UK MPs Fear WHO Pandemic Treaty By Richard Miller (London)

With the deadline fast approaching for the signing of the World Health Organization pandemic treaty, something which has been accepted as a matter of course by the mainstream political parties of Australia, there has at least been some objections raised by British MPs who have seen the major problem being that the treaty will, despite denials from WHO, give WHO power over nations in future pandemics. That will include forcing lockdowns, which WHO supported and continues to support, despite all evidence against the effectiveness of the lockdowns, as well as measures such as vaccine passports. The MPs rightly see the treaty as undermining UK sovereignty. And indeed, it is hard to see how this would not occur, since the WHO, is taken to be the fountain of medical/health wisdom by the political class.

WHO showed its dangers during the Covid plandemic, following the communist Chinese policies of lockdowns, with no evidence of effectiveness. As well, the WHO is heavily influenced by China, and this alone is a threat to national security, as the UK is set to declare China as just that, a threat to national security.

"World Health Organization (WHO) chiefs could be given power over Britain's future pandemic policies, MPs fear.

Under plans for a new global pandemic treaty, the UN agency is considering making dozens of amendments to its legally-binding rulebook.

Critics worry member nations might be made to comply with advice in future health crises, such as enforcing lockdowns or vaccine passports.

A group of Conservative MPs have now warned the UK risks 'signing away' its powers to 'unelected' WHO bosses, complaining about mooted changes in a letter to Alicia Kearns, chair of the foreign affairs select committee.

The MPs, members of the all-party parliamentary group on pandemic response and recovery, have argued the treaty risks 'undermining UK sovereignty'.

They said it would allow 'unaccountable individuals and supranational bodies tacit jurisdiction over national public health measures'.

Instead, there must be a greater level of 'parliamentary scrutiny and oversight' over the agreement.

The letter was signed by the former Brexit minister and chief negotiator Lord Frost, The Telegraph reported.

Other signatories included MPs Philip Davies, Philip Hollobone and Sir Christopher Chope.

Under one draft of the treaty, countries would 'follow WHO's recommendations in their international public health response'.

It aims to prepare for the next global health emergency and prevent a repeat of what South Africa termed the 'vaccine apartheid' — where countries had vastly unequal access to Covid vaccines and drugs.

WHO chiefs say it will make the world safer from health threats, with another crisis feared to be lurking around the corner.

Lord Frost told The Telegraph, however, that he was concerned the Government was 'not really being that open about what it is doing' in treaty negotiations.

'The other concern is about the practical impact this treaty could have on our domestic laws,' he said. A UN convention doesn't itself have direct legal force in the UK.

'But as we discovered with the Rwanda plan, the doctrine of many government lawyers seems to be that international commitments are in practice just as legally binding as our own laws.

'So, getting the details of this treaty right is really quite important.

'Ministers will claim that these new treaties involve no loss of sovereignty.

'But in practice, if another crisis comes, there will be lots of pressure to act within the WHO framework, and government lawyers will tell us we must.'

In response to the fears, the Government insisted it 'would never agree to anything that fails to respect our national sovereignty'.

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Social Care said: 'Ministers have been clear that that we will not sign up to any agreement which fails to respect our national sovereignty and would not agree to any measure that would cede sovereignty to the WHO in making domestic decisions concerning national public health, including vaccine programmes and lockdowns.'

The Government also previously said the treaty 'does not have any provisions' for granting the WHO powers to impose lockdowns, mandatory quarantines or vaccines.

The WHO International Health Regulations (IHR) group is set to agree on an amendments package to present to the World Health Assembly (WHA) in May at the 77th World Health Assembly." 



No comments made yet. Be the first to submit a comment
Already Registered? Login Here
Monday, 22 April 2024

Captcha Image