display
Even before the decisive Bundestag debate, the Greens spoke up with taunts.
The Prime Minister's Conference has only just agreed on the 100 incidence, from which an "emergency brake" should apply to contain the pandemic, wrote the Green right-wing politician Manuela Rottmann on Thursday morning on Twitter.
And now the Bundestag is debating a reform of the Infection Protection Act, which, at the suggestion of the Union and the SPD, continues to adhere to the incidences of 35 and 50.
“Pretty embarrassing.
Chaos inevitable. "
A few hours later, Rottmann was standing at the lectern in the plenary hall of the Reichstag and heightened her criticism: "Every schoolchild in Germany now has a more differentiated view of the pandemic than the authors with this draft law," she hurled against the grand coalition.
"What you are presenting to us today is the continuation of the muddling-up." Previously, representatives of the AfD, the left-wing parliamentary group and the FDP had also poisoned the Union and the SPD.
Here you will find content from Twitter
In order to interact with or display content from Twitter and other social networks, we need your consent.
Activate social networks
I consent to content from social networks 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.
In the end, all opposition factions rejected the reform of the Infection Protection Act.
Unlike in November, when the law had already been reformed.
At least the Greens voted almost unanimously with the grand coalition.
But the unity is gone.
The Union and the SPD are apparently no longer able to inspire members of other parliamentary groups for their Corona policy.
display
The extension of the epidemic situation, on which the Bundestag had to vote on Thursday and in the context of which the Infection Protection Act was changed again, is an example of this.
Actually, the day would have been the opportunity for the Bundestag to take the reins of action in the pandemic policy more courageously in hand.
As a representative of the people, he could finally have given a clear framework for the measures the federal and state governments could take in future.
Instead, he passed a half-hearted compromise at the suggestion of the Union and the SPD.
This restricts the powers of the heads of government at the federal and state levels in the event of future corona restrictions.
However, only to the extent that it is legally necessary.
Demands for more power and control by parliament could not prevail - to the great frustration of the opposition.
This is shown
firstly
by the determination of the epidemic situation as such.
It is the basis for all corona restrictions that currently exist.
The federal and state governments are only allowed to take the numerous containment measures if the parliament determines that there is an epidemic situation at national level.
display
The epidemic situation was initially valid for one year: from April 1, 2020 to March 31, 2021. At that time, hardly any MP could imagine that the pandemic would last any longer.
Now the Bundestag has extended the situation again, but only by three months at a time.
Then it has to be decided again.
This would give parliaments more control, argued members of the Union and the SPD - which is true.
However, they have also given up control: Corona protective measures can now basically continue to apply as long as the epidemic situation applies.
Previously, there had been additional deadlines for "emergency measures".
In addition, the health minister can continue to govern within the framework of ordinances - which is problematic with a view to the Basic Law, the longer the condition lasts.
"I seriously ask myself: Where has the constitutional expertise of the coalition gone?" Said the FDP health politician Christine Aschenberg-Dugnus in the debate.
Not all lawyers consider this far-reaching authorization from the Minister of Health to be unconstitutional.
For questionable, however, it is.
display
Second
, the
half-heartedness is evident
in the reform of the Infection Protection Act.
It roughly lists which restrictions the countries can take to contain the pandemic - and which criteria they have to adhere to.
So far, the incidence value has been the decisive criterion.
If the incidence exceeds 35, countries are allowed to take far-reaching measures.
If it rises above 50, even more far-reaching.
In view of the higher incidences, mutations and vaccinations, the classification is no longer up-to-date - especially politicians of the SPD have recognized this from the coalition.
In response to their pressure, the countries will have to take additional factors into account in the event of loosening or restrictions: the vaccination rate, for example, or the R-value.
The Lüneburg Higher Administrative Court ruled in February that it was not enough to look at the incidence value.
Step-by-step plans, as they themselves had called for by politicians from the SPD or Union parliamentary group, are not included in the new Infection Protection Act: It is still up to the governments to specify the plan for the next few weeks and months themselves.
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-party providers being displayed to me.
This allows personal data to be transmitted to third-party providers.
To do this, it may be necessary to store cookies on your device.
More information can be found here.
Thirdly
, the fundamental evaluation of the pandemic policy remains unambitious.
The SPD also called early on that the Federal Minister of Health had to submit a corresponding evaluation so that Parliament could decide accordingly.
But it won't come to that anytime soon.
Instead, it is now legally stipulated that an external body should be commissioned with the assessment.
The Leopoldina was planned first.
Now it is said that the Bundestag should also nominate experts for an interdisciplinary body.
This should present a report by the end of 2021, which should reach the Bundestag by March 2022.
Again and again, courts have complained that the countries do not adequately justify their corona restrictions, complained the Green MP Rottmann in the debate.
But how should you justify something well, "if you are only now starting to deal with the question of how measures actually work and who is not too embarrassed to announce the result in March 2022?" Your group calls for a corresponding pandemic council for one year.
One or the other in the grand coalition also seems to be aware that the package is not the big hit.
It is true that many are generally satisfied with the new legal regulations.
The SPD is happy that, in addition to the incidences, the R-value and the vaccination quota “against the resistance from the Union” were able to be enforced.
display
Everyone in the Union is pleased that the new version of the law also includes a note that the risk of virus mutations should be taken into account.
At the same time, it seems to be clear to some that the population may have expected more.
Some people wanted a step-by-step plan, said the SPD health politician Hilde Mattheis.
“Also from us.” This conveyed to the population: “We have a plan.” SPD right-wing politician Johannes Fechner began his contribution by stating “that the protective measures of the federal states have massive negative effects on companies and families”.
Jens Spahn promotes the extension of the "epidemic situation"
The Bundestag decides on a continuing "epidemic situation of national scope" caused by the corona pandemic.
Health Minister Jens Spahn is campaigning for an extension of this exceptional situation, which gives the federal government special powers.
Source: WORLD
This is why these “far-reaching encroachments on fundamental rights” have to be checked over and over again.
This is done with the change in the law, said Fechner;
However, he also made it clear that the discussion about step-by-step plans in the Infection Protection Act could "definitely" still be conducted.
CDU health politician Rudolf Henke praised the role of parliament, which was well staffed this Thursday.
But then he launched an unusual attack in the direction of the Prime Minister's Conference.
"I suggest that one or the other prime minister should consider whether he will face this house when he organizes something like this," as we experienced the day before.
It remained open who the criticism was directed against.