These are the outstanding points of contention for the traffic light coalition

Most recently, the Greens had expressed doubts. “The result counts and not the date,” said parliamentary group leader Katrin Göring-Eckardt. You and your party friends are dissatisfied with the way the negotiations are going. Of course, it can also jerk, according to the SPD and FDP.

How much it still jerks with the traffic light partners will be shown on Wednesday evening by how colorful the papers of the working groups are. The negotiators should mark open points of contention in color, the SPD in red, the FDP in yellow, the Greens in green. A lot of color means a lot of arguments.

Conflicts in climate protection

Until recently, it was particularly in working group 5, in which climate protection is negotiated. It’s not surprising. The election programs of the Greens and the SPD on the one hand and the FDP on the other are far apart.

Meanwhile, the top people of the traffic light parties are trying to cover up the differences. Klingbeil said everyone is aware of the importance of climate protection. “Climate will play a – if not the – decisive role.”

The Greens had previously made it clear that they wanted to set goals in climate protection that go beyond the specifications of the exploratory paper from mid-October. The Greens are particularly worried about a passage in the exploratory paper on the Climate Protection Act.

The core of the law, which the grand coalition passed in 2019 and amended in May, is to impose annual emission reduction obligations on the sectors relevant to climate protection by 2030. If a sector fails to meet the reduction target for one year, the responsible ministry has to set up an emergency program within tight deadlines in order to catch up on the target as soon as possible.

The exploratory paper breaks with this system. “We will check compliance with the climate targets on the basis of a cross-sectoral (…) multi-year overall calculation,” it says. But what experts welcome as a long overdue correction is, from the perspective of the Greens, a taboo break.

Party leader Annalena Baerbock recently wrote a letter to the heads of various environmental protection organizations asking for support. The exploratory paper “unfortunately still lacks the necessary clarity”, the Greens would now work in the coalition negotiations to “achieve what is necessary”, wrote Baerbock and asked the addressees for support. They should put pressure on the SPD and FDP – which did not necessarily create a good mood there.

Trouble in foreign policy

A dispute in the Foreign Policy group is indirectly linked to the climate and energy issues. The traffic light partners have different views on how Nord Stream 2 should proceed. Green leader Baerbock had demanded that there should be no operating license for the controversial Baltic Sea pipeline.

The SPD heavily criticized Baerbock for this. Other foreign policy issues such as dealing with Poland or nuclear participation also caused friction. However, it was expected that these points could be clarified by compromise formulas in the working group.

Debate about social reforms

It is also unclear how much the welfare state is to be expanded. The Greens are calling for the introduction of a basic child benefit, and the old Hartz IV system is to be replaced by a citizen’s benefit. This is also agreed in the exploratory paper.

But in the end there were discussions between the SPD, FDP and the Greens when it came to spelling out the basic compromise in detail. The potential coalitionists have recently been wrestling with each other as to whether there should only be entry into new systems or whether there is a real, but more costly system change.

Overall, however, insurmountable hurdles are not expected in the social area either. There are no major upheavals, according to the family working group responsible for basic child security. The mood was good, none of the negotiators had yet “walked out crying”.

Big funding problem

Working Group 22, “Finances and Budget”, had one of the most difficult tasks. The bosses had largely cleared away the points of contention in the explorations on tax policy. There should be neither major relief nor tax cuts. However, the problems in budgetary policy are all the greater.

The wish list of the SPD, FDP and the Greens is expensive, but the means are limited. Even if the traffic light can spend an additional ten to 15 billion euros annually, as the Federal Ministry of Finance recently announced to the budget group, the money is nowhere near enough. The partners have in mind additional investments of 50 billion euros per year.

In addition, there are other projects such as multi-billion dollar super write-offs for companies or ten billion euros for building up a capital stock in the statutory pension insurance.

How all of this is to be financed under the debt brake is to be clarified by the budget experts at the traffic light partners. In doing so, they also looked for creative ways, as it is said, for example making greater use of the state-owned KfW bank or public companies such as Deutsche Bahn.

If things go well, the fiscal policymakers will agree on some of these measures and what leeway they will give. The working group is expected to set a financial framework for the traffic light coalition. They will present it with their paper. They would have done their job with it.

The most difficult part then begins for the main negotiating group: The costs from the projects of all working groups must somehow be brought into line with the budgeted budget.

More: Comment: Because the Greens overestimate themselves: The traffic light is not as stable as it seems.