MP: WHO Pandemic Preparedness Treaty Sounds Like a ‘Threat to Parliamentary Sovereignty’

A sign of the World Health Organisation (WHO) at their headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, on Dec. 7, 2021. (Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images)

During a debate, MPs warned that proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations sounded like a “threat to parliamentary sovereignty” as it would give more power to officials at the WHO.

On Monday, following a petition signed by 116,000 members of the public, MPs debated the UK’s involvement in the World Health Organisation (WHO) pandemic treaty.

The WHO is currently negotiating a treaty on pandemic preparedness.

In 2021, global leaders made “an urgent call” for an international pandemic treaty that was co-signed by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson.

The global organisation said that such a measure would signal “high-level political action needed to protect the world from future health crises.”

The government still maintains that the UK’s position on the exact substance of the treaty “remains to be seen as negotiations continue.”

Related Stories

A Treaty by Any Other Name: The WHO’s Latest Attack on Our Sovereignty — A Stop Vax Passports Task Force Webinar

7/5/2023

ANALYSIS: Senators Concerned Over Overreach From New WHO Pandemic Treaty

6/19/2023

The house may have to vote on amendments on disinformation and vaccine damage schemes by the end of May 2024.

The treaty has been met with major concern by some MPs and campaign groups who warn that it would hand more powers and sovereignty to unelected officials. Though Labour MPs said that global co-operation on pandemics needs to be strengthened.

‘Suspend Fundamental Human and Bioethical Rights’

Opening the debate, the Conservative MP Philip Davies noted that in 2022, parliament stated that it supported “a new legally-binding instrument.”

“That certainly sounds like a threat to parliamentary sovereignty to me. Will the minister commit today to laying those plans before Parliament so they can be properly debated, and if I had my way, robustly rejected?” he said.

Mr. Davies said that there is much in the existing IHR (International Health Regulations) that “would suspend fundamental human and bioethical rights, such as requirements for vaccinations and medical examinations, and implementing quarantine or other health measures for suspect persons—in other words, mandates and lockdowns.”

He said it “is all there in black and white under article 18.”

“We may have become only too mindful of the harms of lockdowns,” he said, and mentioned that latest findings published by the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) which said lockdown policy “poured petrol on the fire that had already been there in the most disadvantaged people’s lives.”

Conservative MP John Redwood said one of his concerns was about “the lack of accountability.”

“We are having an extensive and public examination of the government’s response to covid, but there is no comparable examination of the important decisions and advice that the WHO offered to the whole world, and it probably had more influence,” he said.

He later in the debate said that “it would be a grave error were the government to sign a treaty that gives away important powers over the future conduct of health policy.”

‘Who is Negotiating?’

In response to a question posed by the Conservative MP Danny Kruger regarding who is “actually negotiating on this country’s behalf, and which Minister has ultimate responsibility,” Minister of State for Health of UK Andrew Stephenson said that “negotiations are being led by civil servants across Whitehall.”

“Let me be clear: in all circumstances, the sovereignty of the UK Parliament would remain unchanged and we would remain in control of any future domestic decisions on national public health measures,” added Mr. Stephenson.

Labour MP Preet Kaur Gill said she and her party absolutely supports “the principle of legally binding international health regulations.”

“The lesson of the pandemic was that no one is safe until everyone is safe, so it is clear that global co-operation on pandemics and biological threats needs to be strengthened,” she added.

Will Set Humanity Into a New Era

Reclaim MP Andrew Bridgen said it seems “outrageous, from a human rights perspective, that the amendments” will allow the WHO to dictate to countries to “require individual medical examinations and vaccinations whenever it declares a pandemic.”

Mr. Bridgen has previously used an adjournment debate to attempt to draw links between a recorded rise in excess deaths in the UK and COVID-19 vaccinations. He also spoke at a similar debate earlier on in the year, where he said that he was “really worried whether colleagues have actually read the treaty.”

On Monday, he said that the proposed pandemic agreement “will set humanity into a new era that is strangely organised around pandemics: pre-pandemic, pandemic and inter-pandemic times.”

He also argued that under article 15 of the proposal, “no-fault vaccine injury compensation mechanism(s)” will “consecrate effective immunity for pharmaceutical companies for harm to citizens resulting from use of their products that the WHO recommends under an emergency use authorisation.”

He also warned about article 18, in order to “combat false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation, including through effective international collaboration and cooperation.””

“No doubt, if these amendments were in place, I would not be allowed to give this speech and, if I was, it would not be allowed to be reported in the mainstream media or even on social media,” he said.

The Epoch Times contacted the WHO for comment.