Enlarge image
Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU) and Federal Finance Minister Olaf Scholz (SPD)
Photo: Jens Schicke / imago images / Jens Schicke
It has actually been around for almost seven weeks: the emergency brake against Corona.
It is intended to prevent exponential growth in new infections.
The instrument was decided in the penultimate round of the federal and state governments on March 3rd.
The idea: If the seven-day incidence exceeds the threshold of 100 for three days in a row, the affected regions must combat the spread of the virus with more stringent measures.
So much for the theory.
In practice, however, several countries, counties and cities did not adhere to the agreement.
Therefore, the federal government is now intervening and wants to bring the non-brakemen into line by law.
On Tuesday morning, the cabinet decided on a nationwide uniform emergency brake.
The amendment to the Infection Protection Act should now happen quickly to the Bundestag and Bundesrat.
The background to this is the worsening of the pandemic.
On this day, the Robert Koch Institute reported 10,810 new infections with the coronavirus, significantly more than a week ago, the seven-day incidence rose to 140.9.
Intensive care physicians have been warning of an impending overload of the health system for weeks.
But as much as time is of the essence, the federal emergency brake will probably not come as quickly as some have hoped.
There is no two-thirds majority in the Bundestag for an urgent procedure, as only the Greens show willingness to agree.
But not only the opposition is resisting the law, there is also resentment in the government factions of the Union and the SPD.
Especially about the planned night curfew.
What did the cabinet decide?
If the incidence rises above 100, the following should apply nationwide in the future:
You are not allowed to leave your own apartment or property
between
9 p.m. and 5 a.m.
There are exceptions, but these are strictly limited, such as "averting danger to life, limb and property" and commuting to work.
Walking the dog should also be allowed.
Shops
have to close.
In addition to the food trade, pharmacies, bookstores and garden centers, among others, are excluded.
A maximum of one household may meet with
one other person
.
Children up to 14 years count extra.
Leisure facilities
have to close, the same applies to cultural establishments and zoos.
Only contactless
individual
sports are allowed that can be practiced alone, as a couple or with members of your own household.
There are exceptions for competitive athletes.
SPD general secretary Lars Klingbeil supported the plans in principle.
"The urgency is there," he told RTL television.
»We now want nationwide regulations.
That also has to do with the fact that individual countries have repeatedly pulled out. "When it came to the curfew, Klingbeil said he would advocate forbidding" gatherings "after 9 pm," but that the household should go for another walk and that you can go jogging «.
That must also be possible after 9 p.m.
The SPD does not want incidence as the sole criterion
Many SPD MPs do not believe in a nationwide regulation.
The Munich Florian Post, for example: "The powers of the government are going too far for me anyway," he told SPIEGEL.
“As soon as some of the prime ministers protest, Merkel wants even more power.
Why should I bail her out now? ”The Chancellor had rushed forward with this suggestion because she herself no longer wanted to follow Laschet.
However, Vice Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) pushed the introduction of the federal emergency brake significantly and also swore the party's prime ministers to it.
In return, the SPD can record a test offer obligation for companies as a success, which is implemented by Minister of Labor Hubertus Heil.
The SPD parliamentary group is therefore more likely to change the emergency brake in the parliamentary procedure.
A position paper by the comrades says: “The incidence value is an important factor in assessing the incidence of infection.
However, it cannot be used as the sole criterion for the need for measures that often significantly interfere with fundamental rights.
Protective measures may therefore only be adopted if the corona pandemic poses a risk to the population based on other criteria (in particular the utilization of the health system). "
"
The curfews are alien to life
"
Clear criticism of the law comes from the Union parliamentary group.
Hamburg's CDU boss Christoph Ploß, for example, expressed himself skeptically: "The scientists clearly show that there are hardly any infections outside and that the virus spreads mainly indoors," Ploß told SPIEGEL.
Therefore, he is against a mask requirement in public, as it was brought into play by some.
"I will not approve this law in the Bundestag."
CDU MP Andreas Mattfeldt
However, he advocates the route from Mallorca, where nocturnal curfews were combined with openings for outdoor dining during the day.
"I think the path that Mallorca has taken makes sense."
The CDU MP Andreas Mattfeldt became clearer: »The curfews are alien to life and medically counterproductive.
With this law, we are helping people stay indoors, where the risk of infection is higher. «That could not be explained to the population, according to Mattfeldt, who also announced:» I will not approve this law in the Bundestag. «With Reiner Haseloff, a CDU Prime Minister, has already opposed the curfew.
The FDP and the Left are also against the curfews.
"On the one hand, those who do not oblige companies to work from home cannot threaten the population with curfews," says the parliamentary manager of the left-wing parliamentary group Jan Korte.
The Chancellor lets the criticism roll off her for the time being.
After the cabinet decision, Angela Merkel even appeared personally in front of the press on Tuesday, looking almost euphoric by her standards.
The nationwide uniform emergency brake was »overdue«, said Merkel and emphasized that the decision was »an equally important and urgent decision on how to proceed in the corona pandemic«.
But it will probably not be as easy as Merkel would like, given the resistance in her own ranks and among her coalition partners.
And an urgent procedure, as the Chancellor describes as possible in her statement, has apparently long been off the table.
A first reading of the law is expected at the end of the week, and a second and third reading in the coming week, according to coalition circles.
As quickly as Merkel had imagined it will probably not go this time either.