so it was important that a range of conversational formats were activated. Then Scholz lists these formats. But the question of whether the coalition is united on this issue remains unanswered.
The journalist therefore tries Habeck. He replies briefly: “Well, it’s a government, and a government always acts in unison in principle.” It could be that this one mentioned was one of the conflicts that the green talked about before.
Another journalist later asked if any of the three could imagine gas flowing through Nord Stream 2 if this conflict continued. Scholz says: “We are working very hard to get the conflict de-escalated,” there must be a situation in Europe “in which the territorial integrity of the states and their sovereignty remain untouched.” It is clear that “if there is military aggression, it will have high costs, and an understanding will be reached between everyone in due course about what we will do then and what individual measures we will take specifically. We are preparing now that we can then make this decision in concrete terms.”
This journalist also asks whether, if the worst comes to the worst, gas can flow through the Baltic Sea pipeline. Scholz does not seem to share the idea that this question is still open. He answered the question “carefully, and the attitude of the federal government is clear”.
Scholz does not even want to reveal whether he will speak on Wednesday
The game is similar when it comes to compulsory vaccination. A journalist wants to know how the three assess the approval in their respective parliamentary groups for compulsory vaccinations from 18, whether they believe that the traffic light can create their own majority and whether the three will speak themselves in the orientation debate planned for next Wednesday in the Bundestag, “to help with orientation”. He also asks Lindner if he has already decided which motion he will support.
Scholz replies that it is good “that the debate about compulsory vaccination, which I also initiated in consultation with all my friends in the government”, is now being specified. It was planned from the outset that there should be a debate in the Bundestag, not a coalition project. Scholz again speaks in great detail, also about the current Corona situation. But he didn’t answer any of the questions put to him – not even whether he wanted to speak in the debate on Wednesday.
Lindner, on the other hand, explains that “the debate about a possible majority of the coalition factions is a narrative of the CDU/CSU”. He himself will look at the group motions and then “in the light of the orientation debate as a member of parliament decide for himself” which of the motions he supports, says the FDP leader.
In the end, Scholz is still specific. When asked whether further corona measures can be expected at the Prime Ministers’ Conference next Monday, he refers to the applicable rules and the ongoing booster campaign and says “we will essentially continue on this path”.
That probably means: Everything stays the same.