On Monday, the UK House of Commons debated the World Health
Organisation’s (“WHO’s”) proposed amendments to the International Health
Regulations (“IHR”).
The debate was held in response to a petition to the UK Parliament
which gained more than the required number of signatures. In yet
another brilliant speech, Andrew Bridgen MP left no stone unturned. A
few other Members of Parliament (“MPs) didn’t hold back either.
The first to speak was Philip Davies,
MP for Shipley. He summed up the problem both with the WHO’s two
proposed instruments – the IHR amendments and the Pandemic Treaty or
Accord – and the UK Parliament’s mindset regarding concerns raised about
them.
“In preparing for today’s debate, I looked back at the contributions made in April
when another petition on this topic was debated here in Westminster
Hall … I have to say that I was disappointed by some of the rhetoric,
when valid concerns were dismissed as an ‘overreaction and hysteria’. It
is clear that this is – quite rightly, in my opinion – an important
issue for the public. We can see that that is the case from not just the
full Gallery, but the large numbers signing the petitions,” Mr. Davies said.
“We
have two international legal instruments, both designed to increase the
WHO’s authority in managing health emergencies,” he said. “What is
being proposed could have a huge and detrimental impact on all parts of
society and on our sovereignty … We are talking about a top-down
approach to global public health hardwired into international law.”
“Let
us not forget that the director-general is appointed by an opaque,
non-democratic process – and I think that is being rather generous,” he
added.
Andrew Bridgen,
MP for North West Leicestershire, took the floor next. “I [ ] thank the
116,000 members of the public who signed this public petition so that
we can have this important debate today,” he began.
“It
is impossible to consider either the pandemic treaty or the amendments
to the international health regulations in isolation; they are two
linked instruments of the WHO, and they need to be considered in
parallel.”
Why does the WHO make false claims regarding
proposals to seize states’ sovereignty? Mr. Bridgen asked the House
noting that Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus’ statements that “no country will
cede any sovereignty to WHO” are unequivocally, and also wholly
inconsistent with the text he is referring to.
Mr. Bridgen
reminded the House that Tedros, as with all WHO officials, is unelected,
unaccountable, non-taxpaying and immune from prosecution due to
diplomatic immunity....<<<Read More>>>....