Post sponsored by

MIL OSI Translation. Region: Germany / Deutschland –

Source: CDU CSU

Dear Mr President! Dear Colleagues! I think, on the whole, that was a very good debate, which ultimately also showed that all of this is not that easy – neither the situation we are in nor the question of how we deal with it. And it is also not so easy to walk the tightrope: on the one hand as parliament to say very specifically under what conditions and prerequisites and within what limits the federal and state governments may act and where flexibility is given, and on the other Page to say how it is possible to do what is necessary to protect physical integrity, to protect people and, above all, to protect older, weaker and sick people. Many – I believe, also in the government groups, certainly also in the Green Group – did not make these decisions easy for themselves.

(Claudia Roth [Augsburg] [BÜNDNIS 90 / DIE GRÜNEN]: That’s right!)

At the end of the day, of course, it is like this: What we are voting on today is never quite the yellow of the egg when in doubt. Rather, it behaves as it always is in a democracy: it is the art of compromise. And with a law that requires approval, it is not only important to win a majority here in the house, but also to convince the federal states afterwards at 3 p.m. in the Federal Council that what we are doing here is right and necessary. That’s exactly what we did.

(Applause from the CDU / CSU and members of the SPD)

Dear colleagues, I want to start by rejecting the accusation that we did not approach the opposition and seek discussion. That was definitely not the case. Above all, we heard a lot of experts over the past week. We also spoke to each other at the expert hearing. As you have seen, what is on the table in the house today is different from what we brought before Parliament on Friday the week before last. From my point of view, it is a good sign that Parliament is not only stoically sticking to what has been brought in, but that it is also able to work on it, to improve it and to look: where can you find clever advice from experts Where is there also some clever advice from the opposition that we can take to make the law better in the end? That is exactly what we did.

(Applause from the CDU / CSU and members of the SPD)

Dear colleagues, we have very clearly regulated the limits within which the state governments can act in this law. We have named examples of rules and not standard measures, so that the state governments retain the flexibility to react appropriately in this crisis; it’s all about this. And we have clearly defined: What are the threshold values ​​according to which action may be taken, after which protective measures may be taken? I think it is the right approach to rely on incidences because they are a leading indicator. Dear colleagues from the FDP, if you pay attention to the utilization of the intensive care beds, then it can be too late to be able to react appropriately.

(Applause from the CDU / CSU as well as from MPs of the SPD and the BÜNDNISSES 90 / DIE GRÜNEN)

President Dr. German politican:

Mr Frei, there are two requests to ask a question.

Thorsten Frei (CDU / CSU):


President Dr. German politican:

Please, colleague, you are the first, then colleague Thomae will follow if I am correctly informed.

First comes the colleague from the AfD. Here you go.

(Jan Korte [DIE LINKE]: Why do you even use it? That’s a mistake! Only content for the YouTube channel!)

Markus Frohnmaier (AfD):

Thank you very much, Mr Frei, for giving the opportunity – this is very parliamentary – to ask an inter-mediate question; the colleagues before that unfortunately did not allow this.

In the last few weeks and months we have experienced restrictions regarding the freedom of the person

(Shouting from BÜNDNIS 90 / DIE GRÜNEN: Nonsense!)

in terms of freedom of assembly, freedom of movement and also with regard to the inviolability of the home.

(Carsten Schneider [Erfurt] [SPD]: Yes, that would be right with you! Who knows what you will find there!)

These are things that have been discussed here in this context.

Please make yourself honest today: The reason for this law is actually that – piece by piece – nationwide one court after the other has classified the measures you have taken as unconstitutional. That is the real reason why we are meeting here today and discussing it.

(Applause from the AfD)

Now you are laying the groundwork so that the courts can no longer protect us from this policy in the future.

President Dr. German politican:

Mr Frei.

(Renate Künast [BÜNDNIS 90 / DIE GRÜNEN]: There is no court protecting you in Russia! – Applause from MPs from BÜNDNIS 90 / DIE GRÜNEN – Countercall from MP Markus Frohnmaier [AfD])

– You have to listen now, Your colleague Frei answers you.

Thorsten Frei (CDU / CSU):

I would like to answer your question. If you look at the court rulings of the past few weeks, you will see that individual administrative courts have come to a different conclusion, for example on the basis of the principle of proportionality, and have therefore repealed individual regulations in individual countries. By the way, it is quite interesting that the statutory ordinances of other countries held the same point of view before other administrative courts. As you can see, it also depends on how a statutory ordinance is formulated.

The second point is: The regulations that the federal and state governments have made so far – they concern Sections 28 and 32 of the Infection Protection Act – have come into force on the basis of a general clause. Let’s take a look at the Bavarian Administrative Court, the last higher court that ruled on this. It said that the general clause is in principle a possibility for such measures, but that we have, from the point of view that this pandemic and crisis has been going on for eight months, and that we indeed – you described them – have very deep fundamental rights restrictions for them Need a more concrete, more specific legal basis. We create this with Section 28a and, moreover, also with Section 5 (1) of the Infection Protection Act, where we legally define the epidemic situation on a national level.

We don’t have to justify anything for the past. We are laying the foundations for the future because we want both the federal government and the state governments to be able to respond appropriately to the pandemic in the future too, because you don’t know, because I don’t know, and because too no one else knows how this crisis will develop.

(Applause from the CDU / CSU and members of the SPD)

President Dr. German politican:

Thank you very much. – Now comes colleague Thomae’s question.

Stephan Thomae (FDP):

Thank you, Mr Frei, for allowing the interim question. – You just said that the opposition had been approached with offers to talk. I do not want to leave the accusation in the room that we would not respond to offers to talk. We had actually telephoned at the weekend – I never turn down a conversation with you, Mr Frei – but first of all it was about other issues: gray wolves and the like. It was then also about § 28a Infection Protection Act. Indeed, they announced to me that the coalition would draw conclusions from what was disastrous for them at the expert hearing on Thursday. However, I was unable to find an offer to negotiate from our conversation. What kind of offer to negotiate should that have been, Mr Frei? What reason should that have been? Is the coalition of the votes of its own faction members so uncertain that it still wants to win the votes of the opposition for itself?

(Applause from the FDP – contradiction from the CDU / CSU – Carsten Schneider [Erfurt] [SPD]: Well!)

Thorsten Frei (CDU / CSU):

Dear Mr. Thomae, it is correct that we talked to each other on the phone several times over the weekend and also at the end of last week and talked about different topics.

(Carsten Schneider [Erfurt] [SPD]: No details, please!)

I feel like you, I enjoy talking to you; that’s why I would never turn down this on the other hand.

(Laughter from the CDU / CSU, the SPD, the LEFT and the BÜNDNIS 90 / DIE GRÜNEN)

But you are right, of course: there is a difference between negotiation and discussion; Mrs. Rottmann, we talked about it too.

(Shouting from Abig. Dr. Manuela Rottmann [BÜNDNIS 90 / DIE GRÜNEN])

I have to say the following to my colleagues in the FDP: In order to be able to negotiate a text properly, you either have to belong to a state government and the Federal Council has to deal with a law that requires approval, or you have to co-govern at the federal level. The FDP regrettably rejected that, and that’s why we have to handle it differently.

(Applause from the CDU / CSU – contradiction from the FDP – Michael Theurer [FDP]: This is not an offer to negotiate!)

Ladies and gentlemen, I want to tell you one thing: we have dealt with a lot – the opposition, experts and other things – we have improved the law and made it more definite. But one thing must also be clear: with all the rights that exist to protect minorities in the Bundestag – from beginning to end – it must be respected if the majority sees things differently.

(Carsten Schneider [Erfurt] [SPD]: That’s how it is! – Shout from Abg. Matthias W. Birkwald [DIE LINKE])

It has been said: 84 percent of Germans are either satisfied with the federal government’s health policy or they believe that the measures are not radical enough.

(Shouts from Abg. Beatrix von Storch [AfD] and Christian Lindner [FDP])

I think it’s pretty much the same here in this house. That is why you have to endure it: we are tabling a motion here today, we are voting on it. Today we again state that the epidemic situation of national importance persists. We therefore say very clearly: With this we, as a parliamentary majority, create the rights for the federal and state governments to act appropriately.

At the very end I would just like to say one thing: At this point, it is not just a matter of passing legal seminars. At this point it is also important to do something to protect people. It’s also about being ready to take on responsibility even if you don’t agree with everything one hundred percent. Taking responsibility also has something to do with leadership in our country. This is not just the job of the federal government; we are all challenged.

Thank you very much.

(Applause from the CDU / CSU and members of the SPD)


EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is a translation. Apologies should the grammar and / or sentence structure not be perfect.

MIL Translation OSI