For two years, the 196 States Parties to the 2005 International Health Regulations (IHR) – composed of 194 Member States of the World Health Organisation (WHO), and Liechtenstein and the Vatican – have been submitting and discussing proposed amendments to update this agreement. Introduced in the 1960s, the IHR are intended to strengthen national capacities and improve coordination among countries in the event of a health emergency. Though a legally binding agreement under international law (i.e., a treaty), most of the provisions have always been voluntary.
The draft of the IHR amendments and an accompanying draft Pandemic Agreement are both still under negotiation a month short of the intended vote at the World Health Assembly (WHA) in late May. Together, they reflect a sea-change in international public health over the past two decades. They aim to further centralise control of public health policy within WHO and base response to disease outbreaks on a heavily commoditised approach, rather than WHO’s prior emphasis of building resilience to disease through nutrition, sanitation and strengthened community-based health care.
The changing public health environment
Public health’s metamorphosis responds to the increasingly directive nature of WHO’s funding and an increasing participation of the private sector in that funding. Together with a growth of commodity-based public-private partnerships including Gavi (for vaccines) and CEPI (vaccines for pandemics), this has been heavily directed by powerful privately-owned foundations with strong connections to Pharma who shape the work of these organisations through direct funding and through influence brought upon countries. This became particularly prominent during the response to COVID-19, in which prior WHO guidance was abandoned in favour of more directive and community-wide measures including mass workplace closures and mandated vaccination. The resultant concentration of wealth within private and corporate sponsors of WHO, and increasing impoverishment and indebtedness of countries and populations, both set a precedent for such approaches and left the world more vulnerable to their imposition.
Implications of the new draft
In understanding the apparent reversals of some proposals amending the IHR in the latest draft, it is important to understand that the COVID-19 response demonstrated great success in imposing this new outbreak response paradigm under the current voluntary nature of the IHR. Pharmaceutical corporations successfully sealed highly lucrative contracts directly with states, including public funding for R&D and liability-free advance purchase agreements. This was supported with heavy sponsorship of media, health, regulatory and political sectors, enabling both the high level of compliance and the stifling of dissent. Centralising more proscriptive powers within WHO to repeat this business approach under a legally binding agreement would simplify future repetition, but also introduces an element of the unknown into a system already proven to work. These aspects of the previous drafts also presented an obvious focus for public opposition. Pharma has been aware of this reality during the negotiating process.
The latest version of the IHR amendments released on April 16th thus removes wording that would involve member states “undertaking” to follow any future recommendation from the Director General (DG) when he or she declares a pandemic or other Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) (former New Article 13A). They now remain as “non-binding” recommendations. This change is sane, conforms with the WHO Constitution and reflects concerns within country delegations regarding overreach. The shortened review time that passed in rather ad hoc fashion by the 2022 World Health Assembly will apply to all but four countries that rejected them. Otherwise, the intent of the draft, and how it is likely to play out, is essentially unchanged. The World Bank, IMF and G20 have signalled an expectation that the overall plan will proceed, and rising national indebtedness further increases powers to coerce this.
States are still expected to manage dissenting opinion, and together with the accompanying Pandemic Agreement, WHO and its partners continue to set up a highly dangerous complex (from a public health, equity and human rights viewpoint) involving a massive and expensive surveillance system to identify natural viral variants, a requirement for rapid notification by countries, passage of samples by WHO to pharmaceutical manufacturers of their choice, a 100-day mRNA vaccine delivery bypassing normal regulatory and safety trials, and then a mass-vaccination-based response that will, as seen in the COVID-19 response, be pitched as a way to get back to normal. This can still be invoked by the DG alone, simply on his or her perception of a threat rather than actual harm. The pharmaceutical companies will be supported by public funds (see discussion on the Pandemic Agreement) and receive liability-protected profits.
An unfit and unready document
This system will be overseen by WHO, despite being a beneficiary of pharma funding, who in turn will be the major financial beneficiaries of the pandemic response. The DG personally selects the committee members who may advise and oversee this process (rather than the member states who are supposed to ultimately be in charge). WHO receives funding for its emergency agenda from the same organisations and private investors who stand to benefit. The conflicts of interest and vulnerabilities to corruption in this scheme are obvious. A whole international bureaucracy is already being put in place for this, whose sole reason for existence is to determine that viral variants and minor outbreaks, a natural part of existence, are a threat requiring a specific response that they must then implement. The current DG declared a global emergency over Monkeypox, after just five deaths in a clear and relatively restricted demographic group.
Lastly, the current text of the amendments discussed below looks far from complete. There are internal contradictions, such as clauses both requiring informed consent and, strangely and alarmingly, recommending that this be overridden. The definition provided of a pandemic is as much based on the response put in place as the pathogen or disease itself. By removing the shortened review period and removing overt compulsion, the prior misrepresentation of urgency and outbreak frequency seems to have been recognised.
Yet, this document, and the draft Pandemic Agreement, are still intended to be voted on before the end of May. This completely abrogates the legal requirement within Article 55 of the IHR(2005), and repeated in this draft, for a four-month review period before any vote. This is not only irrational given the unfinished nature of the text, but inequitable as it disadvantages less-resourced countries in fully assessing likely impacts on health, human rights and their economies. There are no procedural reasons to prevent WHO calling for a later WHA vote after the drafts have been properly reviewed. Member states should clearly demand this.
Significant proposed amendments and their implications.
The key changes and implications of the current draft are summarised below. The proposed changes are found here and the existing IHR (2005) here.
The proposed amendments should be reviewed in the light of the lack of urgency, low burden and currently-reducing frequency of recorded infectious disease outbreaks and the huge financial requirements on countries – already heavily impoverished and indebted post-lockdowns – for setting up additional international and national bureaucracies and institutions. It must also be assessed in light of the accompanying draft Pandemic Agreement, the apparent conflicts of interest, the concentration of wealth among sponsors of WHO during the COVID-19 response and the persistent absence of a transparent and credible cost-benefit analysis of the COVID-19 response and proposed new pandemic measures from WHO.
(Text note: Bold text below reflects its use in the draft amendments to denote new text added in this draft.)
Article 1. Definitions
“pandemic” means a public health emergency of international concern, that is infectious in nature and:
(i) has spread and is spreading to and within multiple States Parties across WHO Regions; and
(ii) is exceeding the capacity of health systems to respond in those States Parties; and
(iii) is causing social and/or economic and/or political disruption in those States Parties; and
(iv) requires rapid, equitable and enhanced coordinated international action, with whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches.
It is useful to have a definition of ‘pandemic’ added to the draft, as it was recently noted elsewhere that without this the entire pandemic agenda is somewhat undefinable. Note the use of ‘and’; all these conditions must be met.
It is, however, a technically flawed definition. While clause (i) is sensible and orthodox, (ii) will vary between states, meaning that the same outbreak may somehow be a “pandemic” in one country but not the other. It must also be causing social, economic or political disruption, and must additionally require a “whole-of-government approach”.
“Whole-of-government approaches” is an undefinable but popular term in public health that can be argued to be almost nothing – what really requires a whole-of-government approach? Certainly, no infectious disease outbreak in the past few centuries would readily confirm, as only specific arms of most governments were involved. Some countries had a quite light approach during COVID-19, with very limited government redirection, whilst attaining similar or better outcomes than neighboring states. This would mean that COVID-19 would fall outside this pandemic definition despite “spreading to and within” multiple states and also causing illness.
This definition appears insufficiently thought through, reflecting the rushed nature of this document and its unreadiness for a vote.
“pandemic emergency” means a public health emergency of international concern that is infectious in nature and:
(i) is, or is likely to be, spreading to and within multiple States Parties across WHO Regions; and
(ii) is exceeding, or is likely to exceed, the capacity of health systems to respond in those States Parties; and
(iii) is causing, or is likely to cause, social and/or economic and/or political disruption in those States Parties; and
(iv) requires rapid, equitable and enhanced coordinated international action, with whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches.
‘Pandemic emergency’ is a new term. The definition includes “or is likely to be”, thus substituting for the change in Article 12 in the previous version that included “potential or actual” to broaden the PHEIC scope to a perceived threat rather than an event causing actual harm. i.e., the IHR proposals are unchanged on this point.
‘Pandemic emergency’ appears to be used within the text as a subset of a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). This may be to ensure future conformity of the accompanying Pandemic Agreement with policy on PHEICs, as this is pandemic-specific whilst the IHR addresses declared international public health emergencies of any type.
“health products” means medicines; vaccines; medical devices including diagnostics; assistive products; vector control products, blood and other products of human origin
More restricted than previous draft, which included an option of “and other health technologies, but not limited to this”, then defining ‘health technologies’ as anything that improves “well-being”.
Standing Recommendations and Temporary Recommendations are now returned to being “non-binding advice”, with the previously deleted ‘non-binding’ wording returned to the text (see also notes on Article 13A and Article 42 below).
Article 5 Surveillance
Paragraph 1
Each State Party shall develop, strengthen and maintain, as soon as possible but no later than five years from the entry into force of these Regulations for that State Party, the core capacities to detect, assess, notify and report events in accordance with these Regulations, as specified in Annex 1.
This remains problematic, particularly for low- and middle-income countries. The “Core capacities” in Annex One include surveillance, laboratory capacity, maintenance of specialised staff and sample management. Many countries still struggle to develop and maintain these for high burden diseases such as tuberculosis, with well recognised mortality resulting from this lack of capacity. The Pandemic Agreement lays out these resource-intensive requirements in further detail. Low-income countries risk significant harm through resource diversion from high burden health problems to a problem predominantly perceived as a major threat by better-off Western nations with higher life expectancies.
Interestingly, the censorship expectation – “risk communication, including countering misinformation and disinformation” – has also now been tucked away in Annex 1, but remains essentially unchanged.
Paragraph 5
When requested by WHO, States Parties
shouldshall provide, to the fullest extent possible within the means and resources at their disposal, support to WHO-coordinated response activities.
If this means anything, the change from ‘should’ to ‘shall’ seems to imply the state party is still expected to be under some direction from WHO. This is a return to the sovereignty issue – non-compliance could be used as a reason for enforcement such as through financial mechanisms (e.g. World Bank, IMF financial instruments).
The wording has escape clauses in “within the means and resources”, but this then begs the question of why it is deemed necessary to change “should” to “shall”.
Article 12 Determination of a public health emergency of international concern, including a pandemic emergency
Paragraph 1
The Director-General shall determine, on the basis of the information received, in particular from the State(s) Party(ies) within whose territory(ies) an event is occurring, whether an event constitutes a public health emergency of international concern, including, when appropriate, a pandemic emergency…
The DG alone retains the power to declare a PHEIC or pandemic emergency (see Chapter III provisions below regarding DG power over committees).
Article 13 Public health response, including access to health products
Paragraph 1
Each State Party shall develop, strengthen and maintain, as soon as possible but no later than five years from the entry into force of these Regulations for that State Party, the core capacities to prepare for, and respond promptly and effectively to public health risks and public health emergencies of international concern, including a pandemic emergency, as set out in Annex 1
As above – this needs to be optional as appropriate in many circumstances. The alternate (bis) version following it is far more appropriate and consistent with equity:
1.bis. Each State Party shall, within the means and resources at its disposal, provide sustainable domestic funding to build, strengthen and maintain the core capacities required under these Regulations.
Article 17 Criteria for recommendations
When issuing, modifying or terminating temporary or standing recommendations, the Director-General shall consider:
(a) the views of the States Parties directly concerned;
(b) the advice of the Emergency Committee or the Review Committee, as the case may be;…
The Director General retains sole authority to declare and cease a PHEIC, with the emergency committee and member states giving advice only.
Article 18 Recommendations with respect to persons, baggage, cargo, containers, conveyances, goods and postal parcels
3. Recommendations issued by WHO to State Parties shall take into account the need to:
(a) facilitate international travel, as appropriate, including of health workers and persons in life-threatening or humanitarian situations…
It is hoped this reflects some recognition of the harm done in the COVID-19 response through the effect of international travel on economies. People starve to death in low income countries and lose their incomes and future education, especially women, when tourism is stopped. However, it appears largely confined to health staff.
Article 23 Health measures on arrival and departure
3. No medical examination, vaccination, prophylaxis or health measure under these Regulations shall be carried out on travellers without their prior express informed consent or that of their parents or guardians, except as provided in paragraph 2 of Article 31,…
Article 31, paragraph 2 (below) cited here actually supports mandatory vaccination, clashing with informed consent provisions above, and therefore one or other needs rewording (one hopes this is Article 31).
Using vaccination status as a criteria for right of entry, a country’s sovereign right though used egregiously in the COVID-19 response, may serve a purpose when a vaccine blocks transmission of a serious disease not already prevalent in the country concerned.
Article 31 Health measures relating to entry of travellers
2. If a traveller for whom a State Party may require a medical examination, vaccination or other prophylaxis under paragraph 1 of this Article fails to consent to any such measure, or refuses to provide the information or the documents referred to in paragraph 1(a) of Article 23, the State Party concerned may, subject to Articles 32, 42 and 45, deny entry to that traveller. If there is evidence of an imminent public health risk, the State Party may, in accordance with its national law and to the extent necessary to control such a risk, compel the traveller to undergo or advise the traveller, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Article 23, to undergo:
(a) the least invasive and intrusive medical examination that would achieve the public health objective;
(b) vaccination or other prophylaxis; or
(c) additional established health measures that prevent or control the spread of disease, including isolation, quarantine or placing the traveller under public health observation.
In other words, contrary to Article 23, informed consent will not be a requirement for a member state to perform medical examinations or inject people.
Vaccination at time of entry is of no use in preventing disease importation, as it will not stop an established infection in the traveller, so mandatory vaccination at time of entry is not a legitimate public health measure, irrespective of human rights concerns.
Requirement of medical examinations, or isolation on refusal, would be broadly considered as a last resort in highly dangerous infectious diseases, but should not be imposed lightly.
Amendments in Part IX regarding the use of experts and conduct of committees
Chapter I – The IHR Roster of Experts
Article 47 Composition
The Director-General shall establish a roster composed of experts in all relevant fields of expertise (hereinafter the “IHR Expert Roster”). The Director-General shall appoint the members of the IHR Expert Roster in accordance with the WHO Regulations for Expert Advisory Panels and Committees (hereinafter the “WHO Advisory Panel Regulations”), unless otherwise provided in these regulations.
This is, obviously, inappropriate for the head of an organisation directly funded by those who benefit from the countermeasures promoted, due to conflict of interest. State parties should, as owners of WHO, surely be providing experts from their own national pool. This would reduce conflict of interest and help ensure diversity and representativeness.
Article 48 Terms of reference and composition [of the emergency committee]
2. The Emergency Committee shall be composed of experts selected by the Director-General from the IHR Expert Roster.
See note on Article 47.
Article 49 Procedure [of the Emergency Committee]
On determination of decisions including a PHEIC:
5. The views of the Emergency Committee shall be forwarded to the Director-General for consideration. The Director-General shall make the final determination on these matters.
As above, the DG has sole authority. This underlines the importance of keeping compliance with the IHR voluntary. The current Director General declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern for Monkeypox, after just five deaths in a very specific demographic group. This would, under the new Pandemic Agreement and the provisions here, allow the DG to trigger the whole process of recommending lockdowns, rapid vaccine development, promotion of mandatory vaccination and resultant profits flowing to entities currently involved in funding WHO’s pandemic agenda.
Chapter III – The Review Committee
Article 50 Terms of reference and composition
3. The Members of the Review Committee shall be selected and appointed by the Director-General.
As above. A review committee must be independent to function properly, and therefore cannot be selected by the same people it is reviewing. All the more so here, as conflicts are so likely as private beneficiaries of the proposed approach also sponsor part of the process..
Article 51 Conduct of business
The Director-General shall invite Member States, the United Nations and its specialised agencies and other relevant intergovernmental organisations or nongovernmental organisations in official relations with WHO to designate representatives to attend the Committee sessions. Such representatives may submit memoranda and, with the consent of the Chairperson, make statements on the subjects under discussion. They shall not have the right to vote.
It is extraordinary for a review committee that only those appointed by a person whose actions are a subject of the review would have a right to vote and make any determination. However, this has crept in here, and there is no attempt by Member States to provide a mechanism for serious oversight.
Article 54 Reporting and review
3. WHO shall periodically conduct studies to review and evaluate the functioning of Annex 2. [the decision tree for declaring a pandemic emergency or PHEIC]
More of WHO reviewing itself, but then:
Article 54bis Implementation and Compliance Committee for the International Health Regulations (2005)
2. The IHR Implementation and Compliance Committee shall be comprised of [number] State Party members, [number] from each WHO Region represented by individuals possessing appropriate qualifications and experience. State Party members shall serve for [number] years.
This alternate Article 54 seems an attempt by some Member State(s) to wrest some oversight back from the DG, ensuring member states nominate committee members with an actual decision-making role. If so, it may benefit from tightening of the wording.
Article 55 Amendments
The text of any proposed amendment shall be communicated to all States Parties by the Director-General at least four months before the Health Assembly at which it is proposed for consideration.
This is, of course, completely incompatible with a vote on these proposed amendments in May 2024.
Time to review implications is essential. Four months is short for this, four weeks would be ridiculous.
Article 59 Entry into force; period for rejection or reservations
1. The period provided in execution of Article 22 of the Constitution of WHO for rejection of, or reservation to, these Regulations or an amendment thereto, shall be 18 months from the date of the notification by the Director-General of the adoption of these Regulations or of an amendment to these Regulations by the Health Assembly. Any rejection or reservation received by the Director-General after the expiry of that period shall have no effect.
2. These Regulations shall enter into force 24 months after the date of notification referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article, except for:… States who reject or file reservations…
This article will be modified based on the resolution accepted previously by most states at the WHA in 2022 (excepting those who rejected it prior to the end of 2023), reducing the review time.
This is clarified in a report from the DG: “27. The amendments to Articles 55, 59, 61, 62 and 63 of the Regulations, adopted by the 75th World Health Assembly through resolution WHA75.12 (2022), will enter into force on May 31st 2024. As communicated to all States Parties, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Kingdom of the Netherlands, New Zealand and Slovakia notified the Director-General of their rejection of the above-referenced amendments.”
The new articles now come into force 12 months after a vote (Article 63).
For States that reject any amendment during the review period, prior versions of these articles apply. As before, however, active rejection is required, within 10 months (or 18 for the four countries above), or these legally binding articles automatically apply (Article 61).
(This note is revised from original version.)
Other issues
A general note on terminology.
“Developed” and “developing” countries. It is perhaps time that WHO moved on from the assumption that some countries are more ‘developed’ than others. Perhaps ‘high income’, ‘middle-income’ and ‘low income’, reflecting World Bank custom, are less colonialist. Have ‘developed’ countries attained all that progress and technology can provide? This would of course mean that they were ‘undeveloped’ 20 years ago, and that technology is the only measure of development, rather than culture, art, political maturity or a preference for not bombing less powerful countries. WHO considers countries such as India, Egypt, Ethiopia and Mali, with thousands of years of written history and civilisation, less ‘developed’. Words matter. They promote, in this case, an impression of a hierarchy of countries (and therefore people) in terms of attainment or importance, based in a very materialistic world view.
Dr. David Bell is a clinical and public health physician with a PhD in population health and background in internal medicine, modelling and epidemiology of infectious disease. Previously, he was Director of the Global Health Technologies at Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund in the USA, Programme Head for Malaria and Acute Febrile Disease at FIND in Geneva, and coordinating malaria diagnostics strategy with the World Health Organisation. He is a Senior Scholar at the Brownstone Institute.
Dr. Thi Thuy Van Dinh (LLM, PhD) worked on international law in the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Subsequently, she managed multilateral organisation partnerships for Intellectual Ventures Global Good Fund and led environmental health technology development efforts for low-resource settings.
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.
He’s going to be barred from standing in any future election, so this is irrelevant.
There won’t be any future elections.
The way things are going I wouldn’t be surprised!
But it will help prevent the spread of ‘the virus’, so it’s perfectly OK.
Quite so. As I said yesterday, what really worries me is what happens when someone competent, hard-working and dominating gets into his shoes. Inevitably, it is the very worst people, with zero empathy or care for others, who get to the top and, in an increasingly totalitarian world, that will include Hitlers and Stalins. Bad enough now, but we ain’t seen nothing yet!!
You can mark Matt Hancock down for that. He thinks he’s saved the country.
All hail King Matt.
You seem to be suggesting that Johnson is harmless. Even if that were true he has cleared the ground, got rid of the Overton window and made it clear that anything is possible to dictator.
That has already happened, Gove is the man in power. Boris is just the puppet.
ok i’ll bite.. why not?
Killed far more people (+millions in the 3rd world) through lockdowns and making the NHS a Covid only ‘service’ for 9 months (as the sole government in the world), than were killed through and with Covid- a number which we increased significantly through our reckless policy of sending people from hospitals into nursing homes untested, and by censoring, diffamating, manipulating and withholding data on the cheap, effective, safe and available treatments for Covid and those treatments themselves, and, possibly, by coercing people en masse into getting only rushed gene therapies instead.
This was inspired by Leonardo Conti and Josef Mengele, of course.
Stats from the Care Quality Commission show 3 out of 5 deaths from Covid last year were disabled folk with illegal DNR’s slapped on them; can’t remember what percentage (high) of those were people with learning difficulties. Sounds pretty Mengele to me!
Did Prince Philip die with or from covid? Or is he the only person to die on Britain for over a year by natural causes
Vaccine….
Yes. He had recently had the vaccine. We should keep an eye on ma’am, as she had it at the same time.
espec if she still has to get second dose and is also heartbroken at loss of husband – could soon be a case of all hail King Charles
The crucial question, though, is when lockdowns return. The local elections 6 May, G7 11-13 June and then the big one, Mr Johnson’s wedding in July, mean that restrictions will be mainly dropped to accommodate the Govt’s real priorities. But after that? The ‘return’ of ‘flu, the Ruritanian variant and climate change targets will have us slammed down from next Oct, I believe.
I have wondered if Mr Johnson is fully aware of the nature of his fiancée, and is dragging this out due to dread of telling her that the wedding is off, and sod the rest of us.
I often wonder if she was planted.
Unlikely that she was planted, as he’s the vegetable.
I have often cheekily wondered if the ban on weddings has not been convenient for him.
No. I think the Azerbaijan variant is the really dangerous one to watch – but not until after the wedding, obviously.
Only if we, along with the rest of Europe, allow them to get away with it.
Johnson has always had a reputation for fickleness and unreliability, but his transformation from fun-loving libertarian to joyless woke authoritarian is beyond parody. I’ll be voting for an anti-lockdown candidate in the forthcoming local elections; and if no such candidate is standing, I’ll simply spoil the ballot paper.
My wife spoke to someone today who is convinced that he has been killed 4 years ago already and been replaced with a Doppelgänger…
As good an explanation as any.
Is Wilfred real? The original pictures weren’t very convincing to be honest.
Me too.
Shouldn’t that be Boris Rong Un?
Kim Jong Johnson
Never voting Tory again … I just might be persuaded to change my mind if Boris is removed and given a lengthy prison sentence along with his entire cabinet and then replaced with someone like Sir Charles Walker maybe … who seems to be genuine enough and share my concerns about the governments tyrannical response to covid19 and the removal of our freedoms and liberty in this country since March last year … the problem I have though is that I also trusted Boris Johnston once upon a time to be a guardian of our freedoms and liberties only for him to do a complete about turn and transform himself into a cross between Caroline Lucas and Pol Pot. That is my fear about voting for any Tory candidate again – they all seem to change their tune once they get into power drop their conservatism and become Blairites instead
If there is an anti-lockdown candidate in the area (Reclaim, Reform whatever) they will definitely get my vote otherwise my ballot paper gets spoiled.
Me too; been a Tory voter for 50 years but never ever again! Still have to pinch myself some mornings when I wake up to believe that a Tory Government had reduced us to that of a totalitarian police state.
How many female Tory MPs claim to be huge Margaret Thatcher fans only to turn into Yvette Cooper as soon as they are elected?
I can trace my falling out with the conservative party to 1995 when John Redwood lost his leadership battle with John Major. Redwood’s always been a voice of sense and reason and he’s currently on the right side of this issue. Like you I will never vote for them again and regret lending them my vote this time around.
And still they clap.
To be fair to Fat Boy (the younger one), he doesn’t really pretend that he cares about people, so he has the virtue of (murderous) honesty compared to the Fat Man.
The latest polls suggest there enough ‘savients’ willing to give him everlasting leadership.
Polls are often wrong.
Brexit.
Donald Trump…
Dr Naomi Wolf on Vaccine Passports and why they Equal Slavery – The Daily Clout
https://theduran.com/dr-naomi-wolf-on-vaccine-passports-and-why-they-equal-slavery-the-daily-clout/
Stand in South Hill Park Bracknell every Sunday 10am meet fellow lockdown sceptics
He forgot: Joe Stalin Biden
That one’s most devoted adherent is Little Wrinkly Tortoise Would-Be Josef Stalin Drakeford.
How can so many still support Johnson’s government?! Deranged idiots, the lot of them! Voting for an anti-lockdown party or spoiling your ballot paper is the ONLY rational thing to do.
What a brilliant summary of Boris’ complete and utter destruction of this country. Retweet, Facebook, telegram to every friend and/or enemy. Help get the word out.
Can you count on my vote? No Chance!
Wow, what great article. Puts into stark perspective the damage this country needs to face up to if we are to ever recover real control if our lives
Very apt article. I think we could all add to it.
Time to give the despot a bloody nose at the election box people.
I might cast a futile vote for the Liberal Democrats now they have belatedly started to remember that the name of their party means something.
I enjoyed reading this but will correct you on a Constitutional point.
The Constitution is The English Constitution, most recently affirmed in The 1689 Bill of Rights. A British Constitution has NEVER existed. The English Constitution gives us inalienable Rights. Those Rights have been and continue to be subverted by The British State.
Kim Jong Johnson is a better name but that’s the only quibble.
Johnson and his infandous cabal remind me of the Spitting Image’ sketch with Margaret Thatcher ordering. ‘What about the vegetables? They’ll have the same as me’.