Earlier this year the Director General of the WHO Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus complained that the WHO pandemic agreement negotiations risked falling apart due to “a torrent of fake news, lies and conspiracy theories”.
This news was likely well received by the thousands of U.K. citizens that have successfully petitioned Parliament, triggering two debates thus far, regarding the treaty and the proposed IHR amendments. As stated by MP Danny Kruger at the most recent of these debates, “this is a fringe issue in Parliament, as demonstrated by the empty benches, but significant numbers of the public have a real interest in this topic.”
Although poorly attended, the debates did allow concerns to be formalised and placed on record, concerns which Dr. Ghebreyesus appears to hold in contempt. One presumes that these issues are part of the “torrent” that Tedros is referring to. More recently at the World Governments Summit Tedros added:
Countries set themselves a deadline to complete the agreement in time for adoption at the World Health Assembly in May of this year. That’s now just 15 weeks away. However, there are currently two major obstacles to meeting that deadline.
The first is a group of issues on which countries have not yet reached consensus. They’re making progress, but there are still areas of difference that need further negotiation between countries.
None of them are insurmountable. If countries listen to each other’s concerns, I am confident they can find common ground and a common approach.
The second major barrier is the litany of lies and conspiracy theories about the agreement:
- That it’s a power grab by the World Health Organisation;
- That it will cede sovereignty to WHO;
- That it will give WHO power to impose lockdowns or vaccine mandates on countries;
- That it’s an ‘attack on freedom’;
- That WHO will not allow people to travel;
- And that WHO wants to control people’s lives.
These are some of the lies that are being spread.
If they weren’t so dangerous, these lies would be funny. But they put the health of the world’s people at risk. And that is no laughing matter.
These claims are utterly, completely, categorically false. The pandemic agreement will not give WHO any power over any state or any individual, for that matter.
But can we take Tedros’s comments at face value?
What exactly are the countries at loggerheads about? We can imagine Tedros being happy to give the impression that perhaps countries are struggling to safeguard the democratic rights of their respective populations. Or that they are grappling with the dilemma that in pursuance of promoting the integrity of their health policies, they plan to work in cahoots with media platforms to censor the speech of the entire globe – a violation of Article 10 of the Human Rights Act.
But in fact it is nothing of the sort, of course. The only meaningful evidence we have points to pecuniary interests being at the heart of the delay, namely “intellectual property rights, sharing information around pathogens and technology transfer”, with the U.S., EU, U.K., Canada, Switzerland and United Arab Emirates all indicating that they aren’t happy with the entire article on the access and benefit mechanism. (This mechanism monetarily rewards lower income countries for sharing pathogen samples and genetic sequence data, allowing them to offset the cost of purchasing pharmaceuticals, for example.)
Perhaps it serves the interests of the WHO to let people assume the negotiation delay is evidence that public concerns are being addressed, with Tedros seeking to placate opposition.
However, his second claim that the negotiating parties have somehow succumbed to conspiracy theories is rather odd and most unlikely.
Tedros may claim that the treaty is not a “power grab” by the WHO, but what is certain is it that this treaty will facilitate a sizable shift in power to the corporate entities (stakeholders) that the WHO brings to the pandemic preparedness table. Historically the WHO’s alliance with the pharmaceutical industry has resulted in a huge waste of public money, as experts with financial ties to companies profiting from WHO policies were considered authoritative. There is nothing in the latest version of the proposal that prevents this conflict of interest from re-emerging. With the legally binding agreement stipulating that member states are to allocate 5% of their health budgets to pandemic preparedness, along with an as yet undetermined percentage of their GDP, the size of the pandemic preparedness industry will become staggeringly large. Five percent of U.K. NHS spending amounts to over £9 billion pounds. There are 193 other members states of the WHO. Feel free to do the maths.
The U.K. Government has also reassured us that the treaty will not act to cede sovereignty to the WHO, but this reassurance is not corroborated in detail. What cannot be denied is that the treaty creates a new policymaking centre that is distinct from Westminster and can influence Parliament. One would expect an advanced democracy such as the U.K. would be well placed to safeguard Parliament’s role from the impact of any such agreement, but this is not the case. Indeed, it may be surprising to most that current U.K. legislation provides no opportunity for Parliament to express its explicit approval or disapproval of an international treaty or agreement.
So when Tedros reassures us that this treaty will be ratified in line with our sovereignty, in the case of the U.K. this is not particular heartening as Parliament’s role in treaty ratification is essentially passive. To understand how a treaty may come into effect in the U.K. one needs to briefly examine the historical context of prerogative power and how these powers are exercised today.
As outlined by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC):
The royal prerogative provides the legal basis for the Crown (executive) to enter a treaty negotiation; originally this was enacted as the divine right of kings, over time this evolved to the idea that the King acts as a delegate and sovereign representative of the people, to the King acting in council with ministers, to the view that the powers must be exercised by ministers on behalf of the sovereign. The current view is that the authority for the Government to exercise the royal prerogative is derived from having the confidence of the elected House of Commons.
What this amounts to is that the Government may enter an international agreement or treaty negotiation with no Parliamentary debate or explicit expression of will by the elected house, as was the case with the WHO pandemic treaty.
We have to accept that residues of historic conventions that are less than perfect will manifest within our current Parliamentary system and a modern democracy has to do its best to reinterpret these into constitutionally acceptable practice. In the context of the pandemic treaty, as the opposition has expressed support for a treaty, it can be argued that the consent of the elected house is given and the Government has exercised its prerogative power in accordance with current understanding. What is of greater concern is how treaties are handled from here in. If opponents of the WHO agreement are under the illusion that Parliamentary process will spur into action to repel or revise this treaty, then the findings of the 2019 Select Committee on the Constitution report, should make for sober reading:
Parliament’s scrutiny of treaties is based on the Ponsonby rule, established nearly 100 years ago and subsequently set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRAG). These provisions limit Parliament’s scrutiny to a 21 sitting day period after the Government lays a completed, signed treaty before both Houses. No systematic scrutiny of treaties currently takes place prior to signature.
Treaties are subject to a negative resolution procedure, meaning that no debate or vote is required before they are ratified. During that period, the House of Commons has the power to delay ratification for a further 21 days — repeatedly, if desired — but only if the Government makes time for debates and votes to take place. The House of Lords may vote against a treaty’s ratification, however the Government can nonetheless ratify the treaty by making a statement setting out why the treaty should still be ratified. This is the limit of Parliament’s involvement in, and scrutiny of, treaties. Since the passage of the 2010 Act, no debates have taken place in the House of Commons under its provisions. While we accept that treaty-making is a function of the Government under the Royal Prerogative, the powers available to Parliament to scrutinise ministers’ actions are anachronistic and inadequate.
So as it stands Parliament is limited to acting only once a signed treaty is laid before it and there is currently no procedure for a certain number of MPs to trigger a debate and a vote. Parliament has no powers to revise or reject a treaty and if it chooses to continually delay ratification the Government can still proceed by providing a written statement to both houses outlining its reasons. There are no criteria in place for when the Government can and cannot bypass Parliament in this manner – the accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO being a recent example of the Government using this device.
There has been suggestion that the dualist nature of U.K. law provides some safeguard from those international treaties that are incompatible with our values, as it would be inconceivable that Parliament would willingly incorporate them through new domestic legislation. However, this still does not provide an adequate safeguard as if primary legislation is required, this will often only be for particular parts of an agreement. Thus the scope of any debate on implementing legislation may only apply to a small aspect of a wide-ranging agreement.
Further to this, incorporation into domestic law need not require a new Act of Parliament as it may be incorporated via secondary legislation powers set out in an existing Act of Parliament, or even through non-statutory mechanisms such as updates to guidance or rules. It is not particularly difficult for one to imagine the creation of mechanisms that maintain Parliamentary sovereignty, in any legal sense of the term, whilst assimilating policies that emanate from the WHO.
The second report: ‘Parliamentary Scrutiny of International Agreements in the 21st century‘ was published January 23rd 2024 by the PACAC. The Government has two months from publication to respond. The report summarises CRAIG as follows:
CRAG created the façade of additional democratic legitimacy for the assumption of treaty obligations, while it enshrined a model in which Parliamentary inaction regarding treaties so laid, the standard practice, effectively gives the Government free rein. The fact that the Commons can in theory prevent the Government ratifying a treaty laid under CRAG, which has never occurred nor to my knowledge has there been a vote on such a motion, did not incentivise Parliamentary scrutiny much less effective Parliamentary scrutiny. …
We have found these arrangements to be wanting in terms of the opportunities provided for scrutiny and in the unfettered exercise of the international relations prerogative power, and as a consequence consider the status quo to be constitutionally inappropriate in the 21st century.
In December 2022 a group of us wrote to relevant Lords and Commons Select Committees outlining our concerns with the WHO pandemic treaty and placing these within the context of the oral evidence and in-depth reports that these committees produced. We argued that the definitions and scope of the WHO treaty will create an agreement with no discernable boundaries affecting every sector in the U.K. and this ought to be the catalyst for adopting the essential reforms that these committees endorse.
Sadly we did not receive a response. It should be noted that the Government is on record stating: “If a request for a debate on the floor of the House on a treaty was made by a Select Committee and supported by the Liaison Committee, then the Government would normally accept the request.” Currently this appears to be the only avenue to ensure some form of Parliamentary scrutiny is achieved at a stage early enough for it to be meaningful. Disappointingly, there is no public record of any Select Committee currently investigating the impact of this treaty. It would be advantageous if MPs and other influential parties were to create pressure in this regard and to raise the profile of the crucial and painstaking work these committees have undertaken.
Shiraz Akram is a member of the Thinking Coalition, a pro-liberty group, highlighting and questioning Government overreach.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
We will be sold down the river basically. The very fact that this so-called treaty does not feature on the government’s parliamentary agenda proves this.
Fishy and Kneel are committing treason on a daily basis and know it. They think they are dancing with the big boys but once their usefulness has expired they will be discarded.
For all those MP’s about to lose their jobs – what a fine legacy you treasonous, gutless wonders. I hope your final years are mired in misery.
Anyway, on the plus side Parliament might as well be abolished because we don’t need 650 layabouts doing F A for their £250k per annum. Actually we will need to abolish it just to pay the WHO Tax.
Great Britain – the End.
Great comment———Britain is now a REGION of the International Community. We are now governed by technocrats we never heard of and our UN lackey politicians do not work for us anymore, they work for them.
And Rishi Sunak is Herod
Which Herod do you mean? The older one, who was persuaded by the most evil woman ever to walk the earth to launch the Massacre of the Innocents and kill Zacharias for refusing to tell Herod’s soldiers where his wife had fled with their son John the Baptist the True Christ?
Or the younger Herod, who was also persuaded by that same evil woman seven years later to send a pack of hounds into the wilderness to hunt down Elizabeth and her 7-year-old son John the Baptist and kill them both? And after Elizabeth saved her son at the cost of her own life, that same evil woman sought out the orphan boy in the wilderness, pretended to befriend him, pretended to be his substitute mother, and persuaded him to honour her and her stolen child Jesus the Forerunner, whom she had kidnapped from his mother Elizabeth and twin brother John the Baptist seven years earlier, smuggling him 7 miles away from Ein Karem where he was born, to Bethlehem, so she could claim he was born in the city of David?
Or the same Herod which that same evil woman, colluding with Herodias, Salome and Joanna, wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward, to trick Herod into first imprisoning and then murdering John the Baptist the True Christ, which he did not want to do?
Which Herod do you mean?
Thanks Varmint
Unlike in the US, Parliament can remove the executive and replace it with another one. A big step, but one they could take if they wanted to – if they felt that we had signed up to something contrary to our interests. But they won’t take that, because it suits them not to, just as it suited them to nod through the regulations for lockdown. Contemptible.
At the same time, in the same system, the executive is selected by the majority in parliament, so it would be a case of the people who in charge voting to replace themselves with others.
Our system of democracy is basically a joke. It worked ok while those in power had a minimum sense of decency and acted with restraint. But that’s gone now. And all is left is a joke of a system.
All true.
It’s slightly odd to think of the executive replacing itself, but the opportunity is there if there is enough opposition to a “rogue” executive from MPs acting with decency and restraint.
Off-topic but this just in…They’ve found that Afghan chemical attacker. Not such good news about his victim though;
”Police hunting for chemical attacker Abdul Ezedi have recovered his body from the Thames – as it was revealed his savage assault had left a mother blind in one eye.
The Afghan-born asylum seeker was wanted for attacking his former lover and her two young children in Clapham, south London, where he doused them in alkaline.
The convicted sex offender carried out his horrific onslaught on January 31 before fleeing, having appeared to have also burnt his own face in the assault. He was last seen alive on CCTV later that evening leaning over London’s Chelsea Bridge.
Yesterday, a passing boat reported seeing a body in the water near Tower Pier – four miles from Ezedi’s last known position. Police have since recovered the remains, which they believe to be the 35-year-old’s.
Investigators said the identification was based on ‘distinctive clothing’ he was wearing at the time of the attack and the ‘property found on his body’.
His former girlfriend, a mother-of-two who was doused with a corrosive chemical thought to be oven cleaner in a harrowing attack on her and her young children, is now no longer under sedation in hospital. But friends say she has been left blinded.”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13103979/Body-hunt-Clapham-chemical-attacker-Abdul-Ezedi-Met-Police-recover-body-Thames.html
You actually believe that? After the Police was criticised for a huge number of failings, including pulling up 2 dead bodies after a very short search and then stopping the search out of fear of finding more bodies, and after claiming that guy will never be found, all of a sudden they found him. Yeah, that’s just too convenient. I don’t buy it.
This is just more outrageous waste of police time and British Taxpayers’ money, lavished upon the endless Third World chaos caused by the endless Third World Invasion of the West.
If you think Parliament would have done anything about it had they had an opportunity, also think again.
I’ve always expected it to be a done deal , they’ve got Disease X ready along with all the vaccine factories so once the treaty is passed our front doors will be coming in & we Will be having our Jabs
And just in time for the US elections…
Even if they had gone through the motions of voting on it, you know it would be the usual “Tory Rebels threaten to vote against…blah, blah, blah”, then they would all cave in and vote for it, or abstain (all abstentions should be banned).
Parliament has become a total farce.
This is very much like the EU treaties which, we were told, did not reduce the authority of Parliament or the people. There would be no loss of sovereignty, said Heath and a succession of following Prime Ministers.
Yet when the EU Council of Ministers introduced a measuer the people of the UK did not like, assuming they were ever told, it tirned out we had no bilioty to stop it. It also turned out the Treaties made EU Regulations, Directives and even Opinions directly enforcable in this country.
Do not believe a word the lying scoundrels tell us.
Whereas Parliament invented all sorts of ways to prevent a proper Brexit, indeed it stopped ant Brexit at all for years, it seems oddly quiet about this transfer nof authority away from its jurisdiction.
Once again, big focus on the process and the detail of the process. Nothing about the principle so many of the people are petitioning about. Inverted logic.
If I understand correctly these IHR amendments and Pandemic treaty documents should have been placed before Parliament for scrutiny ( not debate necessarily) and this was not done. So at least a procedural problem.
i have come to the conclusion that at least the WHOs plans will be:
Costly
Non-democratic
Run a real risk of people losing individual sovereignty as governments have been proven too weak to go against supranational organisations.
The petition ‘Exit the WHO’ has now got more than 100,000 signatures…another debate in Westminster Hall?
Westminster Hall? More like a cleaners cupboard – if the janitor can find the key.
With thanks to Blue Tara, David Martin really slams the WHO in this video of a presentation he gave in September 2023 – not sure to whom though (EU?): https://forbiddenknowledgetv.net/dr-david-martin-minces-no-words/. Martin starts off as follows:
“I’m done talking about COVID and I’m done talking about SARS-CoV-2. And I’m done for a very simple reason: For 110 years, we the people of the world have been lied to; where a group of a very small number of criminal, industrial conspirators decided to subordinate the entirety of the human population for the purpose of their sinister plans to enrich themselves while impoverishing and killing the rest of humanity and I’m done being polite.
“We’ve long past polite. When the words “acceptable death rate” become part of an industrial norm, we have lost the plot to humanity. And that’s not my words, those were the words of the World Health Organization and of Pfizer and of Moderna, when they were given the authorization to begin the process of killing human beings in the interest of advancing their goals.”
Martin also stated:
“And cunningly, under Article 5 Section 13, which I put on this slide, I want you to understand why I said, at its formation in 1947, when the WHO was funded and founded, it was funded and founded by people intent to commit a crime, because of their own language.
“Section 13 of Article 5 ends with the following statement: “Immunity from personal arrest or detention, blah, blah, blah, immunity from legal process of every kind.” Now, if you didn’t intend to commit a crime, why would would you need to give yourself permanent and absolute immunity from every form of prosecution – and it’s worse: even investigation for prosecution of every kind?”
“Never let a good crisis go to waste”——–The UK Parliament won’t vote on it just as there was no vote on NET ZERO. International agreements and treaties are dictating more and more of our governance. ——-We voted for none of these people and mostly do not even know who they are.
I wonder why Theresa May set such importance on obtaining a Commons vote endorsing her EU withdrawal treaty when she didn’t need one. Was she unaware of her constitutional power as head of the government? The House of Commons suffered from no such ignorance. As we saw at the time, it knew that a Commons majority has no constitutional restraints upon it. It can commandeer the order of business, and usurp the executive. Which is what it did at the time. If adjusted mechanisms for treaty making are needed to fit them for the 21st century, a Commons majority (of 1) can make them at a stroke. In our constitution, a Commons majority is sovereign.
The Politicians can sign up to all they like, I have’nt and I will resist any demands made on my body, my lifestyle and that of my family. There are more of us than them, people just have to wake up and realise that, without our consent they are powerless.
The whole point of the new Treaty is that, when Tedros or his replacement declares a new pandemic and “advises” national governments, including ours, that urgent action must be taken and what that action should be ….. those governments will automatically follow “the advice” of the so-called experts at the WHO. Those so-called experts, who are not allowed to be criticised or contradicted; who do not have to provide any evidence to support their claims or their proposed course of action and who are completely immune from any kind of legal, let alone democratic, accountability.
So yes, in theory our Government remains Sovereign. But in practice, isn’t.
I carried on with life as close as possible to normal during the Covid Tyranny, and that is exactly what I intend doing during any future scamdemics declared by the WHO.
I didn’t have the Covid jab and I won’t be taking any new concoctions either.
Once our sovereignty has been signed away, which can’t be done under Magna Carta, then any edict issued via the WHO and followed by the British government allows for “plausible deniability.”
“Not me guv, it was the WHO wot done it.”
And all on the basis of “legally binding,” although as we have seen “the rule of law” and “legally binding” have been irreparably trashed these last four years and so are worthless.
You might not have a choice soon ! That is the enormity of this upcoming WHO scenario ! Question is ? will societies follow the scaremongering & all manner of possible pressure , mental at first then probable actual physical force ( they have shown us the blueprint ) ! Is this the point where it all kicks off for real & is that what tptb actually want ??
I contacted my MP – whom I have quite a bit of respect (an Andrew Bridgen supporter!) – and was shocked when he replied to say that Parliament will have no chance to discuss and vote on such a major treaty. A done deal, sadly for all of us.
Traitors one & all
The origins of parliament are that the king needed the cooperation of local rulers in order to collect taxes to finance his household and war efforts. A secondary function was to hold court (presided by the king) to pass judgements about property and other disputes according to what was regarded as the law of the land. And this arrangement came into being because medieval kings lacked the military power to rule autocratically throughout the realm. That doesn’t eo ipso make parliament a more legitimate body for governing citizens of the realm than the monarch himself. And neither does MPs have been elected by some random, large subset of the legally present¹ population.
In absence of justification by reference to some divine being, parliamentary government is nothing but enforced obedience by threat of violence, either. It’s exactly as legitimate (or illegitmate) as the king or some local mob grande doing the same.
¹ The weird UK voting laws don’t require legal residence, just legal presence and proper pedigree.