“Surely Parliament will get the chance to vote on these agreements?” has been a common refrain from those who assume concerns raised about the World Health Organisation’s Pandemic Accords have been over-stated.
Comforting though it would be to imagine a critical mass of parliamentarians with the time, inclination and effective opportunity to apply proper scrutiny to these international agreements of generational significance, the reality, laid bare during Tuesday’s House of Commons debate on the topic, is that Parliamentary scrutiny of the WHO’s new instruments will be — at best — brief and inconsequential.
During that debate, triggered by an urgent question from Danny Kruger MP, Andrew Stephenson, the Junior Minister for Health and Social Care, was asked repeatedly to confirm whether the WHO Pandemic Treaty, if adopted, would be laid before Parliament for a vote. “Will the Minister give us a cast-iron commitment that we will have a vote — dare I say, a meaningful vote — on it in this House before it comes into force?” asked Mark Francois MP, one of a number of MPs concerned to ensure that Parliament be given its chance to provide effective scrutiny.
It was a seemingly straightforward question, to which the Minister was conspicuously and repeatedly unable to give a straightforward answer. Instead he sought refuge in the fact that the international law process under which the instruments will be adopted has not yet been confirmed, in public at least:
The U.K. treaty-making process means that the accord is of course negotiated and agreed by the Government. As he will know, Parliament plays an important part in scrutinising treaties under the CRaG process and determining how international obligations should be reflected domestically. However, it is important to remember that, because the exact form of the accord has not yet been agreed, the parliamentary adoption process will depend on under which article of the WHO constitution the accord is adopted.
Stephenson’s spectacularly non-committal answer references the fact that there are two possible options under the WHO Constitution for adoption of international instruments such as the prospective Pandemic Treaty: the Article 19 method and the Article 21 method.
Article 19 is used for adopting new treaties, and if used in this case would trigger the requirement for a two-thirds member state majority to adopt the Pandemic Treaty at the World Health Assembly in Geneva later this month, followed by ratification processes in all relevant national legislatures.
Article 21 is used for adopting new health regulations, and if used would mean that the Pandemic Agreement (as it would likely then be described) would become binding on all WHO member states if approved for adoption by a simple majority of those member states in Geneva. There would then be no legal requirement for national-level ratification. Instead, any WHO Member State not wishing to be bound by the new agreement would need proactively to opt out by notifying the WHO to that effect within 10 months of the date of adoption. This is the same legal process as will likely apply for the adoption of the parallel package of amendments to the International Health Regulations.
The distinction is technically important because, in the U.K., the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act (CRaG) requires that treaties, but not regulations, be laid before Parliament. So we should assume that the Minister was indicating that if the WHO Pandemic ‘Treaty’ is adopted under Article 21, it will not be a treaty for the purposes of CRaG and so will not need to be laid before Parliament.
At the outset of negotiations for the Pandemic Treaty the WHO’s Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (INB) had assumed that Article 19 was the more appropriate basis for the new accord, but it notably left open the possibility of using Article 21 instead. The Minister’s comments suggest that this remains an unresolved issue even behind the closed doors of the negotiation process. While reliance on procedural uncertainty might have been a valid argument 18 months ago, that this highly consequential matter has apparently still has not been resolved with less than two weeks to go before a vote to adopt the treaty is extraordinary.
Even if the Article 19 method is ultimately used, deficiencies in the CRAG legislation mean there is still no guarantee of effective Parliamentary scrutiny of – let alone a vote on – the final treaty text.
The relevant provisions of the CRaG provide that treaties must be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days prior to ratification by the Government, with an explanatory memorandum placed alongside them. The House of Commons in principle has the power to delay any ratification, but for that to happen there would need to be a sufficient number of MPs mobilised to provoke a debate and to carry a vote to delay. This seems incredibly unlikely to happen given the dearth of cross-party interest in these proposals (not a single backbench Opposition MP attended the urgent debate earlier this week) and the short 21-day timeframe permitted for Parliament to act.
That this stunningly weak procedure provides only the most meagre facade of democratic scrutiny was the subject of a Report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) earlier this year, whose findings included:
The overwhelming view expressed in our evidence was that this negatively-framed process is wholly unsatisfactory and only pays lip service to parliamentary involvement in the treaty process.
Moreover, there is an ambiguously vague exemption under CRaG pursuant to which, in ‘exceptional cases’, a Minister may ratify a treaty without going through the CRaG procedural process. What is and isn’t ‘exceptional’ is left undefined; as the PACAC Report notes:
There are however no clear criteria set out indicating when and in what circumstances a Minister can [deem a treaty ‘exceptional’]. So, in theory, it could be done for any treaty as long as the Minister is prepared to set out the Government’s reasons in a statement to both Houses.
We are now less than two weeks until the critical meeting of the World Health Assembly at which the Pandemic Treaty and related amendments to the International Health Regulations could be adopted. After 18 months of negotiations, these hugely important texts are still being written, and according to the Minister on Tuesday, “we are still some way off getting to a text that can be agreed. We are hoping for significant changes in the coming days”.
In any reasonable world one might have assumed that this could only now result in a deferment of the Health Assembly’s vote: as Andrew Bridgen MP asked on Tuesday: “Will the Minister join me and many others in calling for a deferment of those votes until this House and others around the world have had a chance to examine these important details?”
“No,” was the Minister’s abruptly negative reply.
Tuesday’s debate has revealed not only that the Government is determined for the Health Assembly’s adoption vote to take place in a fortnight, but also that it will have scant regard for the views of parliamentarians who — on behalf of their many concerned constituents — wish to test the merits of doubling-down on the U.K.’s ties with the World Health Organisation. Parliament, it seems, will not be given a meaningful vote.
This should be a clarion call to all of us concerned by the WHO’s expansionist ambitions.
Molly Kingsley is a founder and Ben Kingsley is the Head of Legal Affairs at children’s rights campaign group UsForThem. Find UsForThem on Substack.
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 had the same in 2019 when Net Zero was just waved through. There was no debate and no vote. There is only one word for this blatant disregard for Parliamentary Democracy—TYRANNY. ——-It is a political establishment that panders to the UN and WEF but not to YOU
And like with the EU they will be saying to their constituents, not my fault Gov, orders from above. And while there is still a chance to defend what is left of Sovereignty, they’re not interested. Fifth Column traitors.
Said Minister deflecting questioning will probably get an invite to Switzerland as a result of his efforts to the cause. I think these global meetings are held there so that the details of the Swiss bank accounts can be handed over directly in person to the useful types. Those that go regularly, probably have multiple funds on account for facilitation efforts.
Interesting how ex PMs make so much money out of speeches, like Mrs May getting a payment from a business that no longer exists. Maybe deliberately losing your majority, watering down Brexit and pushing Agenda 2030 through Parliament pays well.
Ha not even posing as a democracy, as with net zero. The bureaucratic-dictatorship just rolls on. It’s very clear Andrew Stephenson MP would slaughter his own mum if the right package of incentives was offered him.
So if it’s a new treaty parliament gets a vote. If it’s a new regulation it doesn’t.
And so yet another piece of the myth of our democracy and our free society crumbles to the ground.
It fills me with angst to know that, really, my life is governed by bureuacrats and there is almost nothing that I can do about it except not comply, if I’m prepared to pay the price for non-compliance.
How many times have they committed Treason by now, probably need a long list. It seems EEC was the big one, willingly in the knowledge that just a European trading block was just a smokescreen.
“This should be a clarion call to all of us concerned by the WHO’s expansionist ambitions.”
Whilst I would not disagree with this statement I would argue that of much greater concern and importance is the fact that our government has clearly turned its back on the people of this country and as a consequence is rejecting any notions of “democracy.”
What we had previously been led to believe was rule of law even if only superficially is clearly to be rejected in favour of a wholly unelected, undemocratic, supranational body which by any stretch should have no say in the manner in which this country runs itself.
To all intents and purposes our government have gone rogue and have made clear that they give allegiance to the WHO and not the people of this country.
Once this government signs the Pandemic Preparedness Treaty and the International Health Regulations then their treason is confirmed and our adherence to law and order is no longer required save where it serves our ends. We have no responsibility requiring allegiance in any form to what will be an illegal government.
We are approaching the darkest days in the history of this country. How these politicians sleep at night is beyond comprehension.
The Rule of Law. A complete bloody fiction as I have repeatedly stated.
And if a majority of this country are in favour of adhering to WHO regulations, then when the next “pandemic” comes I have to do what the WHO says – lockdown, wear a mask, take a jab, have my travel rights revoked – because a majority of my fellow citizens want it to be so?
I’m not sure I like that kind of democracy much either.
Surely there are certain things that even a majority cannot impose on me?
We could argue “uman rights” but given that the rule of law has been binned it won’t make the slightest difference.
I don’t get the argument that claiming fundamental rights and enshrining them in law is pointless because they won’t be respected and the law will be broken.
That’s true of every single law.
We create laws not because they will be perfectly obeyed but because we believe they are right, should be obeyed and the law gives us the.mechanism to strive for the goal, however imperfectly.
I do agree with your point of view but my point of view is that government / officialdom breaking the law is now part of daily life.
The rule of law is nigh on worthless.
“I cannot be responsible for your health, only mine, or that would not be freedom”……Maajid Nawas before they kicked him off LBC Radio. Dan Wotton has just done an article on LBC and its lurch to the Left.
If there were to be a vote, a majority MPs would vote for it, not against it. Just like they voted for lockdowns etc, and for Nut Zero, and for a time did their best to stop Brexit happening.
There was no vote on Net Zero. It was imposed. It was waved through with no debate. This is the technocratic world we face in the future where bureaucrats just impose their will on us. If we thought communism was dead we need to think again. All that has happened is they don’t use the word “communism” anymore since it gets a bad press. So instead they use words like “sustainability” “climate emergency” “climate justice” etc etc. But you know you are living in a scientific dictatorship when sceptical voices are banned, platforms are closed, invitations cancelled and there is online censorship. Even I am now hearing some wanting climate sceptics to be jailed. Yet I thought all of that only happened in the old Soviet Union or North Korea. —–Nope it is happening here in the western world. today.
I’m sure MPs could have forced a vote had they wanted to
Climate Change Act 2008 was voted for by almost all of them
Where will they hide when the sh@t hits the fan, and it will!
Yes but they have the get out clause that they were only “following the science”. ——-But it was the “science” they bought and paid for while the science that didn’t fit in with the political agenda was ditched.
Maajid Nawas has a good take on Brexit….That Dominic Cummins was put there to damage the influence of Nigel Farage. Now he wants a new Conservative party, again, to take down Farage it seems.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/how-we-let-the-state-gain-absolute-control/
A bleak assessment by Paul Collits at TCW. The article perfectly complements the above.
“What is striking is the extent to which the state has itself enabled its own extension, utterly beyond the reach of we-the-people. Mostly, without our knowledge, over time, bit by bit. A state run by outsourced policy-makers in the woke NGOs, the unelected bureaucrats, the ‘experts’, the technocrats, the global corporate class, the oligarchs, the managerial class. We lost the reins a long, long time ago.
God knows how we get them back. After all, most of us don’t even know it has happened.”
https://off-guardian.org/2024/05/16/menace-on-the-menu-the-financialisation-of-farmland-and-the-war-on-food-and-farming/
Colin Todhunter at Off-G with another in-depth look at how farming is suffering across the world via a combination of greed, greed, more greed and nut zero.
Starving populations are inevitable unless we can wrest control from our treasonous governments.
If The Falklands vote to join Argentina perhaps the rest of the UK could follow suit?
Milei and his chainsaw would soon sort out all these bureaucrats.
UK R&D and financial services, Argentinian natural resources and beef!
What a combination!
What a football team!
Well, in all fairness, how can parliament vote on something which doesn’t exist yet? First, the WHO needs to come up with a final text. Then, the WHO members need to vote on that. And then comes implementation (or not) at the national level. That’s where parliament becomes involved (if at all).
Parliament, it seems, will not be given a meaningful vote”
Looks like most of Parliament are not interested!
Actually Ron are any of the 600 interested bar the few lone wolves?
Yep, why give the phoney illusion of democracy when they will be told how to vote anyway. They are NOT our representatives….