Green parliamentary group meeting: The party’s problem becomes apparent in Leipzig

analysis

The two co-leaders of the Green Party, Britta Haßelmann and Katharina Dröge, stood next to the Economics Minister in front of the dark green wall. Robert Habeck thanks him for being here and standing in their midst. But the unanimous picture is likely to be misleading: The parliamentary group wants to make some decisions in Leipzig that have explosive power and could cause trouble in the government.

The 118 Green members of the Bundestag met on Tuesday for a three-day retreat. It is an important year: the European Parliament will be elected at the beginning of June, and state elections will take place in Thuringia, Saxony and Brandenburg in the fall. They won’t achieve dream results. In Leipzig, MPs are now discussing the question of how they want to deal with this.

A central answer appears to be to put forward as many demands as possible for social policy improvements. This is what the MPs want to decide at their meeting. This is necessary in order to maintain social cohesion and achieve acceptance for climate protection measures.

Greens call for reform of the debt brake

A draft resolution calls for, among other things, a significant increase in the minimum wage. The previous increase to 12 euros is not enough, according to the paper star is present. Rather, it should be 60 percent of the median wage. For 2024 that means an increase to over 14 euros, for 2025 just under 15 euros.

The Greens are also pushing for a rapid introduction of so-called climate money. The traffic light had already agreed on this in the coalition agreement – and commissioned the finance minister to develop a procedure for payment. The Greens expect this mechanism to be in place by 2025, “so that the climate money can finally begin to be paid out.” This requires “start-up funding from the federal budget”. To achieve this, the Greens are considering, among other things, abolishing environmentally harmful subsidies, such as company car privileges. There should also be a permanent price guarantee for the 49 euro ticket, an extension of the rent cap and a higher tariff binding.

And then there is the matter of the debt brake. In a second draft resolution, the star is available, the parliamentary group is proposing a “Germany investment fund for the federal, state and local governments” – to enable investments in the modernization of the economy, in future technologies and in the infrastructure. Tiny catch: “Without a reform of the debt brake, we will not be able to finance what is necessary.”

Demands are liberal no-gos

All of these are declarations of war on the liberal coalition partner. The Green MPs are increasing the pressure. The positions are far apart, admits parliamentary group leader Dröge. But also says: “There are ways in between.”

Where exactly these paths lead and whether everyone wants to follow them is currently unclear. Many of the demands for the liberals are outright no-gos. For example, shaking the debt brake. The Union, whose consent would be required for such a change to the Basic Law, is also unlikely to play along. When the minimum wage demand became known, the Greens received strong liberal headwinds. The FDP does not want to give the Minimum Wage Commission any political guidelines.

Meanwhile, the Greens are repeatedly met with sometimes violent protests across the country – often representative of the entire traffic light. But anyone who has followed the government’s work closely over the last two years will have noticed that the Greens are not getting many of their demands through in the traffic lights.

Be it basic child welfare, which is not making any progress. Or climate money. At the beginning of January, Finance Minister Lindner cleared it up: the FDP politician said that a decision on the payment would only be made in the next legislative period.

Look what we actually want!

In return, the left wing of the Greens in particular had to swallow a lot of toads, such as the so-called repatriation improvement law, which is intended to make deportations easier, or the introduction of total sanctions for citizens’ money.

The strained budget situation does not make the Greens’ social policy demands any more likely. Finance Minister Lindner recently even called for a “social moratorium,” meaning not introducing any new social benefits in the next three years.

The question remains: If the demands from the papers in this traffic light cannot become reality, what are the Greens’ purposes with it? They are more likely to be messages for the upcoming election campaigns. Glow sticks that they hold up: Look what we actually want! A calming of the green conscience.