UK News

Who do you Think You Are? MPs fear “unelected” UN officials could dictate Britain’s lockdown policy in future pandemics under the controversial new treaty

World Health Organization (WHO) chiefs could be given power over Britain’s future pandemic policy, MPs fear.

The UN agency is considering dozens of changes to its legally binding rulebook as part of plans for a new global pandemic treaty.

Critics fear that in future health crises, member states could be forced to comply with recommendations such as enforcing lockdowns or vaccination passports.

Now, in a letter to Alicia Kearns, chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, a group of Conservative MPs have warned that the UK risks “ceding” its powers to “unelected” WHO chiefs and complained about the planned changes .

The MPs, members of the all-party parliamentary group on the pandemic response and recovery, have argued that the treaty risks “undermining the sovereignty of the UK”.

Now, in a letter to Alicia Kearns, chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, a group of Conservative MPs have warned that the UK risks

Now, in a letter to Alicia Kearns, chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, a group of Conservative MPs have warned that the UK risks “ceding” its powers to “unelected” WHO chiefs and complained about the planned changes . The letter was signed by former Brexit minister and chief negotiator Lord Frost (pictured), The Telegraph reported

WHO Director Dr.  Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has repeatedly warned nations that “everyone has to give something, otherwise no one will get anything.” He said of the last round of negotiations: “We all know that there are still critical areas where consensus cannot yet be reached.” “You have agreed on what you want to achieve… Now you need to agree on how you will achieve those goals.”

WHO Director Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has repeatedly warned nations that “everyone has to give something, otherwise no one will get anything.” He said of the last round of negotiations: “We all know that there are still critical areas where consensus cannot yet be reached.” “You have agreed on what you want to achieve… Now you need to agree on how you will achieve those goals.”

They said it would “allow unaccountable individuals and supranational bodies tacit jurisdiction over national public health measures.”

Instead, there must be a higher level of “parliamentary control and oversight” over the agreement.

The letter was signed by former Brexit minister and chief negotiator Lord Frost. The Telegraph reported.

Other signatories included MPs Philip Davies, Philip Hollobone and Sir Christopher Chope.

According to a draft treaty, countries would “follow WHO recommendations in their international public health measures.”

The aim is to prepare for the next global health emergency and prevent a repeat of what South Africa called “vaccine apartheid” – where countries have had wildly unequal access to Covid vaccines and drugs.

WHO chiefs say this will make the world safer from health threats amid fears another crisis is imminent.

However, Lord Frost told The Telegraph that he was concerned that the government was “not really being open about what it was doing” in contract negotiations.

“The other concern is the practical impact this treaty could have on our domestic laws,” he said. A UN convention itself has no direct legal force in the UK.

“But as we found with the Rwanda plan, the doctrine of many government lawyers appears to be that international obligations are, in practice, just as legally binding as our own laws.”

“So it’s really, really important to get the details of this contract right.”

“Ministers will maintain that these new treaties do not represent a loss of sovereignty.”

“But in practice, if there is another crisis, there will be great pressure to act within the framework of the WHO, and the government’s lawyers will tell us that we must do that.”

In response to the fears, the government insisted it would “never agree to anything that does not respect our national sovereignty”.

A spokesman for the Department of Health and Social Care said: “Ministers have made clear that we will not sign an agreement that does not respect our national sovereignty and that we will not agree to any measure that would cede sovereignty to the WHO.” Domestic National public health decisions, including vaccination programs and lockdowns.

The government had also previously said that the treaty contains “no provisions” that would give the WHO the authority to impose lockdowns, mandatory quarantines or vaccinations.

The WHO’s International Health Regulations (IHR) Group is expected to agree on a package of amendments to be presented to the World Health Assembly (WHA) at the 77th World Health Assembly in May.

The ninth and final round of negotiations between the countries began on March 18. It runs until March 28th.

According to a draft treaty, countries would “follow WHO recommendations in their international public health measures.”  The aim is to prepare for the next global health emergency and prevent a repeat of what South Africa called “vaccine apartheid” – where countries have had wildly unequal access to Covid vaccines and drugs.  Pictured: Sir Christopher Chope, one of the signatories of the letter to Alicia Kearns

According to a draft treaty, countries would “follow WHO recommendations in their international public health measures.” The aim is to prepare for the next global health emergency and prevent a repeat of what South Africa called “vaccine apartheid” – where countries have had wildly unequal access to Covid vaccines and drugs. Pictured: Sir Christopher Chope, one of the signatories of the letter to Alicia Kearns

WHO chiefs say this will make the world safer from health threats amid fears another crisis is imminent.  Pictured: Phillip Hollobone, one of the signatories of the letter to Alicia Kearns

WHO chiefs say this will make the world safer from health threats amid fears another crisis is imminent. Pictured: Phillip Hollobone, one of the signatories of the letter to Alicia Kearns

In response to the fears, the government insisted it would “never agree to anything that does not respect our national sovereignty”.  Pictured is Philip Davies, one of the signatories of the letter to Alicia Kearns

In response to the fears, the government insisted it would “never agree to anything that does not respect our national sovereignty”. Pictured is Philip Davies, one of the signatories of the letter to Alicia Kearns

The updated IHR would then come into force for all member states within a year, unless a country files a rejection.

WHO Director Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has repeatedly warned nations that “everyone must give something, otherwise no one will get anything.”

He said of the last round of negotiations: “We all know that there are still critical areas where consensus cannot yet be reached.”

“You agree on what you want to achieve… Now you need to agree on how to achieve those goals.”

“What you are doing is critically important to humanity. We cannot allow the vicious cycle of panic and neglect to repeat itself.”

Earlier this month, a coalition of African scientists accused the WHO of being “colonialist” in its contracting plans.

The Pan-African Epidemic and Pandemic Working Group argued that lockdowns were a “class-based and unscientific tool.”

It said they had caused “significant harm” to low-income countries.

Instead, African nations should be able to prioritize addressing their own major health needs, including diseases such as cholera, yellow fever and malaria, the group said.

Last year, six MPs also wrote to the Foreign Office asking it to block any new powers that could lead to the WHO dictating UK policy and budgets.

Six MPs wrote to the Foreign Office in May last year calling on it to block any new powers that could lead to the WHO dictating UK policy and budgets.  Former cabinet minister Esther McVey (pictured), wife of Philip Davies, warned those in power that the organisation, described by critics as China's puppet, would move from a

Six MPs wrote to the Foreign Office in May last year calling on it to block any new powers that could lead to the WHO dictating UK policy and budgets. Former cabinet minister Esther McVey (pictured), wife of Philip Davies, warned those in power that the organisation, described by critics as China’s puppet, would move from a “member-led advisory body to a health authority with coercive powers”.

The WHO's first investigation in January 2021, in which a group of scientists traveled to Wuhan, concluded that

The WHO’s first investigation in January 2021, in which a group of scientists traveled to Wuhan, concluded that “all hypotheses remain on the table.” In its March 2021 report, it assessed the likelihood of four theories, ranking the natural origin theory as the most likely. However, the lab leak represented an “extremely unlikely pathway” to the frozen food’s origin story. The Chinese government’s theory that the virus was introduced via “cold food chain products” was instead viewed as a “possible pathway” by the UN agency

Former Cabinet minister Esther McVey warned those in power that the organization, described by critics as China’s puppet, would evolve from a “member-run advisory body to a health authority with coercive powers.”

The agency has long been criticized for praising China’s response to Covid, for taking too long to label the outbreak an international emergency and for discouraging countries from imposing travel bans.

In the early days of the outbreak, Dr. Ghebreyesus even went so far as to praise Beijing’s “commitment to transparency,” which he described as “indescribable.”

The WHO investigation into the origins of Covid in January 2021, which saw a group of scientists travel to Wuhan, also concluded that “all hypotheses remain on the table”.

In its March 2021 report It classified the laboratory leak as an “extremely unlikely path” behind the story about the origin of the frozen food.

But the lab leak theory, once dismissed as a mere conspiracy, has gained increasing traction in the years since the virus first caused a global pandemic.

However, no concrete evidence has ever been found to support an origin argument, leaving experts concerned that the truth will never be revealed.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to top button