[ad_1]
“Non-arbitrariness” – Spahn defends the planned extension of special rights
| Reading time: 3 minutes
Going alone in the crown measurements is causing more and more criticism
Individual efforts by the federal and state governments in the crown pandemic are drawing increasing criticism. It is not only opposition parties who complain that parliaments barely participate in the measures.
Bundestag Vice President Claudia Roth complains about a “really dangerous wrong development” in the crown policy of the federal and state governments. Meanwhile, Health Minister Spahn justifies his position on the special rights provided.
secondThe undestag vice president, Claudia Roth, wants the Bundestag to be more involved in decisions about Corona’s containment measures. At a time when the protection of health and the protection of freedom and civil rights must be weighed, there must be a struggle for solutions, the green politician asked Deutschlandfunk on Tuesday. “That is Parliament’s job, we can do that, we should get it back.”
Roth sees the principle of the separation of powers, that is, the division of state power into legislative (legislative), executive (executive) and judicial (judicial), in an unequal position. “This is a really dangerous flaw that is drifting away from the legislature into clandestine executive events, and then also campaigning prime ministers and insatiable ministers,” Roth said. “The coalition factions have delegated to prime ministers for too long, so to speak, and that takes revenge. The struggle in the Bundestag for the correct answers to difficult questions only generates acceptance among the population for the interference in fundamental rights.
Spahn: “If you want, I would like to do it more often”
Federal Minister of Health Jens Spahn is open to a broad debate on the measures to be taken in the fight against the corona pandemic in the Bundestag. “It is about the greatest restrictions on freedom in the history of the Federal Republic, it is about unreasonable demands on the individual and society,” the CDU politician said in ZDF on Tuesday. Of course, this should also be discussed: “if you want, even more often.” Spahn also emphasized that neither the federal government nor the federal states acted arbitrarily. His interventions in the crown pandemic are neither arbitrary nor coincidental. It is not done arbitrarily, but rather according to the provisions of the legislative Bundestag.
The opposition has recently been increasingly critical in light of the tightening of the crown. For days, the Bundestag had increasingly criticized the federal and state governments bypassing parliaments. The leader of the union parliamentary group Ralph Brinkhaus (CDU) also announced that the Bundestag wanted to have a voice in the decisions of the crown after months of emergency ordinances.
Criticism of the lesser influence of parliaments in decisions on the measures of the Crown is caused, among other things, by the fact that Spahn wants to extend the special rights that the Bundestag had granted him in March. So far, they are limited to March 2021.
The bill now states that the previous regulations should be “consolidated” “on the condition that it is necessary to protect the population from the risk of serious communicable diseases.” A ministry spokeswoman declined to comment Monday at the federal press conference on what that means in concrete terms.
Spahn defended the extension of the special rights that he wanted. “It is not arbitrary or accidental that there are corresponding options for the federal government, for the federal minister or for the states, but these are legal bases, bases decided by the Bundestag,” Spahn said this Tuesday in the ZDF “Morgenmagazin”.
When asked why the Bundestag should not re-determine the general conditions after the acute transition situation, Spahn said: “They will continue to do so, as would be the case in our proposed Infection Protection Law for the Bundestag to establish the rules. What we want to standardize and, by the way, we want to put it on a better legal basis, on a clearer legal basis – that is also what the parliamentarians rightly demand – are the regulations related to immigration ”. The issue of immigration can only be regulated by the federal government. and it should not be handled differently by 16 federal states. “That’s what the bill provides,” Spahn said.
