Saarland opens cinemas, North Rhine-Westphalia closes schools. A uniform line among the 16 federal states is not recognizable in the fight against Corona. Chancellor Angela Merkel wants to create nationwide rules – but for this she needs a change in the Infection Protection Act. “No problem”, that is possible within two weeks, says Johann Wadephul, CDU board member and one of three MPs who are now supporting Merkel’s requests with an initiative. By letter they looked for other comrades in the Union faction.
ntv.de: Your colleague in the parliamentary group Norbert Röttgen reported 52 responses for your joint initiative. How do you rate that?
Johann Wadephul: The response rate is gratifying. I expect the political group bodies to look into the initiative in the coming week. We didn’t write to the entire group, it was a rather personal selection. Yvonne Magwas, Norbert Röttgen and I have selected around 100 colleagues whom we believe could be won over to such an initiative in the short term.
You write in your letter to your party friends that “time is of the essence”. But the Federal Council will not meet again until May. Don’t you have to have the Chamber of States on board?
Not necessarily. The point is to grant the federal government its own competence in combating the pandemic. From our point of view, this does not necessarily require the approval of the Federal Council. According to the Basic Law, this is always asked when direct administrative action by the states is required or when a decision has direct financial effects on the states. Neither is the case here. The situation is like creating new pension law. We don’t need the federal states for that either.
Was Chancellor Angela Merkel wrong when she said ten days ago that it would not work without the federal states?
No. The very confusing and contradicting picture of the last few days, which was also given by the Prime Minister’s Conference, shows that the federal government should now make some fundamental stipulations. But of course you need the prime ministers again for the implementation, there is no doubt about that. You should be able to make your individual regulations based on certain criteria. We just have to be sure that where the incidences rise sharply and go into the 100s, easing measures are not being taken at the same time. We have noticed recently that the line has been lost a bit.
Then your initiative is necessary above all because your party friend Tobias Hans is brushing the Saarland against the grain with its easing?
I wouldn’t want to single out a single one. I’ll just take the overall picture, there are several examples from all over Germany that surprised us, and sometimes angered us. We do not want to take away the powers of the federal states; we want to create additional powers for the federal government.
But at the moment when the federal government imposes a stricter measure across the country, it may do so against the will of a state government.
That is perfectly clear. But the Basic Law also contains the very simple and clear sentence: Federal law violates state law. This must also apply to measures in principle. We have noticed recently that countries have expressed opinions and adopted measures that are far apart. The federal government is in the annoying position of having to stand up for all consequences almost entirely on its own. Keyword economic aid, keyword short-time work allowance. Almost all of this is paid for by the federal government. On the other hand, however, he has no competence to ensure that certain minimum measures are taken against a pandemic. Our aim is to enforce minimum standards, that is our goal. I don’t think most of the prime ministers have any objection to this.
Again to your sentence, time was pressing. How long would it take you to give the covenant more power?
We have the Infection Protection Act and so far it has been authorized to issue ordinances for the federal states. In addition, you basically only have to insert a single sentence that the federal government can also issue a corresponding ordinance through the federal government. That can be discussed and adopted within two meeting weeks. We passed billions of euros in rescue packages for the whole of Europe within a week. Then you will be able to advise such a change in the law so quickly. That’s no problem at all.
You have had positive reactions from more than 50 Union MPs. With 245 group members, you have not yet supported almost 200 party friends. And your coalition partner has not even been priced in. Maybe this will be a problem?
We know from last year from the coalition partner that he was positive about such considerations. Sure, we still don’t have a majority, we don’t have a bill yet. But we now have a political initiative in the Union that has so far held back on this point. We think we should take a step forward now. The Chancellor gave a first hint, and there was a decidedly positive vote in this direction by Federal Interior Minister Horst Seehofer. Well-known representatives within the Union parties think our initiative is right. It is perfectly clear that this is not yet the opinion of the entire group, it has to be formed first. We are facing this discussion now.
The Chancellor said last autumn: “What we are doing here is not enough.” Then came the second wave with death rates of more than 5,000 per week. Aren’t you late with your initiative? A courageous lockdown in October could have saved many lives.
Yes of course. If you look at the entire course of the pandemic, the Chancellor has always been right with her proposed measures. Now there are mutants that are more infectious and more dangerous in the course of the disease. I don’t want to be accused of having died that shouldn’t have happened. And also not that we are suffering economic, social and financial damage, which would also have been unnecessary.
Should the increase in power for the federal government be permanent? Or would that just be a temporary authorization?
It would be naive to believe that Sars-CoV-2 was the last virus to threaten us. We have learned a lot in this pandemic, including that we need to work better together in the institutions. If we do not draw any conclusions now and also prepare for the next pandemic in terms of the legal architecture, then that would be negligent. All of this is a learning curve. I would never stand up and say that I made this proposal to give the federal government more powers a year ago. Definitely not.
Frauke Niemeyer spoke to Johann Wadephul
.