There are legitimate doubts about the right time to adapt the Infection Protection Act to the Corona situation.

Relaxation of protective measures to a minimum does not necessarily match record infection numbers.

But the hearing in the Bundestag also showed that there is no fundamental rejection.

The criticism is much softer than it was in autumn, when the emergency was great but the traffic light coalition wanted to remove this emergency from the law.

Now it's mostly about the consistency and flexibility of the "basic measures" that are to remain.

Above all, there is a lack of understanding that the face mask should be eliminated across the board.

And does the federal government have to regulate this in detail?

Moreover, why only state parliamentary decisions when there is a need to act quickly at local hotspots?

Corrections not wanted?

In most of these points, the traffic light coalition follows the line of the FDP, which aims for a rapid return to unrestricted application of fundamental rights.

In second place is the widest possible participation of the Bundestag.

The coalition has now almost achieved the first goal, albeit at the expense of the second.

Because the ministries involved have not been able to agree for so long, the Bundestag can only participate in a pig gallop.

It was hardly possible for the associations to comment in good time.

Corrections were apparently not even wanted.

It is doubtful whether this is an orderly procedure that deserves the name "living parliamentarism".

Keywords: