economic correspondent in Berlin.F. A. Z.
I, the debate does not think strange, I don't even know what the concerns are. Infection protection security. If there are no risks, there is no legal basis for freedom of restrictive measures. The Constitution is a self-runner, you no longer need to think.
But it's not about solidarity?
Who's calls for solidarity, should the non-vaccinated demand. Now, if we have elderly people vaccinated, you should enable them as soon as possible to return to a normal life and not plating with freedom of restrictive measures that are necessary. I think it would be nice if an eighty-year-old may participate, without having the restrictions on public life.
when to apply?
the date on which it is established, that no longer poses a danger. This is more likely than not, but not sure yet. As soon as the feast is from this second on any measure restricting freedom not permitted.
The Robert Koch-Institute, if it is confirmed that from Vaccinated and Convalescent no longer poses a danger. In the RKI all the threads come together in an epidemic.
The incredible power but wealth for the RKI.
Yeah, I also regret, but that the legislator has provided that way. One can discuss whether the RKI has fulfilled its task optimally, but the RKI is the authority that is used for this purpose. Somebody has to do it, and since the RKI is dearer to me than the Chancellor.
Why is that?
Because I think the skills within the RKI also, in spite of the political dependence on the Federal Ministry of health is still larger than the powers of the Chancellor in this matter. After 16 years of chancellorship, I have the impression, that the Chancellor of the normal law solves the state process. I don't like in the public debate, that it alone is to arrive on whether the Chancellor wants something or not. The plays of infection no legal role of the Chancellor is bound as a representative of the Executive power of the law. In addition, there was the feeling that individual measures are arbitrarily taken. That the garden centers are authorized to open the door, not DIY but at the same time is not lit. Nor that hairdressers are open, but other parts of the body remain close to the services is prohibited. The Constitution of these different standards can not be justified.F+ FAZ.NET complete
you can trust our in-depth Corona-reporting and get 30 days of free access to FAZ.NET.Updated Date: 28 February 2021, 20:19