display
Jens Spahn set the tone of the debate on Wednesday morning.
"Just because we start vaccinating very soon after Christmas, that doesn't mean that all the rules are no longer necessary," the Federal Minister of Health told the television station n-tv.
"We will also need these rules well into next year."
Stirring hopes while dampening expectations: the federal government is currently doing a balancing act.
On the one hand, the end of the corona pandemic is clearer than ever: on Tuesday, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) announced that it would present its opinion on the vaccine against the virus next week.
This would almost pave the way for mass vaccinations in the EU member states.
Who, when and where can be vaccinated
The vaccination centers are as good as finished, but many details are still open.
If approval is granted in Europe, Germany will definitely want to be prepared.
The most important facts at a glance.
Source: WORLD
On the other hand, this path is so long that there is still no question of the end of the restrictions: It will take months before a sufficient number of people are vaccinated to be able to assume herd immunity.
Months in which social life continues to shut down, people are not allowed to see each other, livelihoods are at stake.
display
Recently, the frustration increased, as parliamentarians observed with concern.
Less because of the tough lockdown that has been in place since Wednesday.
But much more, because the feeling arose that everything is going slowly in Germany and the EU again.
In many places, countries started vaccinating their populations, but the EU was still weighing and analyzing.
"People have said: We are vaccinated around us, but the EU does not come into the pots," said a member of a coalition group.
Others said that the urgent signal to the population was needed: "It starts."
The coalition factions attempted to send this signal on Wednesday afternoon.
At short notice, the CDU, CSU and SPD had scheduled a so-called current hour in the Bundestag - and sent the government prominence into the race.
Two federal ministers were supposed to speak to Health Minister Spahn and Research Minister Anja Karliczek (both CDU), and Prime Minister Michael Kretschmer (CDU), who is currently struggling with particularly high numbers of infections and dissatisfaction in Saxony, was invited.
The timing of the debate was also a stab against the FDP: On Thursday the Liberals want to present a bill that proposes a completely different strategy for vaccinations - and once again calls into question the German government's approach.
"I am amazed at the debate," said Spahn, trying to defend the government's approach to vaccination approval.
They made a conscious decision to follow a regular approval process - and not to make the vaccine available immediately as part of an emergency approval.
display
"Nothing is more important than trust," he explained, which is why a careful examination was planned.
In addition, they only wanted to act together with the European partners.
The big states could have organized a vaccine on their own, but not the small ones.
"We are stronger than I," he said in a rather flowery manner - without even mentioning in the debate that he had put pressure on the EMA in the background.
So that things can finally progress faster there.
The CSU health politician Georg Nüßlein took over this job.
Turning to the government bank, he praised Spahn in the highest tones.
The minister made sure "that vaccination can now take place earlier, because he had timely and massive action on the EMA".
Actually, it is a good idea for the opposition factions to address the independence of the European Medicines Agency: For what does it say about the authority that decides on the safety of medical devices when politicians can exert “massive” influence on them and apparently speed up procedures?
But the question was not asked - because AfD, FDP, Left and Greens set different priorities.
Opposition went on confrontation
The AfD sent MP Paul Podolay, who stepped to the lectern without a mask.
Instead, he wore a plastic visor in a minimalist design.
In Germany one was about to destroy one's own society, he claimed, while in China life was already returning.
The government is too rigid on vaccination and too little on efficient therapy options.
The AfD MP Steffen Kotré presented the vaccine as downright dangerous. The process interfered with “genes”, he claimed.
In the left-wing parliamentary group, a member of parliament knocked on the desk so indignantly that the panel came off.
"Stop rioting," complained Bundestag Vice President Claudia Roth (Greens).
display
But the left, the Greens and the FDP also went into confrontation.
Left-wing MP Gesine Lötzsch immediately criticized the distribution process.
"With the regulation, the federal government wants to put us before a fait accompli," she said.
Even the scientific services of the Bundestag would have said: To decide on the distribution of the vaccine is "the job of Parliament".
FDP parliamentary deputy Stephan Thomae argued similarly, praising the development of the vaccine as a “decisive milestone” in combating the pandemic.
Vaccination could give people back important basic rights.
The fact that the federal government wants to clarify the distribution of the vaccine by ordinance and not by law with parliamentary participation is constitutionally "highly" questionable: "Even the question of who is vaccinated when can be a question of life and death." this is a question of fundamental rights.
It is a key point of criticism of the National Vaccination Strategy: the lack of participation by MPs.
It is the responsibility of the Federal Minister of Health to determine who is to be vaccinated and when.
Because, as almost every speaker from the CSU, CDU and SPD made clear: At the beginning there will be far too few doses available to supply everyone.
The government is therefore planning to give priority to the elderly, special risk patients, people who are essential in the health care system or for maintaining public order - on the basis of the recommendation of the Standing Vaccination Commission.
Previously, there had been criticism that some groups were not given particular priority - for example people with trisomy 21, who were also risk groups.
A revised version of the regulation is currently being coordinated between the departments.
Uncertainties in the population arise “because negotiation processes are opaque and non-transparent for the people,” complained FDP politician Thomae.
The government is sometimes very far away for the people.
"We get the letters from the constituency." The FDP is therefore pushing for a law on vaccination strategy.
This is taking too long, countered the coalition MPs.
If the whole legislative process would go through, the vaccinations could not start until February.
In addition, with the third Civil Protection Act, the Bundestag laid the foundation for the ordinance - and provided a legally clear framework.
One proposal was not discussed more broadly in the debate: that of Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU).
The President of the Bundestag had suggested that parliamentarians should give priority to vaccinations.
They perform state functions as well as constitutional organs of the executive or judiciary.
In the background, MPs said: The completely wrong signal could emanate from such a prioritization: namely, that MPs themselves were pushing themselves to the fore.