EU Institutionalises Covid Passports: No More Emergency = Continued Emergency Measures

Welcome to Tyranny, now available without pretense of an emergency--what remains 'is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government'

As reported ten days ago, the EU declared an end to the acute phase of the ‘emergency’ deriving from Sars-Cov-2 and Covid-19. Here’s Commission President von der Leyen, as reported by Politico on 27 April 2022:

We are entering a new phase of the pandemic, as we move from emergency mode to a more sustainable management of COVID-19. Yet, we must remain vigilant. Infection numbers are still high in the EU and many people are still dying from COVID-19 worldwide.

And now we know what she meant.

From the EU Parliament’s press release (my emphases):

To ensure that EU citizens can benefit from their right to free movement regardless of the evolution of the COVID-19 pandemic, the EP plenary has endorsed the Civil Liberties Committee’s decision to open negotiations with the member states to prolong the EU Digital COVID Certificate (EUDCC) scheme—set to expire on 30 June—for another 12 months. The plenary voted to approve negotiations on the extension with 432 votes in favour, 130 against, and 23 abstaining (EU citizens) and 441 votes in favour, 132 against, and 20 abstaining (third-country nationals).

Along with extending the validity of the EUDCC scheme until 30 June 2023, the changes also enable member states to grant test certificates based on new types of antigen assay tests.

Leaving aside the absurdity of ‘benefits’ to ‘fundamental’ rights, such as the one to free movement, I shall briefly point to the Orwellian ‘Civil Liberties Committee’ that proposed to extend this phascist measure for another 12 months.

Instead, I would like to direct your attention to the qualifier, which I deem even more important: ‘regardless of the evolution of the Covid-19 pandemic’.

It doesn’t matter what kind of crap it is, Covid Passports are here to stay.

MEPs amended the proposals to stress that member states should avoid additional restrictions to the fredom [sic] of movement for EUDCC holders, unless absolutely necessary. If restrictions are needed, they should be limited and proportionate, based on the latest scientific advice from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) and the EU Health Security Committee.

They also ask the Commission to assess if the EUDCC scheme is necessary and proportionate six months after its extension. MEPs want to keep period in which the Regulation applies as short as possible and repeal it as soon as the epidemiological situation allows.

So, some of the parliamentary critters aren’t entirely useless (at least 432 are), and there’s some follow-up promised. I shall not hold my breath, but this is utterly insance.

Long-term readers know that I’ve been among many who are warning for the ‘normalisation’ of the data moloch masquerading as ‘friendly, yet phascist’ surveillance abominations in the making.

As some mandates are (temporarily) suspended, ‘new’ threats are suddenly discovered, which, of course, require ‘more of the same’ (that didn’t work in the first place), such as non-pharmaceutical interventions, more forced injections, and the like.

And so, here we are:

It is the calm before the summer season, which was supposed to bring a (utopian) ‘return’ to better times, you know, like ‘BC’ (before Covid).

Instead, we’re told that more injections, more restrictions, and more surveillance are coming.

Yet, we all knew that on some level, right?

It’s not as if these preparations weren’t in place, from, say, Norway’s logistical preparations of rolling out the Covid Passport (see here, dated 10 Jan.). It, and many comparable schemes, ultimately foundered on the hard reality of the Omicron wave, which did away with its ancillary features, such as ‘contact tracing’ (remember that one?), as the phone operators were either sick themselves or overwhelmed.

Now, it seems we’re all waiting for the shoe to drop.

Do click on that EU press release, the by now favoured way of ‘doing’ politics. No more assemblies debating proposed legislation to be enforced by the executive.

It’s all so 19th century stuff.

All we get are press releases and media statements, with dedicated websites (such as the EU Parliaments) left in limbo:

Care to know what the Civil Liberties Committee has discussed?

Follow me down this rabbit hole, for it took me some time to locate the draft text, incl. amendments, which you may also check out here.

The below snippets are taken from the juxtaposition of the Commission’s proposed text vs. the amendments that were tabled, which can be found here. You know the result of the vote, so, this is me keeping stock.

The ‘funniest’—i.e., most absurd—notions in the ‘debate’ (no worries, it’s not a real debate, but a fake one) came when MEPs Tineke Strik, Pascal Canfin, on behalf of the Environment, Public Health, and Food Safety Committee, and others moved to object to include ‘antigen tests for the issuance of recovery certificates’—not because they objected to them, but because they may be ‘false positives’, as explained on pp. 8, 10, 12, and perhaps elsewhere (my emphasis):

The use of antigen tests for the issuance of certificates of recovery pursuant to Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2564a entails an increased risk for the issuance of such certificates for false positive tests. The possibility for Member States to use antigen tests for the issuance of such certificates should hence be understood as a possibility when the availability of NAAT tests is scarce due to a high number of infections in the area concerned or another reason.

Logic not being the strong suit of these MEPs (let alone an entry requirement for EP service), this motion is tantamount to a middle finger to the peoples of Europe.

Even more perniciously, Covid Hawks Jean-Paul Garraud, Hélène Laporte, and Nicolaus Fest moved to include even more hoops for us puny subjects, as their amendment (found on p. 14, my emphasis) envisions following the Swiss example:

Tests confirming the presence of COVID-19 antibodies should also enable a Digital COVID Certificate to be obtained for a renewable period of 90 days in order to facilitate free movement, as is the case in Switzerland, a member of the Schengen Area.

Please let me explain, however briefly: if you refused a Covid-19 injection in Switzerland, became infected (PCR-confirmed), you may only get a Proof of Recovery Certificate valid for 90 days. Switzerland isn’t in the EU, hence they get to make up their own shit, but in the Swiss case, it comes with a lot of ‘stereotypes’ with respect to their ‘efficiency’: to ensure ‘validity’ of the Recovery Certificate after 90 days, you could pay for an antibody test (of course out of your pocket), and only if you can certifiably show the continued presence of antibodies, you would be granted an extension of your Recovery Certificate.

As a sidenote on Switzerland, click here to find out how to obtain such a Recovery Certificate. It’s really easy, for all you need to do is share your personal information, test information, incl. the site’s location, and documentation about your residency status. And do so with a newly-established bureaucratic institution, the National COVID certificate application platform.

So, everything you’re doing isn’t good enough, if you’re not compliant enough to ‘voluntarily’ get injected with this crap.

Here’s the full text of the proposed EU Parliament, as it was voted on two days ago; highlights include the following:

The use of EU Digital COVID Certificates should be required only where this is strictly necessary and proportionate in light of the epidemiological situation and associated public health risk.

I almost fell off my chair: these shitty things (the Covid Passports) are about as ‘effective’ in preventing transmission as the injections (although, to be fair, the Covid Passport’s safety profile is much better).

Any need for Member States to verify EU Digital COVID Certificates should not provide a justification for the temporary introduction of controls at internal borders.

At this point, we’re entering trolling territory: how, dear MEPs, do you think this will work? I mean—we’re supposed to show that piece of junk for cross-border travel, but we’re not supposed to check it? The Eastern European in me would say—this is a perfect set-up for ignoring these measures altogether, but, sadly, the EUroklatura lacks any such humour. Or grasp on reality.

At least, as the draft holds, by 31 Dec. 2022 (my emphases),

the Commission should submit a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the application of this Regulation. The report should contain, in particular, an overview of information received from Member States on restrictions to free movement, including of the restrictions applied by Member States, an assessment of the impact of this Regulation on the facilitation of free movement, including on travel and tourism and the acceptance of the different types of vaccine, the impact on fundamental rights and on the principle of non-discrimination, as well as the impact on the protection of personal data during the COVID 19 pandemic. It should also assess any domestic uses by Member States of the EU Digital COVID Certificates for purposes other than freedom of movement, and whether they constitute obstacles to free movement. Furthermore, the report should include an assessment of the necessity and proportionality of using the EU Digital COVID Certificates in view of the pandemic situation and the latest available scientific evidence, taking account of the ECDC and the Health Security Committee opinions and recommendations, which should also be contained in the report. The report may be accompanied by a legislative proposal, in particular to shorten the period of application of this Regulation. The Commission is specifically invited to do so where the ECDC and Health Security Committee opinions and recommendations so allow.

I should perhaps stop on this unwillingly comical piece of legislative prose now, eh? I mean, you can’t make this shit up: the Commission wishes to restrict freedom of movement to ensure freedom of movement. Furthermore, the Commission wishes to ‘learn’ (ahem) from any reports on said restrictions about the impact such restrictions had ‘on fundamental rights’ and the ‘principle of non-discrimination’.

W

T

F

?

Also, we may use these ‘texts’ to play BS Bingo in our spare time.

There’s one more thing I’m quoting for you now, which is the amendment concerning Covid-19 injections (emphases in the original):

The validity period of such vaccination certificates shall not be longer than that of other vaccination certificates issued pursuant to this paragraph. Member States may accept vaccination certificates issued by other Member States in accordance with this paragraph in order to waive restrictions to free movement put in place, in accordance with Union law, to limit the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Where a COVID-19 vaccine undergoing clinical trials is subsequently granted a marketing authorisation pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 726/2004, the vaccination certificates issued in respect of that vaccine continue to be valid in accordance with the first subparagraph of this paragraph. Where a COVID-19 vaccine subsequently receives a negative evaluation of an application for marketing authorisation, or where no marketing authorisation is sought for that vaccine, the certificates issued on the basis of that vaccine shall no longer be valid.

So, mixed bag of goods, I’d say: on the one hand, this wording allows the EMA, the ECDC, or really any other regulatory body of the EU to possibly revoke the standing of these specific products.

Still, this confers so much more power to these spineless critters and willing executioners it’s making things quite likely worse in the long-term, even if (and that’s still a big if) the EMA may eventually revoke the EUA granted to these crappy products.

Also, remember that this is enabling ‘legislation’ that doesn’t require any immediate emergency for the endless continuation of said measures.

Bottom Lines

I’ll shut up now, and in doing so I shall share my ‘feelings’ about this with you: the EUroklatura is even more incompetent than I thought (and even less capable of irony). Sadly, we’ll all be suffering under their yoke, if only because these petty critters can’t admit they were wrong.

Which, of course, begs the question if (ahem) this crap is intentional. It sure is, the EU appropriated some 5 billion € for this shitshow in 2023 in advance of the above ‘vote’.

So, with intent firmly established, here goes: this is the ‘normalisation’ of the Covid régime. And since it’s equally fitting, here’s my recommendation as to what to do next (my emphases):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Clarification in advance: I’m not a US citizen, and this mustn’t be construed as support for US policies in any way, shape, or form. The highlighted part is precisely what I think we must do to become, well, citizens again.