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

 

On Thursday, 22 October 2020, MEPs discussed the serious security threats posed by the sale of European Union passports and visas to third-country nationals. Offering citizenship in exchange for cash undermines the foundations of democracy and exposes our society to corruption. The problem of the so called system of “Golden visas” was firstly pointed out by investigative journalists. The media working group of the European Parliament, of which member is also MEP Irena Joveva, has therefore prepared a statement with which they want to draw attention to the importance of investigative journalism.

The Media Working Group in the European Parliament: Scandals around „Golden Visas” show the importance of investigative journalism

Today the European Parliament debated the serious security threats caused by the sale of EU passports and visas to citizens of third countries. In the past few years, a number of member states offered so-called “golden visas” where wealthy citizens could buy long-term visas, residence permits or even citizenship of EU Member States by taking part in certain investment schemes. These dubious schemes in various forms operated in such States as Bulgaria, Cyprus, Hungary, Malta and Portugal, to name a few.

After years of delay, the European Commission is now ready to step up and take action against these schemes in the case of Cyprus and Malta. Offering citizenship for cash is undermining the very basis of our democracy, and such practices in one Member States are affecting all 27 EU Members.

The truly international efforts to stop citizenship-for-cash regimes became possible because of the efforts of a large number of dedicated and courageous investigative journalists from a number of countries. We are truly grateful for their work. They revealed how people who were allowed to stay within the EU were causing a security threat. Many of the beneficiaries of these schemes have built up their wealth through money laundering and corruption or they are key members of oppressive dictatorships. It has been revealed how corrupt systems were built up to smoothen the applications of those who were “ready to pay extra”, including neglecting the necessary security checks.

The cross-party members of the Media Working Group are calling the attention of the European Commission to make sure it follows up on all the journalists’ revelations on this matter. Murdered Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia was among those who had worked on revealing the corruption behind the structure of golden visas. It is our duty to respect her memory and support the journalists who were able to reveal the facts about this threat to our democracy. Democracy needs protection and democracy needs independent investigative journalism.

On behalf of Media Working Group

David Casa, Co-chair of the Working Group
Ramona Strugariu, Co-chair of the Working group
Magdalena Adamowicz
Irena Joveva,
Alive Kuhnke
Dace Melbārde,
Viola von Cramon-Taubadel

Foto: European Parliament

According to various indicators of the activities of MEPs, Irena Joveva is the most active Slovenian MEP in several fields of her work.

All activities of Members of the European Parliament are regularly updated on the “MepRanking.eu” web portal. On the portal, you can check MEPs work in the relation of the whole of Parliament, within the parliamentary groups, the Committees in which they are active, and comparing to all other MEPs from their country. A while ago, the VoteWatch organisation created an analysis of MEPs cooperation and networking, where MEP Irena Joveva was ranked in the 12th place.

The Member of Parliament is also very active in all other activities and obligations of parliamentary work. The online ranking tool for MEPs shows that she has asked the most written questions among Slovenian MEPs so far (27), explained her vote the most (as many as 244 times) and was five times the shadow rapporteur for the opinion. With twenty-three speeches, she is also one of the most active Slovenian MEPs in the parliamentary discussions.

You can follow the activities of MEPs at this LINK.

As part of the interactive event “Generation Code: Born in the Library”, Irena Joveva spoke with Maja Vunšek from the Kranj City Library, who recently joined the EU initiative Public Libraries 2030. The library was included in the group of innovative public libraries in Europe “Lighthouse Libraries”. Project “Public Libraries 2030” brings together public library advocates among MEPs, called MEP Library Lovers. Irena Joveva answered questions on topics at European Union level; on the work during the pandemic, the priorities of the EU Recovery and Resilience Facility her work a member of the Committee on Culture and the importance of public libraries. 

As Joveva explained in the introduction, the pandemic had utterly destroyed the established work patterns in the European Parliament. However, once the online meeting platform was properly set up, teleworking became almost uninterrupted, allowing us to work in our full potential. She is in regular contact with her colleagues, although she has not travelled to Brussels since the beginning of the pandemic. But being in Brussels does not necessarily mean being in the meeting room. “Most participants also use teleworking techniques in Brussels. At this point, it seems we have created new normal working conditions that could be used in the future when the corona crisis passes,” she added.

She agrees that the “Next Generation EU” recovery package will play a vital role in the EU’s recovery. Its primary purpose is to support the Member States in recovering from the crisis and boosting the economy, as well as to help private investments and ensure greater stability in the future, should such an event as this pandemic reoccur. Managing the economic and health crisis, together with digital development and tackling climate change, will be a priority, helping Europe to achieve its important goal of becoming the world’s first carbon-neutral continent. She added: “I am pleased that the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, supports the European Parliament’s position on the rule of law mechanism for funds allocated to each Member State as a safeguard against exploitation and misuse.” In the current proposal, she regrets the low involvement of culture and the lack of plans for housing policy and youth employment. Unfortunately, the draft proposal for a multiannual financial framework also reduces funding for important youth and cultural programs, such as Erasmus Plus, which is why Joveva, together with like-minded MEPs, is strongly committed to trying to ensure much-needed funding.

She is a very active member of the Committee on Culture and Education:

 “My main priorities in the committee are youth, education, culture, media freedom and digitalisation related to the development of artificial intelligence and sport. I am currently working on a European Solidarity Corps dossier. It is a European Union initiative that creates opportunities for young people to volunteer or to participate in projects across Europe. It gives them a great opportunity for several activities that allow them to gain work experience and represent a great stepping stone in career opportunities.”

Europe’s main priorities for the coming years are the fight against climate change and digitalisation. She sees the role of libraries in the context of education: “Libraries could make a significant contribution to educating people by organising seminars and workshops, helping them to understand how they, as individuals, can contribute to our common European goal. Moreover, educating the older generations on how to use new technologies successfully will be crucial.”

At the end of the interview, she spoke about her views on the importance of libraries in Slovenian politics: “Of course, politicians are aware of the importance and the potential of public libraries, but how much they engage them in their policies, and their work as such, is a completely different question.” She stressed that the lack of emphasising the importance of public libraries is directly correlated to the lack of highlighting the meaning of culture in Slovenia’s public. It’s the result of the inactivity of the Slovenian Minister of Culture, who does not point out the problems in the field of culture, reflecting in the late responses or even non-response to the issues. Adding that in her opinion, education and culture need to cooperate in raising reading culture in Slovenia: “Promoting reading through mechanisms such as ‘the reading badge’ is undoubtedly welcome, but I believe that the main actors in the field of education and culture should come together and develop a strategy for increasing reading culture and library visits.” Finally, she listed some ideas that could make libraries more attractive to visitors and highlighted the need to keep up with the digital development by increasing the supply of digital materials and books.

A recording of the conversation, which – with the exception of the last question and the answer to it – was conducted in English, can be viewed HERE.

On Friday, 11 September 2020, an online debate entitled “Green Deal after the pandemic” took place where MEP Irena Joveva (RE) together with MEP Ljudmila Novak (EPP), State Secretary at the Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning dr. Metko Gorišek, Taj Zavodnik from the Society for Sustainable Development Focus, and dr. Luka Omladič, a philosopher and environmental analyst at the Faculty of Arts at the University of Ljubljana, tried to find answers questions on what the agreement on the future of European finances and recovery from the pandemic reached in the July summit of EU member states brings from an environmental point of view.

 

Among other things, Members of the European Parliament point out the agreement does not make it possible to pursue the objectives of the European Green Deal. In recent months, the covid-19 pandemic and declining of economic activity and traffic developed a different apprehension of how to live differently, travel less and reduce consumption, all of which could make a vital contribution to achieving the goal of climate neutrality.

 

The European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) today supported a proposal for a European Climate Act which proposes a 60% reduction in emissions by 2030 (compared to the base year 1990) and the achievement of carbon neutrality for all Member States until 2050. MEP Irena Joveva emphasised that time is ahead of us and not the other way around. “As a co-decision-maker, the European Parliament must set goals more ambitiously as each Member State often looks only at national interests and not at common / European interests and solidarity.” In her view, only the multiannual financial budget and the Just Transition Fund will not be sufficient to achieve the goal of climate neutrality; therefore, she emphasised the need for the so-called Union’s own resources. “A plastic tax has been agreed in the Council. I hope they at least extend the ETS mechanism, trade with emission coupons, at the same time, including the maritime and aviation industries, set a higher price for these coupons and then run the highest possible amount collected in the EU. Additionally, there is also a carbon import tax,” which she tries to pursue as a substitute member of the ENVI Committee.

 

In the end, it is up to the Member States to draw up national strategies and concrete steps to achieve the environmental objectives. The MEP Joveva expressed her concern regarding the usage of the European funds; she emphasised that, based on what she has heard so far, she is concerned that in Slovenia we will only use funds from the project to project, for short-term goals. “It is true; we will have to close TEŠ6, the construction of NEK 2 was mentioned, while we don’t talk enough about raising the share of renewable sources. Compared to other countries, the Slovenian percentage is growing too slow“ said Joveva. “The key projects will be the energy renovation of buildings, industry, renovation of the railway infrastructure, the transition to green transport, subsidies for electric vehicles, circular economy, personnel (re)training… Slovenia’s goals will have to be broader, long-term and much more imaginative to alleviate people’s social hardship, increase funding for health care, long-term care, while not reducing environmental ambitions. The price of inaction or insufficient goals in this area will be high, but not in terms of money.” These are vital things that all national decision-makers should keep in mind when formulating strategies, explained Joveva. She also pointed out that there are plenty of ideas or good practices that other countries are already implementing, from building wind power plants to a larger share of solar panels. France and Germany, for instance, have announced joint investments in the construction of batteries as well as investments in the production of hydrogen as an alternative energy source. It is necessary to set goals in the long-term strategy and pursue them if we genuinely want to live in a carbon-free environment by 2050.

 

Finally, she mentioned that the EU is undoubtedly a leading force in tackling climate challenges but that it is a global problem. “This ‘fight’ will depend on the result of upcoming elections in the United States, the results of which China is also waiting for.”