UK Faces Countdown to Reject WHO’s Expanding Pandemic Powers

[Social Media]

 

UK Faces Countdown to Reject WHO’s Expanding Pandemic Powers

 

Britain is facing a crucial decision over whether to accept or reject sweeping new amendments to the World Health Organisation’s international health regulations (IHRs), with a fast-approaching deadline of July 19 prompting a chorus of concern from lawmakers across the political spectrum. The proposed changes, developed in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, are intended to enhance the WHO’s capacity to coordinate global responses to future health crises. But critics argue they pose a fundamental threat to national sovereignty.

 

 

A group of 14 prominent MPs and peers has written to the Foreign Office, calling on the Government to exercise the UK's right to opt out of the changes before the deadline. Among the signatories are Conservative MPs Danny Kruger, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Esther McVey, and Jack Rankin, Labour’s Graham Stringer, the DUP’s Sammy Wilson, former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe, and Tory peer Lord Frost, who served as chief Brexit negotiator. The letter warns it would be “premature and pre-emptive” for Britain to accept new international health protocols before the findings of the ongoing Covid Inquiry are fully known.

 

 

The proposed amendments to the IHRs would compel member states to “support WHO-coordinated response activities,” a phrase that opponents interpret as potentially requiring nations to comply with WHO-recommended lockdowns and other emergency measures. A government spokesperson acknowledged to The Telegraph that “no decision” had yet been made on which amendments would serve the UK’s national interest.

 

Former home secretary Suella Braverman issued one of the strongest rebukes of the proposed changes, describing them as “the most serious threat to national sovereignty in a generation.” In an opinion piece for The Telegraph, she warned that the public would see the move as a direct affront to democracy. “What the British public sees – what they intuit – is not just bureaucratic overreach but a creeping usurpation of their democratic rights,” she wrote. “They voted to leave the European Union precisely because they were tired of decisions being made by people they could not name and could not remove. The WHO, as it currently stands, is another iteration of the same problem.”

 

A spokesman for the WHO responded to the criticisms by stating unequivocally, “The WHO does not have the right or ability to take any decision concerning health within a sovereign state.” He explained that the organisation’s recommendations are based on expert advice and information provided by countries, and are aimed at preventing the spread of disease without interfering with international travel or trade. “Such authority will and always remain with the countries themselves,” he added.

 

Despite those assurances, concerns persist among UK lawmakers who fear the WHO’s influence may extend far beyond advisory functions. Some suggest the amendment process itself may be flawed, raising “serious doubts” about its legality and even suggesting it could “amount to a breach of international law.”

 

Suella Braverman elaborated further on the source of her alarm, writing that while the WHO was once a noble post-war institution tasked with advancing global health, it has devolved into a “ghost ship – rudderless, bloated and dangerously compromised.” She accused the WHO of being “captured – politically, ideologically, and financially,” blaming undue influence from the Chinese Communist Party and powerful pharmaceutical interests.

 

“The rot, though long in the making, was laid bare for all to see during the Covid pandemic,” she wrote, pointing to the WHO’s early repetition of China’s claims that there was “no evidence of human-to-human transmission” and its delayed investigation into the origins of the virus. She cited Dr. Peter Ben Embarek, who led the WHO’s Covid origins probe and later revealed Chinese officials pressured his team to avoid the lab leak theory. “This is not science – it is theatre,” she wrote.

 

The United States has already withdrawn from the IHR process, having exited the WHO during the early days of Donald Trump’s second administration. Whether the UK will follow suit or entrench itself deeper in the WHO’s evolving framework remains to be seen — but the clock is ticking.

 

Adpated by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph  2025-04-23

 

 

[Purdey]

Before Brexit, people were told the EU was after the country's national sovereignty. Small things like crowns on beer glasses raised the ire of Brits who were told the EU controlled what you could put on glasses.

After Brexit, it was suddenly revealed that the crowns were allowed all along. The Tories really messed with people's minds. Now here comes Suella to frighten people again.

[Photoguy21]

It is not a good idea to let WHO make the decisions for a sovereign nation. The UK should be the only one to make such decisions as lockdown etc not some unelected body like WHO.

[newbee2022]

6 hours ago, Social Media said:

 

UK Faces Countdown to Reject WHO’s Expanding Pandemic Powers

 

Britain is facing a crucial decision over whether to accept or reject sweeping new amendments to the World Health Organisation’s international health regulations (IHRs), with a fast-approaching deadline of July 19 prompting a chorus of concern from lawmakers across the political spectrum. The proposed changes, developed in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, are intended to enhance the WHO’s capacity to coordinate global responses to future health crises. But critics argue they pose a fundamental threat to national sovereignty.

 

 

A group of 14 prominent MPs and peers has written to the Foreign Office, calling on the Government to exercise the UK's right to opt out of the changes before the deadline. Among the signatories are Conservative MPs Danny Kruger, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Esther McVey, and Jack Rankin, Labour’s Graham Stringer, the DUP’s Sammy Wilson, former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe, and Tory peer Lord Frost, who served as chief Brexit negotiator. The letter warns it would be “premature and pre-emptive” for Britain to accept new international health protocols before the findings of the ongoing Covid Inquiry are fully known.

 

 

The proposed amendments to the IHRs would compel member states to “support WHO-coordinated response activities,” a phrase that opponents interpret as potentially requiring nations to comply with WHO-recommended lockdowns and other emergency measures. A government spokesperson acknowledged to The Telegraph that “no decision” had yet been made on which amendments would serve the UK’s national interest.

 

Former home secretary Suella Braverman issued one of the strongest rebukes of the proposed changes, describing them as “the most serious threat to national sovereignty in a generation.” In an opinion piece for The Telegraph, she warned that the public would see the move as a direct affront to democracy. “What the British public sees – what they intuit – is not just bureaucratic overreach but a creeping usurpation of their democratic rights,” she wrote. “They voted to leave the European Union precisely because they were tired of decisions being made by people they could not name and could not remove. The WHO, as it currently stands, is another iteration of the same problem.”

 

A spokesman for the WHO responded to the criticisms by stating unequivocally, “The WHO does not have the right or ability to take any decision concerning health within a sovereign state.” He explained that the organisation’s recommendations are based on expert advice and information provided by countries, and are aimed at preventing the spread of disease without interfering with international travel or trade. “Such authority will and always remain with the countries themselves,” he added.

 

Despite those assurances, concerns persist among UK lawmakers who fear the WHO’s influence may extend far beyond advisory functions. Some suggest the amendment process itself may be flawed, raising “serious doubts” about its legality and even suggesting it could “amount to a breach of international law.”

 

Suella Braverman elaborated further on the source of her alarm, writing that while the WHO was once a noble post-war institution tasked with advancing global health, it has devolved into a “ghost ship – rudderless, bloated and dangerously compromised.” She accused the WHO of being “captured – politically, ideologically, and financially,” blaming undue influence from the Chinese Communist Party and powerful pharmaceutical interests.

 

“The rot, though long in the making, was laid bare for all to see during the Covid pandemic,” she wrote, pointing to the WHO’s early repetition of China’s claims that there was “no evidence of human-to-human transmission” and its delayed investigation into the origins of the virus. She cited Dr. Peter Ben Embarek, who led the WHO’s Covid origins probe and later revealed Chinese officials pressured his team to avoid the lab leak theory. “This is not science – it is theatre,” she wrote.

 

The United States has already withdrawn from the IHR process, having exited the WHO during the early days of Donald Trump’s second administration. Whether the UK will follow suit or entrench itself deeper in the WHO’s evolving framework remains to be seen — but the clock is ticking.

 

Adpated by ASEAN Now from The Telegraph  2025-04-23

 

 

The Tories again. They will never learn. Just losers.

They do not realize that UKs ties with America are torn. 

Collaborate with the EU if you want to survive. 

Have a look how Ireland is doing. You can learn a lot.

[GroveHillWanderer]

26 minutes ago, Photoguy21 said:

It is not a good idea to let WHO make the decisions for a sovereign nation. The UK should be the only one to make such decisions as lockdown etc not some unelected body like WHO.

 

And that's why the WHO does not make such decisions, as is pointed out very clearly in the article, where the WHO is quoted as follows:

 

Quote

“The WHO does not have the right or ability to take any decision concerning health within a sovereign state.”

 

As for "requiring nations to comply with WHO-recommended lockdowns and other emergency measures," that is also nonsense. 

 

Once again, as they have unequivocally stated, they do not have that power and if you want to take COVID as the example, they didn't do that anyway. In fact, if anything, the WHO advised against lockdowns (though again, with no power of compunction).

 

Here is the WHO spokesman on the topic of lockdowns in October, 2020. 

 

Quote

“The only time we believe a lockdown is justified is to buy you time to reorganize, regroup, rebalance your resources, protect your health workers who are exhausted, but by and large, we’d rather not do it.”

 

WHO Warning About Covid-19 Coronavirus Lockdowns Is Taken Out Of Context

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2020/10/13/who-warning-about-covid-19-coronavirus-lockdowns-is-taken-out-of-context/

[BritManToo]

The WHO is a lefty new world order construct.

Everything they do should be rejected.

Which, of course, lefty Starmer will appease.

[Photoguy21]

11 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

 

And that's why the WHO does not make such decisions, as is pointed out very clearly in the article, where the WHO is quoted as follows:

 

 

As for "requiring nations to comply with WHO-recommended lockdowns and other emergency measures," that is also nonsense. 

 

Once again, as they have unequivocally stated, they do not have that power and if you want to take COVID as the example, they didn't do that anyway. In fact, if anything, the WHO advised against lockdowns (though again, with no power of compunction).

 

Here is the WHO spokesman on the topic of lockdowns in October, 2020. 

 

 

WHO Warning About Covid-19 Coronavirus Lockdowns Is Taken Out Of Context

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2020/10/13/who-warning-about-covid-19-coronavirus-lockdowns-is-taken-out-of-context/

WHO puts pressure on sovereign nations to do as they tell them.

[GroveHillWanderer]

8 minutes ago, Photoguy21 said:

WHO puts pressure on sovereign nations to do as they tell them.

How does it do that? As they have stated (and as is indisputably true) that have no power to do so. 

 

And if they did put pressure on sovereign nations, why did so many implement lockdowns when the WHO said, "we'd rather not do it."?

[candide]

23 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

How does it do that? As they have stated (and as is indisputably true) that have no power to do so. 

 

And if they did put pressure on sovereign nations, why did so many implement lockdowns when the WHO said, "we'd rather not do it."?

Exactly. It's another storm in a tea cup!

The WHO has no coercitive power, and also no intrusive investigation power.

[Watawattana]

Happy for the WHO to make recommendations for my government to consider.  We don't elect the WHO so not keen that they mandate anything.

 

Wonder how much the WHO costs to be a member of, what's the percentage of GDP and whether that percentage is fair across the developed world, and what they value for money is?

 

I guess the coercive power comes from experienced clinicians etc. interpreting scientific facts, and effectively communicating those findings.  Might be a bit dumb not to follow such advice unless there's a clear and excellent reason?  Our ex Boris failed to following anything unless it was in front of his greedy snout.