Mr Lindner, four weeks ago the future coalition couldn't wait to make laws before they took office.

Now it looks like she will have to correct her Corona law before taking office.

Is that the sustainability of the traffic light government?

Johannes Leithäuser

Political correspondent in Berlin.

  • Follow I follow

Manfred Schäfers

Business correspondent in Berlin.

  • Follow I follow

The pandemic situation is dynamic and requires an equally flexible response from the state community of responsibility.

This is challenging at a time when a new parliamentary majority is working together with an executive federal government and the states.

Since the federal election, however, a new understanding has been achieved that combines a more consistent fight against Corona with an increased sensitivity to the social damage of possible lockdowns.

But the prime ministerial conferences with the federal level, of which there were now two this week, could have taken place much earlier if the future government had not long refused to hold such a meeting.

We are in constant contact with the countries.

The aim of the change in the legal basis made by the new majority was to parliamentarise the decisions on the restriction of fundamental rights.

To date, the federal states have not exhausted the instruments available to them to effectively reduce contacts, especially among those who have not been vaccinated.

It changes.

If there are new necessities due to the still deplorable vaccination logistics, the disappointing willingness to vaccinate or the risks of the Omikron virus variant, we will also act legislatively.

By "parliamentarizing" the corona measures, do you mean the proposal to let the Bundestag decide on future compulsory vaccinations without being forced to join a parliamentary group?

That was a real initiative by the designated Minister of Justice, Marco Buschmann.

All political forces ruled out compulsory vaccination at the beginning of the pandemic.

Constitutional lawyers raised concerns.

If this previous consensus is opened, it will involve ethical considerations.

The debate should therefore not be conducted along the lines of the parliamentary groups, but across the board.

If the spectrum of opinion in Parliament becomes visible, then this is also a contribution to calming the corresponding conflict in our society.

A few days ago you raised your own constitutional doubts about a general vaccination requirement.

This has been argued by others. If there are no constitutional concerns, then I personally tend to have a general vaccination requirement. Since we have had long-term experience with the effects of vaccines, I consider that to be justifiable. The reason for my reassessment is the disappointingly low willingness to vaccinate. It waves like a burden on the healthcare system and leads us to the edge of lockdowns over and over again. As a liberal, this decision is difficult for me, which is why I have respect for other considerations.

Last Tuesday, the Federal Constitutional Court dismissed the FDP's complaints against the Corona measures from the spring.

The designated FDP Justice Minister Buschmann has indicated that the FDP had wanted a different judgment.

Do you still consider your wish to be justified, has Karlsruhe let the Basic Law down here?