The "Center for Legistics" that the SPD, Greens and FDP want to set up could best deal with the Infection Protection Act right away.

Because the back and forth about its Corona paragraph, to which the traffic light coalition has made a major contribution, is a prime example of how legislation does not lead to clear forms, but to confusion.

Three legal infection situations currently overlap: the old one, which continues to apply for a limited period;

the new one, which corresponds to the stripped-down old one;

and a country-specific one that lies between these two variants via an opening clause.

Even some prime ministers skid when he has to explain what he thinks is possible, what he thinks necessary and what he thinks is desirable.

The Conference of Prime Ministers tries, which is not easy with sixteen participants, to restore order by repeatedly making new attempts in the direction of "uniformity".

For this, the Prime Ministers do not need the Chancellery or the Bundestag, as is sometimes assumed.

But now things are different, Bodo Ramelow is right with his remark that a conference only makes sense "if it results in a binding legal consequence in the Bundestag". it is no longer possible, but in all probability it will not be enough to stop the virus.

So is a new form of the "emergency brake" coming - just a few days after the Bundestag let the emergency of national scope come to an end?

Then the traffic light coalition and its majority in the Bundestag will see themselves forced to accommodate the federal states under the sign of proportionality.

In the “Center for Legistics” this is called a boomerang.

Keywords: