display

Karin Maag (CDU) set the tone right at the beginning of the debate on Friday morning.

"This is our draft law," said the health policy spokeswoman for the Union parliamentary group in the Bundestag.

"We MEPs make it clear here and now that all regulations necessary for a pandemic are linked exclusively to this, our decision."

Two days after the far-reaching resolutions by the federal and state governments to extend the corona measures, this surcharge is remarkable: The Bundestag wants to rein in the federal and state governments?

Even the mostly reluctant MEPs of the Union?

In theory, Parliament cannot just do that - it must.

Because on March 31, the determination of the epidemic situation in Germany expires.

And thus the legal basis for most of the Corona rules that currently exist.

Tighter guidelines for governments or a blank check for business as usual?

For parliament, this offers both an opportunity and a challenge: if the parliamentarians want, they can exert more influence on government decisions.

In the coming weeks you will have to decide whether you want to prolong the epidemic situation and, if so, under what circumstances.

Do you take the reins of action more courageously?

Are they tightening the requirements for governments to govern within the framework of regulations?

Or are they giving the federal government a blank check for business as usual?

display

On Friday, Maag gave the impression that she was interested in the first option: tight borders for the federal government and thus also for the governments of the federal states.

Indeed, the draft law drawn up by the SPD and the Union shows that the demands for more parliamentary participation are now also reaching the coalition groups.

But not to the extent that the Greens, Left, FDP and AfD imagine.

The opposition calls for phased plans - and begins a debate about the correct incidence values.

"All regulations of the Prime Minister can only be decided on the basis of this law," said the CDU MP Maag.

“We take care of the essentials.

We set the framework. ”Hilde Mattheis from the SPD parliamentary group formulated a similar claim:“ As parliament, we have the task of setting the framework. ”This task is followed: The draft law shows that one is critical of the demands deal with the opposition.

The law to prolong the epidemic situation is still just a draft: changes are likely in the next week of the session.

The most important stakes have already been taken.

The Union and the SPD only want to extend the epidemic situation by three months, not by six, as one would imagine in the cabinet of Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU).

display

In the summer, the parliamentarians want to debate a possible extension again - again with the opportunity to expand their influence.

The federal and state governments can continue to govern within the framework of ordinances - but only until the summer.

The powers of Federal Health Minister Jens Spahn (CDU) are also limited.

When it comes to the question of the criteria according to which the scarce corona vaccine should be distributed, Parliament will be more involved in the future.

In the future, the Infection Protection Act should set five goals according to which prioritization may take place.

However, they are kept so general that it is still unclear what practical effects they will have: The “reduction of severe or fatal courses of disease” is named as a goal.

Or the "prevention of the transmission of the Sars-CoV-2 coronavirus".

"The coalition followed us," said the health policy spokeswoman for the FDP parliamentary group, Christine Aschenberg-Dugnus, in her speech - which she is right about.

Only after weeks of pressure from the opposition did the Union and SPD take action on the question of vaccinations.

Before that, there had been sharp demands from constitutional lawyers that parliament should decide for itself on the prioritization of vaccinations.

display

However, the changes were not enough, criticized Aschenberg-Dugnus.

Not only should the goals be set by law, but also the sequence of vaccinations.

"Why do you refuse to get the approval of the Bundestag when prioritizing vaccinations?

It is a far-reaching encroachment on fundamental rights. "

The Greens come out sharply - who had already railed against the grand coalition several times during the week.

There is no strategy in the draft law that would show the way "through and out of the crisis", said health politician Kordula Schulz-Asche.

Restrictions of freedom are not broadly democratically legitimized.

"The government makes authoritarian announcements every three weeks."

All parliamentary groups also want greater involvement in terms of content

The Left Party and the AfD also criticized the continued lack of comprehensive parliaments.

"You are submitting another bill to us, with which the Bundestag gives up regulatory powers," said Left MP Achim Keßler.

"Put an end to these destructive policies that undermine trust in the state."

It is a key point of criticism from the opposition: all parliamentary groups also want the parliaments to be much more closely involved in terms of content.

That concerns the question of how much power is left to the Federal Minister of Health to govern within the framework of ordinances.

But also the question of which fundamental rights encroachments are allowed in the countries.

In November, the Union and the SPD laid down a rough framework in the Infection Protection Act: According to Paragraph 28a, the states should enact a number of restrictions, especially if the incidences rise above 35 or 50.

Certain encroachments on fundamental rights are only permitted if nothing else can help to contain the pandemic.

According to the opposition, however, the rules are far too soft.

“Imagine you are a cinema operator.

And your cinema has been closed for months, "said the Green MP Manuela Rottmann, addressing the CDU MP Jan-Marco Luczak.

Now it is an essential question whether you can reopen your cinema when the incidence is 10, 35 or 50.

"Where does paragraph 28a answer this question?"

Luczak replies in general: The measures are anchored in the Infection Protection Act according to incidence values.

The 35 value is named there as a criterion, as is the 50 value.

This is the framework.

“And of course we as the German Bundestag cannot write every small-scale regulation in such a law.” The CSU health politician and Union parliamentary group vice-president Georg Nüßlein gives insight into his interpretation.

"If the incidence numbers are solidly below 50, a blanket comprehensive lockdown is no longer possible."

display

Which raises the questions: Are the parliamentary groups in the Bundestag sharpening the regulations on incidence values ​​in the Infection Protection Act?

Are you rejecting the idea of ​​the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to loosen up only from an incidence of 35?

There are opportunities to “deal with the step-by-step plans in Paragraph 28a” again, "said SPD parliamentary deputy Dirk Wiese in general during the debate.

And his colleague, Union parliamentary group vice-president Thorsten Frei (CDU), said: “I don't want to rule out the possibility that we will further formulate this in the parliamentary procedure.” A hearing of experts is planned for the next week of the session.

This is where you will find third-party content

In order to interact with or display content from third parties, we need your consent.

Activate external content

I consent to content from third parties being displayed to me.

This allows personal data to be transmitted to third party providers.

This may require the storage of cookies on your device.

More information can be found here.