My question on the WHO Pandemic Treaty negotiations

20 Comments

  1. Lifelogic
    May 16, 2024

    I do not trust the minister or this government one iota not on this matter or on anything really.
    While at school, Andrew Stephenson wanted to become a chef it seems – a great shame he did not stick to this.

    Good discussions by Rees-Mogg on GBNews on Tuesday and Wed (with Farage) Farage is right. Net zero in insane and immigration levels under this government are totally out of control. The Conservatives have allowed 2.7 million to come in 2022 & 23 more than have arrived from 1066 to 2010.

    Unbelievable how the NHS has behaved so appallingly regarding the sensible and sound mathematician Prof. Norman Fenton. See the various posts on X. No wonder the NHS cost so much and deliver so little of value when you read their evil letters.

    Reply
  2. Linda Brown
    May 16, 2024

    I don’t think we should be in negotiation with these people at all. They are an unelected body financed by the billionaires trying to take over governments for their own motives which are not in accordance with the ordinary people who live in this world.

    Reply
    1. Lifelogic
      May 16, 2024

      +1 and they have an appalling record too.

      Reply
  3. Peter
    May 16, 2024

    An evasive answer. Voters would not be ‘suspicious’ of a strong, capable government that delivers on promises. Only weak institutions raise alarm that they will be browbeaten into submission.

    Red lines are meaningless.

    Reply
    1. matthu
      May 16, 2024

      I agree.

      Red lines are there to be moved i.e. they are not the same as unequivocal, publicly legislated guarantees.

      From The Telegraph today:

      When he was campaigning to be leader in August 2022, [Rishi] wrote that on his watch “we will not lose swathes of our best farmland to solar farms. Instead, we should be making sure that solar panels are installed on commercial buildings, on sheds and on properties.”

      Shortly after that, the government’s conceptual idea of “best farmland” was raised from being above Grade 4 to being above Grade 3b.

      Subterfuge, mirrors, red lines and lies!

      Reply
  4. Philip P.
    May 16, 2024

    Saying that the WHO treaty will not be allowed to override our sovereignty and law is all very well. but Lord Frost has pointed out the problem: “As we discovered with the Rwanda plan, the doctrine of many government lawyers seems to be that international commitments are in practice just as legally binding as our own laws.” So whatever government ministers like Mr Stephenson may say now, the danger is the likes of SAGE will be able to get the government to do the bidding of the WHO, regardless of what the minister currently calls his “red lines”.

    Reply
    1. matthu
      May 16, 2024

      See how the ECJ presumes it can dictate individual countries’ trajectory to net zero…

      Reply
  5. agricola
    May 16, 2024

    Accept the ministers assurance and demand to see the final draft. A cooperation agreement is what is required not a treaty. The next pandemic will be a new war, not a repeat of Covid, but with the experience not to make the same mistakes. There is growing international disquiet at any form of treaty with the WHO in absolute mandatory control. Await developements.

    Reply
  6. Bloke
    May 16, 2024

    If the Minister published the amendments he seeks, he might then be as clear as he claims to be. Until then the text he finds disagreeable remains unknown and his motives remain under suspicion.

    Reply
  7. Rod Evans
    May 16, 2024

    Sir John, there is no series of words or phrases that would make any accord acceptable which gives authority to the WHO. The UK must retain the sovereign right to respond in what ever way it deems beneficial to the UK to respond to a disease break out that is declared a pandemic.
    The ongoing demand from unelected, undemocratic pan world organisations for power and authority to instruct sovereign nations, must be stopped.

    Reply
  8. Iain Moore
    May 16, 2024

    We have all seen on other stuff, like refugees, what we thought were guidelines made out by the courts as a legal obligation. I just find it beggars belief that with this experience of mission creep our government is even bothering to negotiate anything here, instead told them to stick it, especially even contemplating giving the WHO any addition powers after it was so corrupt over Covid.

    Reply
  9. Ian B
    May 16, 2024

    WHO as with the UN are getting ahead of themselves. Intended just as talking shops for cooperation and exchanges of ideas, no they like all bureaucratic monsters are looking to extend their empire and rule the World. They have no legitimacy, are not accountable or responsible for any of the opinions mainly personal they have.
    It is time for them to be disbanded.

    Reply
  10. glen cullen
    May 16, 2024

    I’ve no doubt that Sunak would sign the WHO treaty behind everyones back ….like Theresa May and the UN Global Compact for Migration

    Reply
    1. Lifelogic
      May 16, 2024

      +1

      Reply
  11. William Long
    May 16, 2024

    The clear inference to be drawn from the refusal to publish the Amendments that the Government says it is seeking, is that it fears they will not be acceptable to Parliament.

    Reply
  12. formula57
    May 16, 2024

    Good for Minister Stephenson being “as clear as I could be on the UK’s red lines in these negotiations”. Why then is he as opaque as is possible about the actual amendments being sought? Why are those secret?

    Further, he deviates materially from normal practise though the total absence of opening remarks assuring you that you make a good point with which he agrees. The Minister has increased suspicion rather than otherwise.

    Reply
  13. Bryan Harris
    May 16, 2024

    Well said.

    You are right – HMG should publish the exact details of what they want from a WHO treaty.

    Reply
  14. Keith Murray-Jenkins
    May 16, 2024

    It’s obvious to most of us who take an interest in these things (ie those huge international organisations which are generally the domain of bureaucratic types and the general incompetence that comes with this fact) that the WHO is ‘shady’. It’s shady. Most of us simply don’t trust its CEO from the outset (I’m not just talking about how shifty he comes across; get to really know his background and you’ll understand). Nobody quite understands..will we ever?..what brought on the Covid fiasco in the first place. Whether it was a deliberate act of shenanigans (by certain people we need not go into here) or not. This being the case and the fact that most people are very very unhappy with the WHO’s measures to deal with Covid are enough reason to stop this appointed incompetent from attaining the power of position he obviously craves. That the WHO is greatly influenced by China (read the CCC)..which pays most in..is only another reason to get our stupid government people to knock this one on the head. What is wrong with their heads? (Dullards they are. Frightening, dangerous and much else.)

    Reply
  15. Kathy
    May 16, 2024

    Why are we talking about a ‘different ‘ treaty, let alone amendments, when we shouldn’t be considering ever signing any sort of treaty with these unelected people?

    Reply
    1. Hat man
      May 16, 2024

      Quite right, Kathy. A treaty is binding on its signatories, otherwise it’s meaningless. We do not need to be bound by anything from the WHO, which should be just an advisory body of specialists who may or may not have some useful ideas. As I understand it, the WHO is a private association created by the UN, which as always wants to impose global norms whether or not they would be supported by people living in any particular country.

      It would be a real loss if the UN were able to do that with public health. If Sweden hadn’t been able to follow its own approach to handling the Covid outbreak, we wouldn’t now be able to see by comparison how unncessary the Covid policies followed here were.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.