Discover more from News Uncut: Straight Talk, Hard Truths
SEISMIC THREAT TO YOUR FUTURE
A debate yes, but still politicians all too eager to surrender all our power to the WHO
By Mark Sharman
PROPOSALS which could potentially bring seismic changes to the UK’s democratic processes and freedoms were debated in Westminster last night (Monday, April 17) but not, as one might expect for so crucial a subject, in the House of Commons.
The debate, attended by a small but committed band of MPs, was in Westminster Hall in response to an e-petition, signed by 156,000 members of the public.
It called for a referendum to decide whether the UK should submit to the World Health Organisation (WHO) Pandemic Treaty and changes to its International Health Regulations (IHR).
Critics say the changes would give the WHO unprecedented power over elected Sovereign governments and the legally binding right to enforce measures on countries and individuals.
Andrew Bridgen MP told News Uncut he has been requesting the debate for several months, but “apparently my fellow MPs from across the House are not interested in debating proposals to cede our citizens’ Sovereignty to an unelected, unaccountable and discredited supranational body, the WHO.
“The chasm between elected representatives and the electorate appears to grow bigger by the day,” he said.
A public referendum did not get approval, but the message was forceful enough to suggest that the matter may well come before Parliament before the changes are ratified in the Spring of next year.
The WHO is in the latter stages of discussing its Pandemic Treaty and 307 amendments to the IHR which, if adopted, would give it legislative powers which would over-ride elected governments, in ‘potential’ as well as actual emergencies, meaning it could enforce testing, tracing, quarantines, lockdowns and travel bans, mandatory vaccines and digital health passports at its own discretion.
The proposed amendments remove an existing IHR paragraph which protects “respect for dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of people.” Translated, that means you could lose liberty and bodily autonomy; anyone who refused a mandatory vaccine could be banned from travel, work or even shopping. No digital health passport, no life.
And to underpin everything, the WHO would have power to censor anything it deemed to be ‘misinformation’ or ‘disinformation’.
As we have seen over the past three years, this means silencing any questioning voice, however qualified or valid, on social and mainstream media. We know from legal disclosures and freedom of information requests that the Big Tech and media companies, including the BBC, colluded with governments over the flawed Covid narrative.
As Mr Bridgen pointed out, declaring that science is settled and closing down debate is not science at all.
Danny Kruger, Conservative MP for Devizes, spoke against adopting the WHO changes, saying: “I don’t have confidence in the WHO as a single source of trust.
“It [the list of proposals] represents a vast transfer of power to the WHO.” He also raised concerns on the funding and influence of pharmaceutical companies.
Mr Bridgen agreed, remarking that there was a strong external influence on WHO policy and it was a case of “pay to play”.
The Chinese influence on the WHO, as well as the pharmaceutical companies’, was an issue for Sir Christopher Chope, Conservative MP for Christchurch. He said: “It is controlled by people who we would not wish to have control of our lives.”
Esther McVey, Conservative MP for Tatton, echoed the concerns of her constituents in that the UK would be giving away Sovereignty and control. She said the issue should be properly debated in both the Commons and the Lords. She then asked the Minister of State (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) Anne Marie Trevelyan whether she could give an assurance that the UK would not be handing over Sovereignty.
“Absolutely I can,” was the reply. “Protecting Sovereign rights is a principle.”
The Minister insisted that no text had yet been agreed and there was a long way to go before the expected WHO ratification meeting in May 2024.
Member states were negotiating the changes and the UK was ‘right at the heart’ of the discussions.
Representatives of Labour and the SNP both fully supported the WHO proposals in the interests of world preparedness and reaction to the next pandemic – and predictably both used the occasion to criticise the Government’s policies.
However, the most telling line, in conclusion, came from Minister Trevelyan, who confirmed that although the UK is “a Sovereign state in control of whether we enter international agreements,” once the amendments had been agreed, they would be “legally binding in international law.”
Which begs the question: If the WHO has a legally binding mandate (which is entirely in accordance with the current version of the text) and the UK signs up to that mandate, how can we at the same time retain Sovereignty? The two seem mutually exclusive.
Which is why the issue needs a full public debate and Parliamentary scrutiny in the House of Commons, especially as amendments to IHR do not need to be agreed by heads of state; rather they are nodded through by unelected delegates: representing the UK is Professor Sir Chris Whitty.