Shortly before the summer break of the Bundestag, Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) faces the MPs again in a government survey. At the beginning, Scholz gives a short speech, after which the parliamentarians have about 60 minutes to ask their questions. There are no thematic requirements. Possible topics are the controversial heating law, the 2024 budget, the war in Ukraine and the NATO summit next week.
Scholz recently commented on the heating law on ARD. He is convinced that the law will achieve the self-imposed German climate protection goals. He said that you are moving forward in a way that takes the citizens with you. The traffic light coalition absolutely wants to pass the law before the parliamentary summer break – also to avoid a vague political debate between the SPD, Greens and FDP. The opposition has criticized both the law and the timetable. CSU regional group chief Alexander Dobrindt recently described the time-consuming procedure as “completely dubious”. It also shows that there are still so many unanswered questions that there are still subsequent changes.
Recently, there has also been criticism of the Chancellor’s leadership style, even from the ranks of the governing parties. Green politician Anton Hofreiter said that there were too many arguments in the coalition and that on various issues you could tell that the chancellor simply lacked leadership. That was already the case a year ago when supporting Ukraine. Now the main problem with the difficult issue of climate protection is in the Chancellery.
Another unpleasant topic for the Chancellor is the tax scandal at the Hamburg Warburg Bank. The dispute between the Union and the traffic light coalition about a committee of inquiry to clarify the scandal escalated. The Rules of Procedure Committee of the Bundestag rejected the appointment of such a committee on Tuesday. The traffic light now also wants to do this during the vote in the plenum on Thursday. The Union fails with the attempt to bring Scholz before this committee of inquiry. The CDU and CSU reacted with outrage and announced that they would appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court immediately after the parliamentary decision.