Vaccination obligation failed: Even in the Bundestag, the tail is wagging the dog

For now, the Bundestag is left empty-handed.

As feared, none of the bills and motions for or against compulsory vaccination achieve a majority.

The disappointment must be great both in the government factions and in the Union faction.

Because neither side could get votes from the other "camp".

Not even the entire group supported the Union faction's request.

That was a small slap in the face for Friedrich Merz.

The only success he could report was the successful motion for the Rules of Procedure that the Union's motion for the bill was voted on by the traffic light group.

The hoped-for effect, more approval to do anything at all in terms of the vaccination rate, did not materialize.

This outcome of a lively debate is all the more regrettable because the traffic light bill and the Union's proposal are not very far apart.

At times during the debate one had the impression that this was the biggest difference: that one was a draft and the other was "only" a proposal.

In essence, however, both motions want the same thing, the staggered introduction of compulsory vaccination, initially from the age of 60, when the pandemic begins to form a wave again.

A vaccination register, a prerequisite for a controlled obligation, would also have found a majority.

The Union just wanted a decision on future decisions

The disadvantage of the Union proposal, however, was that the mandatory supporters of the traffic light coalition would make a decision on the concrete introduction of mandatory vaccination too late.

A timely double vaccination would then no longer be possible, at most a basic immunization.

This is not enough for vulnerable groups, i.e. especially for the group for which vaccination should initially apply.

If the Union application had found a majority, no vaccination would have been decided.

It would only have been the decision to make a decision: the Bundestag would have had to decide in due course (but when exactly?) about the introduction of compulsory vaccination, possibly several times, since the Union also proposes a staggered procedure for the decision-making process.

That must not have been particularly attractive to advocates of a precautionary vaccination requirement either.

Which persistence has now paid off, that of the Union faction or that of the traffic light coalition?

Friedrich Merz's objection in the debate that the Bundestag only got into the confused situation because the traffic light factions do not have a majority applies to the matter from the point of view of its origin.

It also affects the matter because the allegations from the ranks of the traffic light coalition that the Union is refusing are directed at the wrong address.

However, it does not hit the mark when a decision is to be the focus.

The factions had a quarter of a year to come to an agreement.

Mutual recriminations determined large parts of the Bundestag debate.

That didn't seem very poised given that this is one of the most important issues in the fight against the pandemic, perhaps the most important.

What's next?

One would almost like to argue that it would be honest to simply leave compulsory vaccination altogether.

But that would be absurd, since there is a majority for compulsory vaccination in the Bundestag and the risk of an autumn wave and a new lockdown is too great.

So it is being negotiated.

Hopefully faster than the first time.