PDA

View Full Version : German Chancellor wants Motion of No-Confidence


Chaos
1st July 2005, 12:03 AM
A while ago, the German Chancellor, Gerhardt Schröder, decided that a motion of no-confidence was to be filed in the parliament, the Bundesrat - against himself, no less.

Now, this isn´t exactly the first time this is done, since the motion of no-confidence has, in the past, confirmed the break-up of more than one coalition.

What´s new this time is that Chancellor Schröder has had the motion filed with the expressed intent of having it fail! You´ve read this right, folks - he wants to be voted out of office.

For those of you not familiar with the procedure, the motion of no-confidence can be filed when an administration has consistently failed to get a majority of votes in parliament - usually because the minor partner of the coaltion has defected. This time, however, it´s because the main opposition party, the Christian Democrats, have gained a majority of votes in the other chamber of parliament, the Bundesrat, and are blocking just about anything that the Bundestag passes - with the obvious intention, as it has always been in situations like this, of preventing the administration from doing anything for which it might be favorably remembered when the next election comes.
Anyway, if the motion passes, the Chancellor must ask the President to dissolve parliament and call for new elections, probably at some time during this autumn.

My guess is that Schröder mostly got frustrated with the economical situation Germany is in, with the resistance of trade unions and other lobby groups against what pitiful reforms he actually had the guts to propose, and with the opposition´s blockade tactics in the Bundesrat. However, instead of taking it like a man and resigning, he is abusing the motion of no-confidence. He is even pressuring the Social Democrats in parliament to abstain from the motion instead of supporting the Chancellor, to avoid the risking of it failing (the Social Democrats and the Green, which form the current administration, have 304 out of 605 seats right now). One party spokesperson even said in an interview (attention - danger of snorting coffee through nose!) that if every Social Democrat MP was told to abstain instead of to vote against the Chancellor, it wouldn´t look like the Chancellor was deliberately trying to make the motion succeed.

The motion is to be voted on today, and to be frank, I´m curios to see what official reason Schröder pulls out of the hat for the motion.
Also, I half-expect the opposition to support Schröder in order to force him to either resign or stick with his job until the regular elections in September ´06.

Chaos
1st July 2005, 07:00 AM
The motion has passed. 296 votes for the motion of no-confidence, 151 votes against, 148 abstained.

Looks like we´re living in interesting times.

Darat
1st July 2005, 07:06 AM
Will the president, given the obviously abuse of the parliamentary procedure dissolve the parliament?

a_unique_person
1st July 2005, 07:50 AM
Is he just in effect calling an early election, in a system that has fixed terms?

Chaos
1st July 2005, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Darat
Will the president, given the obviously abuse of the parliamentary procedure dissolve the parliament?

I can´t find my copy of the constitution right now, but IIRC the procedure doesn´t violate the letter of the constitution, although it certainly violates the spirit of it.

The president now has three weeks to react to the request to dissolve parliament. From what I´ve heard in the news, he is none too pleased to be used like that, but I suppose that to refuse, he´d need some solid reason, preferably based on the constitution.

Also, a Social Democrat MP has filed an action with the Supreme Court to declare the motion of no-confidence unconstitutional. I guess that, if the action is accepted, the whole procedure will be put on hold until the SC has decided.

Originally posted by A Unique Person
Is he just in effect calling an early election, in a system that has fixed terms?

In effect, yes he is. Without the motion of no-confidence, this is unconstitutional - based on the experience of the Weimar Republic, which went through maybe 10-15 national elections (and governments) between 1929 and 1933, and we all know how that one ended...

Mike B.
2nd July 2005, 05:18 AM
Why politically would an unpopular Chancellor do this?

Wouldn't he want to hold off on elections?

Does he hope to campaign on the idea that "If you unions think I am bad wait till you get Merkel?"

I found this quote from the BBC:

"There will be new elections in Germany. This means a change in the content and style of politics," said Christian Wulff, Lower Saxony's conservative prime minister and Germany's most popular politician.

"Then the hard work will begin. Our leader, Angela Merkel, will carry out the kind of economic reforms that were implemented in Britain over the last 15 years."

Interesting...

Chaos
2nd July 2005, 12:20 PM
I´m not sure what Schröder´s intention is - maybe unloading the whole pile of crap onto the opposition.
He´s a bit too mature to just sulk and call it quits because things don´t go his way. (Which is what his former second-in-command, Lafontaine, did in ´99)

As for Wulff being Germany´s most popular politician - :D (btw his state, Lower Saxony, was recently called "the fourth most uneventful place on earth, behind both poles and the Gobi desert" ;))
The conservatives had 16 years to implement reforms - 1982 to 1998. They did nothing - well at least nothing that worked. Their Chancellor, Helmut Kohl was sitting problems out, i.e. doing nothing until they disappeared on their own, and of course securing his own place in history. That is, when he wasn´t involved in cronyism and securing slush fund money.

As you can tell, I´m a bit frustrated with the German political landscape... ;)

aerocontrols
2nd July 2005, 12:36 PM
I thought Joschka Fischer was Germany's most popular politician.

Manny
2nd July 2005, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by aerocontrols
I thought Joschka Fischer was Germany's most popular politician. You're one up on me. I thought Joschka Fischer was a pricey beer.

Chaos
2nd July 2005, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by aerocontrols
I thought Joschka Fischer was Germany's most popular politician.

His popularity suffered considerably due to his involvement (or rather, deliberate non-involvement) in the "Ukrainian Visa Scandal", i.e. the extraordinary careless of the officials issuing visas in the embassy in Kiev, which facilitated human trafficking from Ukraine to Germany. Fischer knew about it for several years but did nothing.