WHO treaties get another gut punch from UK MPs and a former Attorney General/ the Telegraph

As I said from Day 1, you only have to read these treaties and you will hate them. The globalists only got them this far through secrecy, lies and misdirection.

The snowball has started rolling downhill. Government officials and the rare mainstream media outlet are waking up, taking a good look, and finally ushering the needed warnings about what we are facing. More to come!

https://web.archive.org/web/20240504235335/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/04/uk-sleepwalking-into-lockdown-first-pandemic-agreement/

Britain is “sleepwalking” into a pandemic agreement that risks bouncing it into a “lockdown first” precedent, ministers have been warned.

There is “unease” among MPs about the World Health Organisation’s pandemic treaty, due to be ratified later this month.

MPs are urging the Government not to rush into signing the agreement, which they say has serious implications for the UK’s sovereignty and ability to decide national policies in a future global health crisis.

Critics warn that signing up to the treaty could put member states under pressure to follow the UN agency’s instructions when responding to future pandemics, which could include measures such as lockdowns, vaccine passports, border closures and quarantine.

It comes as 49 Republican members of the US Senate wrote to Joe Biden to say it was “unacceptable” that the treaty would expand the WHO’s authority over member states during public health emergencies.

They said the WHO’s “failure” during the Covid pandemic “did lasting harm to our country”, adding that they “strongly urge you to change course”, withdrawing support for the treaty negotiations and shifting the focus to WHO reforms.

Suella Braverman, a former attorney general, told The Telegraph she had “serious concerns” about the treaty, adding: “We’ve got to be incredibly circumspect about the WHO proposing something like this because they have made mistakes in their responses, in their judgment and in their approach.”

Suella Braverman said the WHO 'made mistakes in their responses' Credit: Simon Wohlfahrt/AFP

The WHO has come under fire for its support of China, with Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the director general, criticised for praising Beijing during the pandemic, having initially claimed its lockdown strategy “bought time for the world”.

The UN agency has also been  criticised for failing to properly investigate the origins of Covid.

Mrs Braverman went on to say that the “sovereignty and constitutional implications” of the treaty were critical, adding: “We don’t want a situation where the WHO might try to take powers away from us in another pandemic. I am very concerned that the Government is sleepwalking into an agreement that we will come to regret.”

In March 2021, leaders including Boris Johnson announced plans for a new agreement that would bind countries in tackling global health emergencies.  

The treaty was criticised for removing sovereign powers, raising fears that Britain would risk signing away its control over pandemic policy to unelected health officials. It has been substantially watered down in the final draft, released this month.

However, under the latest terms of the new agreement, the WHO would have the power to demand that Britain hands over 20 per cent of its vaccines and drugs in a pandemic.

Danny Kruger, the chairman of the New Conservatives group of MPs, said: “There are now only weeks to go until the World Health Assembly is due to vote on these international pandemic accords. We absolutely mustn’t risk being bounced into following a ‘lockdown first’ precedent for managing the next pandemic.

“The UK should be leading calls for the WHO vote to be deferred to allow proper time for debate of measures which could shape UK public health policy for a generation.”

‘Is the British Government open to a delay?’

Lord Frost, a former chief Brexit negotiator, said several MPs were concerned that the treaty was being “rushed” through.

“Certainly, some in Parliament have a degree of unease about it, partly because the Government hasn’t been very transparent and hasn’t really set out what it is trying to do,” he added.

“The question is, is the British Government open to a delay?  I certainly think that might be sensible. The latest drafts are better than earlier versions, but they are still overall creating a new pandemic management system under the authority of the WHO, and the consequences of that still haven’t been fully thought through or even debated here.”

Sir John Redwood, a Tory MP, said he had “no wish whatsoever” to sign up to the treaty, adding: “I am happy for Britain to belong to a body to offer advice, but I do not wish us to be signed up to a body which has capabilities to direct us should a health crisis arise.”

Molly Kingsley, the founder of the campaign group UsForThem, said: “From lauding China’s inhumane lockdown response, to denying human to human transmission, to suppressing critical discussion as to the origins of the virus, the WHO’s performance during the pandemic was dismal.  

“Embarking on a process to supercharge its resources and influence following such a chaotic performance is a tone-deaf overreach.”

A Department of Health and Social Care spokesman said: “We cannot comment on the details of specific proposals, and no proposals have been agreed. We will only support the adoption of the accord and accept it on behalf of the UK if it is firmly in the UK national interest and respects national sovereignty.”

This last paragraph is what the Health Minister and other UK officials have said all along—except that the claim about respectign national sovereignty is a lie, as the former A-G and others stated. There will be considerable loss of sovereignty as the documents now stand, and if One Health proposals are adopted (we are grateful to developing countries for refusing to go along with One Hellth) consideraby more sovereignty would be yielded to the WHO and its Director-General.