The story of digital green certificates. A true story.

So, a digital green certificate. The title itself seems rather unfortunate to me, but that is the least essential thing in the whole story at the end of the day.

Yesterday, the European Parliament voted on whether to consider the proposal for a regulation on these “COVID-19 certificates” under the urgency procedure. I voted against the majority, including the majority in my political group. Therefore, I voted against this proceeding. Let me explain my decision.

The first thing you need to know is that the European Commission proposed introducing these certificates. The second thing you need to know is that the speed of adoption of the regulation will ultimately depend either on the Council or on the Member States.

And in between is the European Parliament. It is the only institution of these three with representatives directly elected by European Union citizens. So, I am not an MEP to vote solely as the European Commission tells me, or as the political group I belong to tells me, or as the Prime Minister of the country I come from tells me. Every time I make a decision, it is based on all (!) the information and my conscience.

We have had long discussions, meetings, and exchanges of views on these certificates, both at individual committees and political group meetings. The majority — with the European Commission at the head, of course — insisted on the urgent need of the urgency procedure, saying that anything else would be a delay, and we are in such a hurry with these certificates.

OK, let’s say we are really in a hurry. What would be the real difference between an urgent procedure and an accelerated procedure? The advocates of this urgent procedure have stressed that this procedure, and this procedure alone, would allow everything to be adopted by the summer.

However, there is no time difference in the timelines of the two procedures. Even with the “accelerated procedure”, the regulation could be approved by the summer – just like with the urgent procedure. There is one other difference between the two procedures. A key difference – The “Accelerated procedure” is more thorough. It would facilitate a proper debate and involve members of the parliamentary committee(s).

So, with this option, we could improve the regulation and regulate it so that we are confident it will NOT discriminate and will NOT contradict people’s fundamental freedoms and rights. But what happened now? Now we can only rely on the European Commission (and the Council) to take all this into account… as, unfortunately, we took some of our own powers away with yesterday’s vote. Sadly.

Why did this happen? The problem arose from fears of infighting in the European Parliament over which committee should have the power to decide on the regulation. The Transport and Tourism Committee and the Environment and Public Health Committee are expected to challenge the competencies of the Civil Liberties and Justice Committee, which could indeed lead to a deadlock. In other words: because of possible internal squabbles, childish squabbles, the European Parliament is arbitrarily (!) deprived of the possibility of a comprehensive examination of the regulation on digital green certificates. A regulation which, by the way, is not only technical but also political. I don’t think it is the wisest move to have weakened parliamentary involvement in this story in these times of crisis.

The European Commission initially tried to bypass the European Parliament and adopt only “guidelines” on this regulation. In other words: they did not want a legislative proposal at first, but then they realized that this was not possible, so they started to vindicate the urgent procedure. And now we are where we are. Where the adoption of the necessary procedure will not change anything in practice regarding the timetable, it may change everything else.

We all already know that these certificates will, sooner or later, become a reality. I will not implement them, and you will not implement them, I know — but there is no point in sticking our heads in the sand. There is no point in misleading you and telling you how everything can still turn around. It won’t. The certificates will become a reality. And if we already know that they will be a reality, then we should at least design them in such a way that they do not infringe on anyone’s rights.

But there are still no answers to the million unanswered questions. There are many in the fields of ethics, law, technology, and — ultimately — healthcare. Most of these are about vaccination itself. How much vaccination can we expect by the summer? What will happen to those who will never be able to vaccinate because they can’t be due to various risks? Will they be tested again and again? Will it be free of cost every time? What will happen to those who just do not want to be vaccinated, which is also their right? How will counterfeit certificates be prevented? How will discrimination against people who, for example, are not skilled in using modern technology be prevented? What will happen to the validity of these certificates? Which doors will these certificates open? Travel? Restaurants? Concerts? What will happen to those people who have been vaccinated with vaccines that are not (yet) approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA)?

Although I agree with the fast-track procedure between the two co-legislators, I just cannot get past the following point of view: Suppose there is anything urgent in this procedure. In this case, the regulation proposal should be scrutinized to ensure that it is considered in its entirety and ensure that all concerns are taken into account. The purpose of this system must not, in my view, go beyond facilitating travel. As a matter of fact, that must be their sole purpose.

Meanwhile, something else is being forgotten in all this. By far the most important. The importance of trust. The effectiveness of these certificates will depend on citizens’ trust in them. If citizens do not trust them, there will be less sense of responsibility and less sense of awareness, which are both crucial. No matter how we will travel, it will be an individual’s decision on how to act: wise or foolish, with or without the certificate.

Irena Joveva

Photo: EP/ENGEL