DIn the future, the factions of the Traffic Light Alliance will unnecessarily put themselves in a dilemma. The situation of the new crown epidemic is as dramatic as a year ago, but they want to announce the end of the “national epidemic” at this moment. The amendment to the Infection Protection Act launched in the Bundestag on Thursday is particularly applicable in this area. When the Liberal Democratic Party group of parliamentarians said that anyone who argued like this would behave like a dictator, the sensitivity of the three parliamentary groups to the contradictions behind it was demonstrated in the debate.
This somewhat absurd accusation from the Liberal Democratic Party is not unreasonable. This is actually “their” law. She has always insisted on downplaying the Infection Protection Act to dispel the impression that the government is taking on certain things and giving up parliamentary control.During the debate, Marco Buschmann, the managing director of their parliament, reversed the position of the future leader of the opposition party, Ralph Brinkhaus. Olaf Schultz Command Zeng is by his side. Corona is also effective against infection protection laws that do not have a “national scope”, so bypassing the Bundestag’s state of emergency is not necessary.
It’s not that simple. The fact that the traffic light faction does not care about the parliamentary system shows that it is in this area that they are lagging behind the old law. After all, if the “national scope” is no longer given, the state legislatures have the opportunity to decide measures for their country. This should be omitted now, because the regulation appears to be superfluous: given the lower level of intervention for preventive measures required in the future compared to the previous catalogue of measures, the decision of the state legislature seems “no longer necessary.” Explanatory memorandum.
Deprived of state power?
It said there that this means that “the need for quick response options” will be better considered.So far, this has been the argument why the Bundestag should not deal with every measure against it. Corona command. Why does this no longer apply to the Bundestag in the future, but to the federal states? What if the “low-level intervention” of individual countries is no longer enough?
6.30 am on weekdays
The fact that the measures that have now been decided (such as 2-G and 3-G) only need to be supervised nationwide, this fact does not apply. The federal states can act without the federal government because the old law gives them flexibility. Therefore, the impression of the Traffic Light Act is that it is not aimed at corona, but at the so-called “patch quilt.” Since the beginning of the corona crisis, it has been a fatal synonym for federalism. With its draft law, traffic lights heralded the route of its central government (which has been announced many times in the election plan).
Postponed meeting of prime ministers
SPD and Greens, their thinking on this issue is very different from theirs Liberal Democratic Party (Even if not in the central government), they are loyal to their future alliance partner-Olaf Schultz under their leadership. He used this opportunity to show who is in charge of the house-certainly not to please the Prime Minister Angela Merkel, he showed how to do it. Schultz ensured that the Minister of the Social Democratic Party and the President postpone the federal state meetings until the Bundestag proposes a draft law.
The reason is: the prime minister should not create a fait accompli, according to which the new law seems to be outdated. Once the law enters into force in the Bundestag, a meeting of the prime ministers will be arranged. This order was announced by Olaf Scholz, and he can also emphasize the ranking: he is the chef and the waiter is someone else.
None of this is necessary. The prime ministers can take action long ago (even if there is no meeting of prime ministers), the epidemic is as severe as ever, but the Bundestag has decided that this statement is no longer needed. Perhaps it is logical to pass such a law in the no-man’s land of the two governments.
