[ad_1]
It’s 10.15pm Sunday night when Chancellor Helge Braun’s office sent a document to all 16 state governments. Usually the most important points of the draft resolutions for the videoconferences between the Chancellor and the Prime Minister are already known to the recipients from many preliminary discussions. But this time the newspaper contains some surprises: its effect is similar to that of someone who shoved firecrackers under the doors of the state chancellery. The countries, an insider reports the next morning, are “very angry.”
When the prime ministers gathered for their preliminary meeting on Monday, some of them let out their anger, as the participants later heard. The first mayor of Hamburg, Peter Tschentscher, who is not really a high-pitched man, complains: What the Chancellery does in the middle of the night, it finds “no longer fun.” Daniel Günther from Schleswig-Holstein considers the procedure to be “unacceptable”. North Rhine-Westphalia Prime Minister Armin Laschet comments wryly that he may not have been there long enough, “but doesn’t that document have to be coordinated with the presidency of the Prime Minister’s Conference?”
What the country’s leaders are so upset about is, on the one hand, that they mainly expected a mid-term evaluation of the previous restrictions, but Angela Merkel and Helge Braun now propose further tightening in concrete terms. The ruling mayor of Berlin, Michael Müller, current president of the Prime Minister’s Conference, reports on the discussions with the Chancellery, but not on the consensus. Later, in the videoconference with Merkel, he protested to the chancellor about the fact that he and his colleagues received documents late at night with elements that they were clear would not be supported. This is how prime ministers are pressured. In the public there is talk back and forth and who will prevail in the end. He does not think it is prudent in view of the situation.
Müller knows what he’s talking about. At the start of the second wave, Merkel had already called for more decisive action, but received little approval from prime ministers. Merkel complained on the video conference that it was not enough and predicted a disaster, phrases that soon reached the public. Two weeks later, by mutual agreement, the same round imposed severe restrictions, and the prime ministers stood there as repentant deniers of reality.
This time, however, the situation is a little different. Most prime ministers insist that the effect of the measures imposed two weeks ago be more closely monitored. That is why there is a point in the document that particularly irritates her: the Chancellery proposes tougher measures in schools, for example, a class division and a mask requirement for all age groups, even in lessons. This is an interference in sovereignty over school policy, with which state governments are fundamentally very sensitive. The country’s leaders unanimously remove this proposal from the newspaper even before contacting Merkel. Some suggestions for other binding contact restrictions are reduced to recommendations.
However, the unanimous uproar over the unauthorized action of the Foreign Ministry hides the fact that positions on the need for new measures are not so consistent. In particular, the Prime Minister of Baden-Württemberg, Winfried Kretschmann, and his colleague from Saarland, Tobias Hans, advocate further restrictions on contact. Not all decisions can be made until next week, Kretschmann said. Bavarian Prime Minister Markus Söder would also have taken a tougher line. At the time of the preliminary meeting, however, he was still on the highway in the direction of Berlin.
Above all, requests are resolved
In the video conference with Merkel, the first hour is calmer. This may also be due to the impressive figures presented by Chancellor Helge Braun: between February and October there were 500,000 infections in Germany. In the days of November so far, there are already 300,000 and by the end of the month this figure could rise to 500,000. There were as many infections in one month as in the previous nine months combined.
But then the Prime Minister’s anger flares up again. Merkel reacts to this with some presumption, which also gives participants the impression that the chancellor is offended. Looking at the passages on schools that the Prime Minister had already deleted, he asked his Chancellor’s chief to once again “explain the philosophy of what was so fondly emphasized.” In addition, Merkel is turning the tables and suggests that the federal states should come up with a proposal for the next meeting. It is not for nothing that they say: “Whoever writes stays,” says the Chancellor, adding, referring to various points of the original Foreign Ministry document that were deactivated or deleted by the Prime Minister: “You have shown that there is not much left today. “
Later in the press conference, Merkel admits that that day, above all, the calls to the population were resolved. And you might have already imagined decisions on new legally binding contact restrictions. What you decide a week in advance can also work another week. However, states were “predominantly” of the opinion that decisions should not be made now. Next week there will be “legal changes for sure”, but also a prospect until the start of the new year. The aim is to convey “a bit of predictability” to citizens, “as far as possible,” says Merkel.
Michael Müller knows, of course, that the refusal of the federal states to impose stricter measures on schools attracts special attention. It notes that 106 schools in Germany were closed on November 12. This number has to be “classified” according to the ruling mayor. “That sounds dramatic, but it is in the lower alcohol range,” Müller said. You don’t want to “miss anything”, but the numbers should “look different.”
Markus Söder admits that the results “are not yet a great success.” Like Merkel and Müller, Söder also considers it positive news that the exponential increase in the number of infections has stopped. “But it is not enough,” said the Bavarian prime minister. Therefore, “next week will be the week of the decision.”
Söder does not want to resist a small cut in the preparation of the meeting that day. The solution could have been more “elegant,” he says. Michael Müller becomes clearer. In the past, “very effective and well-practiced procedures” had been used in which “common documents for joint meetings were also jointly developed”. That is where they want to go back. Countries should already have the opportunity to advise on the work of the Foreign Ministry. That wouldn’t be possible after 11 p.m. when things started again at eight the next morning, Müller said.
With all the demand, Merkel finally feels compelled to say something about the controversial topic of the day: in the end there was the perception that the federal government “and I personally” were pushing a lot, according to Merkel, and then the prime ministers “to nothing”. continue euphorically. “That is why countries must now present their proposals. The Foreign Minister said that we shared the responsibility.” It is not that one person distributes the burdens and the other the pleasure.
