On January 17, 2024 the European Parliament voted on six amendments to the 2023 report of European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly (see Martina Binnig’s report, in German). Here’s one of these amendments:
[The European Parliament] Congratulates the European Ombudsman for her exemplary efforts during the pandemic years in safeguarding the rights of citizens against the unprecedented abuses by the Commission and in investigating the Commission’s refusal to provide access to documents and text messages related to the negotiation of COVID-19 vaccine purchase contracts using public funds.
Rejected by 348, with 265 in favour, and 11 abstentions. And another one:
[The European Parliament] Calls on the Ombudsman to persist in urging the Commission to immediately publish the unredacted contracts related to the procurement of COVID-19 vaccines.
Rejected by 349, with 254 in favour, and 17 abstentions.
Will we ever get to know what arch-schemer Ursula von der Leyen bargained with Buddy Bourla, in those “lost” text messages? Unfortunately, we are living in a world now that is very different from the one in which UvdL was being mocked for her hairstyles (“like a blow-dried Afghan Hound at the foot of the five o’clock tea table”) by left-wing papers, and criticised for her politics (“Zensursula”, “Flinten-Uschi”).
If you live in the EU, go to p. 103 of this document, check the votes of your local representatives, and ask those who voted against the amendments why they do not like transparency. I’ll do that for my German federal state. I do not have to ask Anderson (AfD) and Häusling (Green), but I am looking forward to the answers of Bullmann (SPD), Eroglu (FW), Gahler (CDU), Simon (CDU), and Kauch (FDP):
Sehr geehrte Herren,
am 17.01.2024 haben Sie als Vertreter unseres schönen Bundeslandes Hessen im Europäischen Parlament gegen diesen Zusatz zum Jahresbericht der Europäischen Bürgerbeauftragten gestimmt: “[Das Europäische Parlament] beglückwünscht die Europäische Bürgerbeauftragte zu ihren beispielhaften Bemühungen während der Pandemie, die Rechte der Bürgerinnen und Bürger vor dem beispiellosen Missbrauch durch die Kommission zu schützen und die Weigerung der Kommission zu untersuchen, Zugang zu Dokumenten und Textnachrichten im Zusammenhang mit der Aushandlung von Verträgen über den Kauf von COVID-19-Impfstoffen mit öffentlichen Mitteln zu gewähren.” Und auch dieser Antrag fand keine Gnade in Ihren Augen: “[Das Europäische Parlament] fordert die Bürgerbeauftragte auf, die Kommission weiterhin nachdrücklich aufzufordern, unverzüglich die ungeschwärzten Verträge im Zusammenhang mit der Beschaffung von COVID-19-Impfstoffen zu veröffentlichen.”
Unabhängig von der persönlichen Meinung zu COVID-19-Impfstoffen sollte Transparenz doch selbstverständlich sein. Mich würde daher Ihre Begründung für die Ablehnung der Zusätze interessieren - schließlich steht die nächste EU-Wahl ins Haus, und ich möchte eine informierte Entscheidung treffen.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Putting a confidentiality clause on a development which has no competition, is forced on the whole world, bears no liability for performance or non-performance is an absurd in itself.
Note that this product has been created paid by the money taken from the pockets of all the people worldwide (the “free” vaccine based on the arbitrary purchase contracts arranged and signed without any advance public information). The developers, designers and manufacturers have not invested a single cent.
From the financial point of view, this is definitely #1 scam in the history of the world.
I'm going to 'like' this post despite its content, for I'm pissed off magnificently.
Thank you, Christian, for bringing this up! I just looked up all the Austrian EU Parliament critters, cross-referenced their votes, and sent them a variation of the email you so kindly pre-formulated.
While I don't expect much, if anything, to come out of this, perhaps I'll get a good laugh reading one or another (equivocating) reply.