Digital Green Certificate Regulation probably to be enacted Tomorrow (25th March 2021)



URGENT: Digital Green Certificate Regulation probably to be enacted Tomorrow (25th March 2021)

Originally spotted here:

Will it pass?


One comment:

In addition, it should be clarified that the purpose of the certificates included in the “Digital Green Certificate” is to facilitate the exercise of free movement. The possession of a “Digital Green Certificate”, in particular a vaccination certificate, should not be a pre-condition for the exercise of free movement. Persons who are not vaccinated, for example for medical reasons, because they are not part of the target group for which the vaccine is currently recommended, such as children, or because they have not yet had the opportunity or do not wish to be vaccinated,must be able to continue to exercise their fundamental right of free movement, where necessary subject to limitations such as mandatory testing and quarantine/self-isolation. In particular, this Regulation cannot be interpreted as establishing an obligation or right to be vaccinated.

Straight out of 1984.

We will restrict your free movement so you can have free movement!!

FFS, how the hell did we arrive at this!


The Push for Vaccine Passports is ON!

Tracey has posted an e-mail template & MEPs e-mail assesses here:

(link removed)

Here are the emails as posted on politicalirish:


Them Google Drive links have some potentially for tracking.


Email Template

To: undisclosed recipients <insert your email address here>


Dear Member of the European Parliament,

Tomorrow, on March 25th, you will be called upon to approve the fast-track procedure on the two proposals for “digital green certificate”.

I believe that the proposed regulations clearly challenge the EU Treaties, Better Regulation procedures, and other existing regulations.

  1. The procedural checks and balances have not been respected. There is no impact assessment, no cost-benefit analysis, no Committee of the Regions or Economic and Social Committee consultations (although not compulsory, the two would have been highly recommended on a subject of such impact on the European public). There has been no compulsory public consultation offered to the European public to express views, no public debate, no possibility for the population to react. All these basic safeguards were waived under the presumption of urgency , which itself is not justified, as results from various Recitals of the proposal (e.g., Recital 17) clearly confirm that there is no scientific evidence at this point to support the idea that a vaccinated person is no longer contagious. Therefore, a person carrying such a certificate is no more of a ’ threat ’ to a country’s public health than a non-vaccinated, healthy person. This is blatant discrimination , without any solid scientific justification as to why such unprecedented limitations to our fundamental rights are taking place in European society.

  2. The mere concept of a certificate which fulfils the function of a health passport (i.e., containing proof of vaccination, testing or recovery) is contrary to the guaranteed right to free movement within the EU . There is no point in talking about a free-border Schengen area where we need to carry with us a certificate to prove that we can cross an internal border or even move within a country. This is the end of Schengen .

  3. The proposed legal act doesn’t provide any clarification on intended use for this certificate, with the exception of free movement. No a priori limitation is provided , which essentially amounts to a carte blanche to any potential usages . Clear examples exist - Israel but also European countries such as Denmark - where public authorities are publicizing existing or potential uses of these certificates which vary from flight companies to school access, access to workplace or even access to one’s own domicile. Clear limitations and guarantees must exist in law, ensuring that this certificate cannot be misused in the future to abuse or limit in any way a person’s fundamental rights, and introduce discriminatory action by state and non-state actors.

  4. The certificate represents the legitimisation of an non-democratically sanctioned policy of generalised vaccination of the entire European population with a vaccine which is experimental (,, ), unnecessary ( ) and possibly with long-term detrimental consequences for the health of the population ( link to EMA’s tracker on adverse effects: , and studies showing the possible long-term detrimental effects and deaths from vaccinating the entire population:,,,,, The certificate introduces in a deceptive manner, under the pretense of protection and prevention, a second class citizenship of the Union for people that will not be able to travel freely, obtain employment or be accepted in schools because they are not vaccinated.

  5. There is a concern that this is not a temporary measure. Is it reasonable to spend 49 million euro on this measure, if the real intention is to use it only during a pandemic? Either our governments believe the pandemic will conclude or the intention is not genuine. This measure does not seem temporary when the Commission states that agreements are being sought with international organisations (e.g., IATA) and other countries to make this internationally recognised and interoperable.

I expect you to consider deeply the argument and referred studies that I have put forward and act in line with your role as a guardian of the pillars of EU democracy and guaranteed freedoms of EU citizens. I expect you to resist any pressure coming from the European Commission to do otherwise. I am asking you to vote against the option of a “fast-track” examination on Thursday, March 25th, to allow for thorough assessment of the proposed regulations and examination of the proposed amendments to ensure alignment with EU values and the fundamental rights of the citizens.

I expect that, having examined this proposal and its infringements on the fundamental values the EU was founded upon, you will reject this proposal entirely.

Kind regards,








Sent mine already, and only to the Irish MEPs I think - thanks for the additional e-mails!

I also emphasised - vaccination does not stop infection:

All are still only Conditionsl Marketing Authorisation, not full license:

PACE vote in January:

Articles 3, 5, 6 & 11 of the The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights:


Not much in the news about this is there? .

James Melville @JamesMelville

So, a vaccinated person can still get Covid (but are likely to have reduced symptoms because of the vaccine). But they can still transmit the virus. So therefore, a vaccine passport makes absolutely no sense.



Twaddle, if everyone has no symptoms they’ll all spend lots of euro’s at the holiday destination/work conference or whatever and not be a health care burden to anyone (above and beyond normal ailments), aka life as normal. The only risk is to anti-vaxxer conspiracy theory lunatics.


Why should anyone be forced to take a medication, that is less than a year old, still not fully licensed, in order to be permitted to travel within their own country, or within what us meant to be a free-travel area?

Here’s the link to the draft EU legislation:


Why end your point with a government-approved strawman?


It couldn’t be people.


Yeah, god forbid people would actually e-mail the people who are supposedly representing their interests…


So. It passed.


Regina Doherty might collapse before she has a chance to change this outrageous behaviour.