European health pass extended by one year
MEPs, meeting in plenary session in Brussels on 23 June 2022, approved the one-year extension of the European health pass by 453 votes in favour, 119 against and 19 abstentions. The European Commission, which last February had proposed the extension [1], knowingly ignored the results of a consultation of European citizens that gathered 385,124 valid contributions.
Incidentally, the only Belgian MEPs to have voted against the extension of the European health pass are Marc Botenga (PTB), Geert Bourgeois (NVA), Philip De Man (VB), Assita Kanko (NVA), Johan van Overtveldt (NVA) and Tom Vandendriessche (VB). Even Guy Verhofstadt (Open Vld) and all the Groen and Ecolo MEPs voted in favour!
Denial of the opponents
The European Commission, in a letter from the Director-General of DG Justice and Consumers dated 28 April 2022, which BAM! has obtained, brushed aside the “significant number” of opinions opposing the extension of the European health pass in the consultation. The consultation was not even finished when the Commission officially proposed the extension!
The Commission argues that“it is important to avoid that, in the event that restrictions on free movement based on public health are still in place after 30 June 2022, EU citizens and their families are deprived of the possibility of using their EU Digital COVID Certificates”.
It's not my fault!
On the discrimination against the unvaccinated, the Commission stresses that “non-discrimination is ensured by the interoperability of vaccination, test and recovery certificates” and that the European Regulation “cannot be interpreted as establishing an obligation to be vaccinated”. The situation on the ground and the interpretation of the legislation by the Member States are not mentioned at all by the Commission.
The argument of restricting free movement is, according to the Commission, irrelevant, since European legislation “does not require Member States to introduce restrictions on the right to move freely”.
It is clearly not Europe's fault, but rather “a decision of the Member States to accept proof of vaccination in order to lift the restrictions on free movement put in place to limit the spread of sars-cov-2”. The domestic use of the European pass within a Member State “remains a matter to be decided by the Member States” themselves. The Commission washes its hands of it: “European legislation neither prescribes nor prohibits the domestic use of the EU Digital COVID Certificate to access events and restaurants”, or even “workplaces”.
Long live vaccination!
As regards scientific evidence of the effectiveness of the European health pass, opponents argued that vaccination does not rule out transmission. The Commission replies that “COVID vaccines continue to be highly effective in protecting all age groups against severe disease, hospitalisation and death” [2]. That is not, however, what the Sciensano figures say [3], which on the contrary show a negative vaccine effectiveness (read: a greater chance of being ill when vaccinated). Admittedly, “overall, people who are vaccinated can still be infected and infect others, although this happens much less often than in people who are not vaccinated”, the Commission adds, without further detail…
As for the Member States' vaccination policies, that is their responsibility! “This also applies to legislation on vaccination, including whether it should be made compulsory or not”. It seems the author of the letter did not hear the recent speech by his own president, Ursula von der Leyen, who advocates compulsory vaccination [4], overstepping her prerogatives as laid down by the European treaties.
The end of the letter is a plea for the COVID vaccines, “developed with the same requirements for quality, safety and efficacy as other vaccines”, and states that they are assessed “with the same high standards as other vaccines before being placed on the market”, with the one exception that development and approval are “much faster, in response to the public health emergency caused by the virus”. Yet it seems that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) came under pressure to approve these vaccines [5]. As for their assessment, it apparently contains many gaps, or even failings [6].
With no questioning whatsoever of the European Commission's health policy, despite the outcry duly identified in the consultation of European citizens, it seems that the rapprochement between the European technocracy and Europeans, so loudly proclaimed during the last European elections, has fizzled out.
By Hughes Belin, editor-in-chief at BAM!
[1] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/fr/ip_22_744
[2] https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/news-events/ema-ecdc-statement-fourth-covid-vaccine-dose
[3] The reality “not detectable” by Sciensano
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRdSXl9gDec
[5] https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2021/01/16/vaccins-ce-que-disent-les-documents-voles-a-l-agence-europeenne-des-medicaments_6066502_3244.html
[6] https://www.francesoir.fr/videos-les-debriefings/essais-pfizer-sur-le-vaccin-anti-covid-le-rapport-explosif-de-christine
Photo source:
© Colin Meier
