Now Gerd Schröder is threatened with the withdrawal of his privileges. Is the new regulation of official equipment a “Lex Schröder”? And if it does: It is by no means unusual for sensational individual cases to provide the necessary impetus for overdue changes.
Basically, one has to be grateful to Schröder, because it is only his impudence that helps a reform that has previously been unsuccessfully introduced to achieve a breakthrough. The fact that former chancellors still receive millions in tax money when they no longer perform representative tasks is just as incomprehensible as the gradual increase in the number of retired employees from two (Adenauer) to nine (Merkel).
Legal concerns are completely misplaced: What was previously granted without a legal basis can in future be revoked with a legal basis. The fact that the judiciary rates Schröder’s protection of legitimate expectations higher than the desire of the Federal Republic to no longer support the active damage to its interests by a dictator’s vassals can be considered impossible.
The author thanks Gerhard Schröder for his contribution against the waste of tax funds.
Even if the parliamentarians work so hard to claim that this is by no means a “Lex Schröder” – that’s exactly what it is! The whole process is an expression of mendacity: Because Gerhard Schröder’s questionable behavior cannot be prosecuted, because one condemns his closeness to Putin, but does not dare to say that his opinion stinks, the former chancellor is given his equipment.
Is this the freedom of expression we are otherwise so proud of? In the future, retired heads of government will only receive full pay if they fulfill the duties of a retired chancellor. But who decides? Does Angela Merkel fulfill them if – as is currently the case – she does nothing?
Did ex-Chancellor Helmut Schmidt perform this task when he was editor of “Zeit” and charged dearly for every lecture he gave? One can think about basically saving on the equipment of the former chancellors. Now, however, satisfying one’s own feelings of revenge with windy formulations has nothing to do with the rule of law.
The author will give lectures in his retirement, but wonders if they will be paid dearly.