[ad_1]
- Following the National Council, the Council of States is today debating the future powers of the Federal Council in the crown crisis.
- After the first votes shortly before the lunch break, the Council interrupted the debate. Continues at 3 pm
- A real monster debate can be expected late into the night – you can follow it here on the live stream.
The parliamentary debate on the Covid-19 law was eagerly awaited. This is intended to convert the emergency law regime of Corona into common law. A constitutional lawyer even spoke before about an “enabling law.”
Paul Rechsteiner, chairman of the responsible commission, addressed this “fundamental criticism of the legislation” at the beginning of the debate.
The Covid-19 law is neither formally nor materially a dramatic step.
The law is limited to the end of 2021, according to the Council of States of St. Gallen SP. Furthermore, the Federal Council responded to the criticisms of the parties in the consultation and specified several openly formulated provisions. It’s not the beauty of the formulation that counts, but the result, Rechsteiner continues.
And: “The Covid-19 law is neither formally nor materially a dramatic step.” Rather, it is a necessity of health policy, and it is important to cushion the economic and social consequences of the crisis. “People shouldn’t be left in the lurch in an emergency, even if it costs something.”
Municipalities covered with emails from the population
Rechsteiner also drew attention to fellow citizens that councils had covered with critical emails in the run-up to the debate. In the crisis of the crown, the authorities followed the epidemic law, which had been approved by the people.
Maya Graf (Greens / BL) seconded: The majority of the population supports the Crown policy of Parliament and the Federal Council. But it is also important to listen to critical voices and explain to people the need for measures.
Thomas Minder’s “Separation Request”
Hannes Germann (SVP / SH) was sympathetic to certain concerns in the population, for example regarding the much discussed mandatory vaccination. “These concerns must be allayed by the Federal Council.” Thomas Minder (SVP / SH) complained that legal work had been unduly shortened, despite the urgency of the matter.
Too many different areas are outlined in the law, from justice to culture to health policy. This “hodgepodge” cannot be passed on to the people in a secure referendum, according to Minder. Therefore, she advocates dividing the bill and separating health policy measures to deal with the pandemic from the rest.
The National Council clearly approved the law on Wednesday, but had virtually no other choice: If the bill were rejected, several crown measures would be ineffective next week, six months after it came into force. For example, part of the emergency financial aid for the economy would be extinguished.
State policy problems
The proposal should also go clearly to the Council of States. However, it comes down to the fundamentals: What powers should the Federal Council have to deal with the corona pandemic by the end of 2021, and which actors should it involve when taking further action?
If the small chamber also joins the National Council’s plans and asks for more financial aid for the event, the travel and culture industries will be seen in the course of the debate.
