Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Politics

A Three-Party Alliance is Set To Govern Germany (npr.org) 88

Three German parties have reached a deal to form a new government that will end the era of longtime Chancellor Angela Merkel, according to Olaf Scholz, who is poised to replace her. From a report: Scholz, of the center-left Social Democrats, said he expects that members of the parties will give their blessing to the deal in the next 10 days. At a news conference, Scholz and other leaders gave some indications of how the coalition would govern. Among the first measures agreed: compulsory vaccinations in places where particularly vulnerable people are cared for, with the option of expanding that rule. That comes as Germany is seeing a surge in cases, and the political transition has somewhat hampered the country's response. Scholz also stressed the importance of a sovereign Europe, friendship with France and partnership with the United States as key cornerstones of the government's foreign policy -- continuing a long post-war tradition. The new government will not seek "the lowest common denominator, but the politics of big impacts," Scholz promised. Robert Habeck, co-leader of the environmentalist Green party, meanwhile, said measures planned by the government would put Germany on a path to meet the goals of the 2015 Paris climate accord.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Three-Party Alliance is Set To Govern Germany

Comments Filter:
  • Not news for nerds (Score:4, Insightful)

    by couchslug ( 175151 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2021 @12:14PM (#62017389)

    At least post TECHY space filler.

    The five or ten Slashdotters interested in politics go to serious political news sites and no one else gives a fuck.

    • At least post TECHY space filler.

      I'd a thousand times prefer this story about real Germany to one about a pretend election by virtual voters in crypto germany, a fake country with a gdp of 50 gazillion silly coins - that's seems to be what passes for a "techy" story but real Germany has much more influence on technology.

    • At least post TECHY space filler.

      The five or ten Slashdotters interested in politics go to serious political news sites and no one else gives a fuck.

      Germany is a tech powerhouse. What happens in that country will have an influence in tech.

      People who do not get that aren't techies (but posers.)

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      There was another very interesting announcement: Germany will aim for 80% renewables by 2030 for generation. Nuclear ends next year, coal by 2030.

      • Nuclear ends next year, coal by 2030.

        That's the stupid way round. Far more French have died from German coal-based pollution crossing than they have from nuclear accidents. Coal is hands down the most dangerous, most polluting electricity generation method there is.

        • Far more French have died from German coal-based pollution crossing than they have from nuclear accidents.
          Actually no.
          Double no, you idiot.

          Look on a map.
          France is west of Germany - dumbass.

          Secondly: since the late 1970s, all coal plants have scrubbers. Everyone knows that, just not you dumbass.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          It was mostly because they would have had to extend nuclear licences to keep them running, and after Fukushima it was becoming clear that those elderly, already extended plants were just not safe. The assumptions they were built on didn't hold up, and when Japan started re-examining their existing plants they found a long list of defects and deficiencies, many applicable in Germany too.

          • Yeah, that ONE guy who died as a direct result of Fukushima (seven years after the fact, mind you) was a serious problem. Much worse than that estimated 10000 premature deaths due to coal burning in Japan since Fukushima....
        • Far more French have died from German coal-based pollution crossing than they have from nuclear accidents.

          Yeah, that's true everywhere... In part because aging nuclear plants with severe faults have been shut down before they failed.

    • by ffkom ( 3519199 )
      If they actually realize what they agreed upon in their coalition contract [fragdenstaat.de], there would be a pretty strong impact on technology in Germany. Concepts like "companies are liable for damages caused by negligent IT security" are pretty revolutionary, if actually enforced. As would be the preference for open standards. But then again, we all know how a few black suitcases filled with cash (or, more modern, a vastly overpaid "consultant" role) can quickly turn all good intentions into their opposite.
  • Why not form a party uniting the two most evil and worst political philosophies â" nationalism and socialism? What is the worst that could happen?

    • by Luckyo ( 1726890 )

      If the story is to be believed, they de facto did. After all, they're promising to make certain people legally classified as untermensch based on vaccination status, and they's insisting on "Sovereign Europe in partnership with France" if that claim is true.

      Both aren't post war policies, but "during war" ones. Most people tend to forget that 3rd Reich ruled sovereign over most of Europe in a coalition with Vichy France.

      I'm only slightly joking, as SPD got elected on "continuing CDU policies from Merkel's er

    • by gwjgwj ( 727408 )
      Like in Poland?
    • by PPH ( 736903 )

      Yes, why not [zcache.com]?

  • How's the British monarchy doing? Has Adele commented on the situation yet?

  • How Coincidental (Score:4, Informative)

    by lsllll ( 830002 ) on Wednesday November 24, 2021 @12:26PM (#62017453)

    I was just thinking yesterday of the perfect party to form in the U.S.: "The Center Party". I thought about what it would take to get a new party off the ground (something Bernie should have done after his 2016 loss to Hillary. He would have had 3+ years to get things off the ground). Basically the idea behind the center party would be to attract everyone who gravitates toward the center. Candidates would pick and choose things from the fringes, because not all republicans are alike and not all democrats are alike. Some a candidate would be pro-choice, pro upping the minimum wage, etc (stuff from the left), yet anti open immigration, anti tax increase (but pro increase for the wealthy), and so on.

    I think the party would have a good following.

    • by AvitarX ( 172628 ) <me AT brandywinehundred DOT org> on Wednesday November 24, 2021 @12:37PM (#62017489) Journal

      So basically the typical democrat in Congress?

      • So if you're equating centrism to the Democratic party, what does that make left and right?

        • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 24, 2021 @12:52PM (#62017551)

          left (the squad), center (democrats and very, very, very few republicans), and right (pretty much all republi... trumpsters)

          • by kunwon1 ( 795332 ) <dave.j.moore@gmail.com> on Wednesday November 24, 2021 @01:34PM (#62017707) Homepage
            This is pretty accurate
            The DNC is the conservative party, the GOP is the fascist party, the progressives are just looking for the part of the swimming pool with the least urine in it
            • The DNC is not the conservative party in terms of US politics. It doesn't matter how often you and others keep stating they are.

              Just because they are right of Europe doesn't make them conservative in the US.

              • by kunwon1 ( 795332 )
                Sure, the US political system has moved the goalposts because the US is, by and large, a conservative country. So 'conservatives' in the US are further to the right than 'conservatives' elsewhere
        • by AvitarX ( 172628 )

          Let's see.

          The criteria of the post I replied to:

          pro-choice, pro upping the minimum wage, etc (stuff from the left), yet anti open immigration, anti tax increase (but pro increase for the wealthy)

          Seems like a typical congressional democrat to me.

    • Stick "self" in front of that and it will be the "party of the individual".

    • by GlennC ( 96879 )

      Senator Sellout would never go for it.

      He's making a comfortable living from the Party, and all he has to do is give people the impression that "Team Blue" has some center-left policies.

      The real pity is that people are still falling for this.

    • I was just thinking yesterday of the perfect party to form in the U.S.: "The Center Party". I thought about what it would take to get a new party off the ground (something Bernie should have done after his 2016 loss to Hillary. He would have had 3+ years to get things off the ground). Basically the idea behind the center party would be to attract everyone who gravitates toward the center. Candidates would pick and choose things from the fringes, because not all republicans are alike and not all democrats are alike.

      I'm going to assume you're not American by what you wrote there. Just so you know, Bernie Sanders is considered extremely hard left in American politics. So much so that I think it's fair to say he appeals to what we call "wing nuts" or "the lunatic fringe" if you will. He is anything but a centralist in American politics. And his most rabid supporters have adopted a tactic from the Republicans that I wish had never gained traction, namely they would truly rather have nothing if they can't get everyth

      • by lsllll ( 830002 )

        I don't think Bernie is as far left as you purport him to be (and I am an American, naturalized 25 years ago and have been here for almost 40 years). For instance, if he was a wing nut, he would support abolishing the border and letting everyone in. He is for providing a path for the undocumented immigrants to become permanent residents and citizens, but Reagan did that as well. He wouldn't have let Israel get away with what it does. He would have resurrected JCOPA and contained Iran the way Obama start

    • The voting system used in the USA does not permit a third party. The centrist party would appeal to the best of one of the two existing parties more than the other. Whichever one it appeals to more it would cause that one to lose. Since it can't get as strong as the other two in a single shot the result is just making the party most opposed retain power.

      If you want more parties in the USA (which is a really good idea and would help with polarization) you need to changing the voting system. Ranked choice or

      • more parties really does help get things done and leads to less friction overall.

        More parties could lead to cooperation and true debate. Or it could lead to the type of policy hostage taking that occurs in places like Israel, where a small extreme minority wields tremendous power as the tipping point in a coalition.

        My opinion is that cooperative people cooperate regardless of the political system, and uncooperative people fight regardless of the political system.

        • European countries have extremist groups that won't negotiate. But those groups also have their own political parties which are tiny and mostly just ignored. They don't make up enough of the population to really impact any of the votes. You just don't negotiate with those groups and most things take a simple majority.

        • Voters in Romania choose at every election who will vote together with the ethnic group of Hungarian minorities.
          As for a multi party system, you should be prepared for the population and Parliament not agreeing on something, and having the longest interim government (in Belgium it took 541 days).

      • by aitikin ( 909209 )

        If you want more parties in the USA (which is a really good idea and would help with polarization) you need to changing the United States Constitution, like the framers intended.

        FTFY

        There is one word in The Constitution that makes it so a 3-party system will almost certainly not work at the national level. The word, "majority," in the following portion:

        The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by Ballot one of them for President...

        mak

        • The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed;
          Voting for the president has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the voting system or the numbers of parties.

          And if you only want to change the voting for the president, then look how France is doing it.

    • As long as the voting system is that fucked up, a third party only has a chance when one of the other two commit suicide.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Rather than another party, what you really want is to do away with the two party system and move to coalitions. Germany, like many European countries, is now governed by a coalition of three parties, representing a fairly broad spectrum of political views.

      Not only does it mean that many more people are represented, and that every vote really counts, but it produces those centrist, compromise outcomes that create stability and forward momentum. None of this back-and-forth lurching every time the government s

    • I was just thinking yesterday of the perfect party to form in the U.S.: "The Center Party".

      As long as you have a "first past the post" system, this will not happen.

      • by Uberbah ( 647458 )

        Most countries have first-past-the-post. Most countries do not have a two party duopoly. And the US had said post when the Republicans rose from nothing and replaced the Whigs, because two pro-slavery parties were two too many.

        Now we have two corrupt corporatist parties that love war and stocks and hate workers. Which is two parties too many. The stars could not have been more aligned last year for a third party run by Sanders, running against two senile corrupt racist warmongers, but he chose to stay a she

  • by Anonymous Coward
    There's no tech angle here. I can get this stuff on numerous other web sites that can do it better.
    • The /. tag line is "News for nerds, stuff that matters". Being a nerd is not always about tech and I'd argue this subject does matter in nerd culture, since it will likely have impacts on technology along the way.

  • involuntary medical experiments on human subjects.... in Germany? hard to believe...

  • hey editors,
    please could you keep politics out of Slashdot?
    Thanks a lot!

  • which is just another way of saying reality is to be disowned for hardship reasons.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Maybe it's a way of saying "my genitals are none of your business". Germany is quite big on privacy.

      • My judgement is none of your business.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          It is if you insist on dehumanizing and degrading treatment of others.

          We have been over this before, religious belief is no excuse so why would any other belief be?

          • It was once regarded as dehumanizing to lie and force others to lie. You're no better than inquisition age church.

            • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Says the guy who wants to inquire about the nature of other people's bodies.

              • I don't have to inquire. Most trans people I know are plainly obvious.

                • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  How would you know? If you can't tell you might have assumed they were cis. And are you 100% sure that the people you think are trans are really trans?

                  Your belief has been downgraded to guesswork.

                  • The usual cases are

                    1) They call themselves trans
                    2) They look like men in a dress (complete with cheap wig, stubbles, bulky body, enlarged adams apple etc.)

                    Sure, there are transpeople who are cosmetically perfect and manage to hide their state. But that's not what I'm concerned with. I care about those who admit it and still want people to act against their knowledge.

                    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      So if I decide you look like a woman to me, and treat you as one, you are not going to get upset and punch me in the face, right? My belief overrides your delusion, you can't force me to lie, stay out of the men's bathroom etc.

                    • Stop. I think there are two discussion threads that are getting increasingly mixed up here.

                      My original post was about how people are supposed to act against their knowledge when both the biological sex and the subjectively perceived sex of the transgender are known and undisputed but the transgender thinks their subjectively perceived sex should take priority in other peoples speech and actions.

                      Then you accused me of wanting to inquire people for transgenderism follow by a claim that one could not determine

                    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      "Undisputed"

                      Good luck with that.

            • by Uberbah ( 647458 )

              It was once regarded as dehumanizing to lie and force others to lie. You're no better than inquisition age church.

              Fucking idiot bigots also used to afraid of gay marriage. Easy solution? Don't marry a person as the same gender as yourself! If you don't wanna be trans have you...you know...considered...not altering your own genitals? You can do this while leaving other people the hell alone and MYOFB.

  • and she couldn't always do what was needed for the same reasons the won't... politics.

To communicate is the beginning of understanding. -- AT&T

Working...