Risk Solutions for Carriers
Sure, these politicians are well paid for it and have chosen power for themselves. But accordingly, in the end they came to an agreement. Just as 500 million people expected. Failure would not have been an option in the face of the corona pandemic, the greatest crisis after the Second World War. It does not matter whether the state leaders sat together for two days as planned or four days. It doesn’t mean anything.
Great dissatisfaction: EU Parliament opposes Corona budget (function () {var dyCont = document.getElementById (‘nativendo-sidebar’); if (typeof T == U || T.RecAdInactive) {// remove container dyCont .parentNode.removeChild (dyCont);}}) (); .toi-sh-breaker {position: relative; width: 920px; left: -155px; height: 275px; border: 1px solid #dcdcdc; border-width: 1px 0; padding: 12px 0 8px; margin: 32px 0; clear: both; } .toi-sh-breaker: before {content: ‘DISPLAY’; position: absolute; top: -8px; right: 28px; background: white; color: # 000; font-size: 10px; display: inline block; padding: 2px 10px; } .toi-sh-breaker .Tts {width: 300px;} .toi-sh-breaker # nativendo-sidebar {width: 300px; clear: none; float: left; margin-right: 10px;} .toi-sh-breaker > div: last-of-type {width: 300px;}
In 1962 a 28-day negotiating marathon by the European agriculture ministers ended – and at that time only six countries were involved and then Walter Hallstein, who was then the first chairman of the Commission of the European Economic Community (EEC), stated: "It is a victory for the community … The European pact has been renewed, the way to a common future is open."
Democracy is not only the best form of rule, it is also the most difficult. Anyone can be a dictator, but not a good democrat. Giving orders that others have to implement is easy, conveying a position on an equal footing is a great art. Friends of the EU should therefore adopt a significantly less defeatist and destructive attitude towards Brussels. If we want to keep the EU, then we have to stop talking about everything.
Instead, we need to look more closely at where we are now and where the past few years have brought us. Everyone was criticized that only national egoisms were represented at the EU Corona summit. Yes, how is that supposed to be any different when nationally-minded right-wing populists are in the league? Where a Viktor Orban can be made, a PiS continues to vote in power like in Poland, where you previously went into government with an FPÖ like in Austria, a coalition of fun party and right-wing radicals is made possible like in Italy or where you watch how a Mark Rutte that "playful liberal heritage of the Netherlands"by letting him cuddle with a hawker like Geert Wilders, who has since been rightly canceled, one need not be surprised about problems in the EU.
The destruction of the European Union begins at the national level. Therefore, the questions must first be asked and discussed there: "Why do you see the splinter in your brother’s eye but you don’t notice the beam in your eye?"
For example, in Germany we can ask ourselves why Christian Lindner is once again on the side of the FDP alongside the AfD "Thrifty four / five" and whose leader Mark Rutte positioned? Apparently the party leader forgot the Thuringia debacle at the beginning of the year when he had Thomas Kemmerich elected with the votes of the Höcke-AfD as the notorious first FDP short-term prime minister and needed a day to recognize a mistake. Now Lindner said the "picture"that the compromise at the EU summit was particularly merited "of the Dutch Prime Minister and my party friend Mark Rutte and the so-called ‘Thrifty Four’", with which he seconded the AfD parliamentary group leader Alice Weidel, who had emphasized: "Germany’s place as the largest net contributor would have been on the side of the ‘thrifty’." A hymn of praise for the tax haven Netherlands, because other countries lose billions of euros in revenue every year, like the "Paradise Papers" may have revealed nothing about the AfD, but about the FDP?
argumentative essay about college education
One could also basically talk about why many in Germany, including Chancellor Angela Merkel (CDU), found it so difficult to accept EU debt for so long. That contributed to the tough 90-hour negotiations in Brussels – it wasn’t just Hungary’s behavior or Italy’s demands. Why the polemics of the EU as "Debt union" instead of a broad willingness to properly finance the EU? Has the EU peace project, including free travel, roaming without additional costs, food safety and much more, proven its value for us citizens many times over?
The EU should now receive 1.8 trillion euros. Do you think that is a large sum? One trillion of this is reserved for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), within which the EU budget has to move for seven years from 2021 to 2027. The rest of the sum is intended for overcoming the economic consequences of the corona. The 27 EU members achieved an economic output of around 13.5 trillion euros per year in 2018 (excluding Great Britain). That means that the EU’s annual expenditure is just around one percent of that. An average national budget comprises around 46 percent of the volume of the respective national economy. I think: In order to continue to ensure our quality of life, the EU can be worth this one percent to us and a little more.
Unfortunately, the stingy see it differently. In the end, however, the summit turned out to be historic: Despite all resistance, the EU can now run into debt for the first time. The money raised will be distributed to where the coronavirus has hit the hardest, and then later shared by everyone. Presumably, this has also opened the door for its own taxes, which Brussels can collect in the future. Of course, this will strengthen the EU at the expense of the nation states. For peacekeeping, however, it can only be beneficial if supranational organs become more important and power is further shared in this way. After all, the existential problems of the past were brought to us by nation states.
The summit is historic, not perfect. It’s always better. Criticisms can be found with every compromise. It will now be the task of the European Parliament, which still has to approve the financial package, to readjust it. It goes without saying that it is not forward-looking that funds have been cut for climate protection, research or digitization of all places. There is nothing in the summit document to read about the basic problem of the EU, the threat posed by political extremism and ethnic nationalism, apart from a mention of terrorism and radicalization together with serious and organized crime, cybercrime and illegal migration.
Agreement at Corona summit: The EU is degenerating into an ATM Tensions escalate: Is a ‘cold war’ looming between the USA and China? Federal election 2021: Merkel will be gone soon – Red-Green fears this successor
The Council of the European Union itself warned in May that the extremist discourse on the Internet about the current Corona crisis was increasing rapidly. Adjustments for the future have indeed been loosened or not even screwed in at all. It is also right if Markus Becker in the "mirror" criticizes that the EU is letting its autocrats get away because little remains of the project to create a mechanism to link the disbursement of subsidies to compliance with the rule of law. Yes, the compromise may be very expensive, but that is the price for the failure of politics in the member states.
Lamya Kaddor is an Islamic scholar, religious educator, publicist and founder of the Liberal Islamic Association (LIB). She is currently leading a research project at the University of Duisburg-Essen. Your current book is called "Muslim and Liberal!" and was published by Piper. You can also follow our columnist on Facebook or Twitter.
Now it should come: the corona test obligation for returnees from risk areas. But is that enough? And why is it only discussed in the middle of the holiday season?
Federal Minister of Health Jens Spahn has decided: There should be a general test requirement for people entering from risk areas. The corresponding order is likely to come into force next week. "We must prevent those returning from traveling unnoticed infecting others and thus triggering new chains of infection"said the CDU politician. Does this make sense? Is that enough? And why only now, when the summer holidays are partly ending again? The most important questions and answers at a glance.
Upon request, the ministry refers to current interviews by Health Minister Jens Spahn (CDU) on the subject. There, however, he answers this question differently. On the one hand, he emphasizes that there is already an obligation for those entering from risk areas to undergo a 14-day quarantine, which can only be lifted by a negative test. However, no new regulation would be needed if he thought that was sufficient.
Spahn replied on Deutschlandfunk that one could always ask whether a regulation two weeks earlier would not have been better. But now is the right time, as there is still very limited air and travel traffic to non-EU countries. On ZDF, Spahn said on Monday evening that outbreaks are increasingly being seen in families and in groups of friends that have something to do with entry from risk areas. That is new, and that is why a test is now required for these people.
Covid-19 news blog: Here you will find the latest developments
At least in the governing coalition, this is only talked about behind closed doors. From coalition circles it is said that there are probably no objective reasons for the late engagement with the topic. The health ministers, including those of the federal states, apparently drove for a long time, and all the time it was more about easing rather than tightening. Now the current situation with increasing numbers in many countries and pictures of parties in holiday countries would have made the topic more urgent in public.
Someone else criticized the health ministers apparently simply not wanting to have anything to do with Corona during the holidays. Spahn hadn’t acted for too long either. He was more likely to have been preoccupied with the CDU’s internal candidate for chairmanship.
(function () {var dyCont = document.getElementById (‘nativendo-sidebar’); if (typeof T == U || T.RecAdInactive) {// remove container dyCont.parentNode.removeChild (dyCont);}}) ( ); .toi-sh-breaker {position: relative; width: 920px; left: -155px; height: 275px; border: 1px solid #dcdcdc; border-width: 1px 0; padding: 12px 0 8px; margin: 32px 0; clear: both; } .toi-sh-breaker: before {content: ‘DISPLAY’; position: absolute; top: -8px; right: 28px; background: white; color: # 000; font-size: 10px; display: inline block; padding: 2px 10px; } .toi-sh-breaker .Tts {width: 300px;} .toi-sh-breaker # nativendo-sidebar {width: 300px; clear: none; float: left; margin-right: 10px;} .toi-sh-breaker > div: last-of-type {width: 300px;}
The obligation to test is generally welcomed by the opposition. Only FDP boss Christian Lindner is currently criticizing that the tests should be free for travelers. At the time of the debate, however, there was sharp criticism. "I cannot understand that this is only being discussed now; that would have been necessary at the beginning of the pandemic", said Linke boss Bernd Riexinger in an interview with t-online.de. "As soon as tests were available, all people with an increased risk of infection should have been systematically tested."
There was also harsh criticism from the FDP. Be it "completely incomprehensible"FDP health politician Christine Aschenberg-Dugnus criticized a few days ago why Spahn was only now checking mandatory tests. "He should have clarified months ago whether a mandatory test is even legally possible."
Yes. The Federal Ministry of Health justifies the legality with Section 5 of the Infection Protection Act, which was recently changed for exceptional situations such as the corona pandemic. According to this, travelers from risk areas can be obliged to undergo a medical examination – exclusively to determine and prevent the introduction of a threatening communicable disease.
"Anyone who travels to risk areas must expect a test to come afterwards"recently said the legal scholar Thorsten Kingreen from the University of Regensburg. Such an encroachment on the right to physical integrity is reasonable and constitutionally legitimate.
The test obligation is generally well received. However, some researchers consider the fact that, according to the decision, only those returning from vacation from risk areas to be tested as unsatisfactory. Gérard Krause, Head of Epidemiology at the Helmholtz Center for Infection Research in Braunschweig, said on ZDF"Morning magazine"that this is a problem. "But we have to start somewhere to focus."
The epidemiologist Prof. Markus Scholz from the University of Leipzig said in an interview with t-online.de in mid-July: "The increased travel activity poses a great danger." There are currently many circles in which no new cases have occurred for weeks. "Increased travel activities can, however, lead to new entries of the virus in these circles at any time, which then lead to new outbreaks due to the extensive relaxation."