Are you willing to rubber stamp the new "improved" international treaty as drafted by the privately owned World Heath Organization and your sovereign government concerning health care and pandemics. It smacks of totalitarianism, dictatorship and the death of democracy. VOTE NO !!!!
"... the WHO can provide guidance, give recommendations and technical advice to member nations. But countries, he said, retain “all of their sovereign right to make their own domestic health policies, ranging from treatment to mass mandates and lockdowns and everything in between.” "
Bunch of hysterical little girls whing about some Boogeyman organization
I wish that were true, but the original text was altered to make the provisions of the two treaties concerning health care and pandemics legally binding. What I particularly I dislike are the mandatory vaccinations and lockdowns. In any case as a matter of principle, why should any sovereign nation make a legally binding treaty that carries the force of law with an unelected private corporation that can act as a dictatorship.
Will the WHO be given the power to impose restrictive measures?
Recent reports have highlighted concerns that the WHO may be given powers to impose certain restrictive measures such as lockdowns, mandatory quarantines, or mandatory vaccines.
The proposed treaty does not currently have any provisions for such measures, nor grant the WHO such powers. When asked during a Parliamentary debate whether the UK Government could give assurances that the UK would not accede sovereignty and power to the WHO the government Minister (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) said:
Yes, absolutely I can. The speculation that somehow the instrument will undermine UK sovereignty and give WHO powers over national public health measures is simply not the case. I absolutely reassure both my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), who raised a similar issue earlier, on behalf of all their constituents: that is not the case. The UK remains in control of any future domestic decisions about public health matters—such as domestic vaccination—that might be needed in any future pandemic that we may have to manage. Protecting those national sovereign rights is a distinct principle in the existing draft text. … that is absolutely not under threat.
It appears that most concerns originate from a single set of proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), suggested by Bangladesh
Check Articles 13 and 15 in particular - Nothing you're so terrified of is actually proposed
Nowhere in this document is their a proposal to give WHO the authority to override the decisions of any member state, nor to give up its national sovereignty.
There are no WHO mandated vaccines, lockdowns or anything else. And you keep writing about "an un-elected private corporation." You seem to be deluded. You have consumed copious amounts of excrement and now regurgitate it. You partit drivel in your quest for fear and rage
The WHO mandates and lockdown Treaty have already been drafted, awaiting signature from countries in the EU and US. See the video by Dr. John Campbell where a Dutch lawyer spills the beans.
That's funny. John Campbell is a notorious quack. Even 'Science-Based Medicine,' a conspiracy-friendly source, wrote in May, " ... while John Campbell, someone who seemed semi-reasonable early on in the pandemic but long ago turned into a total COVID-19 crank ... "
Being skeptical is good, but you're eighty-plus years old. You seem to have some need to embrace lunacy. Enjoy - and remember to remain afraid of the make believe.
"viruses" are woke, libtard, WEF psyops
Are you willing to rubber stamp the new "improved" international treaty as drafted by the privately owned World Heath Organization and your sovereign government concerning health care and pandemics. It smacks of totalitarianism, dictatorship and the death of democracy. VOTE NO !!!!
https://youtu.be/kCoFLhDKlA4
The obsession here with WHO is amusing:
"... the WHO can provide guidance, give recommendations and technical advice to member nations. But countries, he said, retain “all of their sovereign right to make their own domestic health policies, ranging from treatment to mass mandates and lockdowns and everything in between.” "
Bunch of hysterical little girls whing about some Boogeyman organization
I wish that were true, but the original text was altered to make the provisions of the two treaties concerning health care and pandemics legally binding. What I particularly I dislike are the mandatory vaccinations and lockdowns. In any case as a matter of principle, why should any sovereign nation make a legally binding treaty that carries the force of law with an unelected private corporation that can act as a dictatorship.
June 2023 UK Parliament Research Briefing (Page-11, Section 3.6)
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9550/CBP-9550.pdf
Will the WHO be given the power to impose restrictive measures?
Recent reports have highlighted concerns that the WHO may be given powers to impose certain restrictive measures such as lockdowns, mandatory quarantines, or mandatory vaccines.
The proposed treaty does not currently have any provisions for such measures, nor grant the WHO such powers. When asked during a Parliamentary debate whether the UK Government could give assurances that the UK would not accede sovereignty and power to the WHO the government Minister (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) said:
Yes, absolutely I can. The speculation that somehow the instrument will undermine UK sovereignty and give WHO powers over national public health measures is simply not the case. I absolutely reassure both my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), who raised a similar issue earlier, on behalf of all their constituents: that is not the case. The UK remains in control of any future domestic decisions about public health matters—such as domestic vaccination—that might be needed in any future pandemic that we may have to manage. Protecting those national sovereign rights is a distinct principle in the existing draft text. … that is absolutely not under threat.
It appears that most concerns originate from a single set of proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR), suggested by Bangladesh
I'm not sure that this is the most recent version, but;
https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA75/A75_18-en.pdf
Check Articles 13 and 15 in particular - Nothing you're so terrified of is actually proposed
Nowhere in this document is their a proposal to give WHO the authority to override the decisions of any member state, nor to give up its national sovereignty.
That was written in April 2022 and was indeed advisory, but now the text has been altered to make the provisions mandatory. Sneaky.
Here's the most recent draft;
https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/pdf_files/inb4/A_INB4_3-en.pdf
More documents from the last meeting;
https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/e/e_wgihr-2.html
It's sad that you're so easily lied to. You believe what the rage-farmers spew, and propagate it, never reading an original source.
The first of your references is dated 1st February 2023 and makes no reference to a treaty.
It is basically the minutes of a meeting of the WHO and carries no weight in law.
Your second reference is dated 2005
"Working Group on AMENDMENTS TO THE International Health Regulations (2005)"
That's the title
Reading comprehension isn't your thing. That's already been well established.
You need fear. Enjoy. Have a nice life raging against ... whatever ..
There are no WHO mandated vaccines, lockdowns or anything else. And you keep writing about "an un-elected private corporation." You seem to be deluded. You have consumed copious amounts of excrement and now regurgitate it. You partit drivel in your quest for fear and rage
Refer me to the relevant sections or paragraphs.
The WHO mandates and lockdown Treaty have already been drafted, awaiting signature from countries in the EU and US. See the video by Dr. John Campbell where a Dutch lawyer spills the beans.
https://youtu.be/kCoFLhDKlA4
That's funny. John Campbell is a notorious quack. Even 'Science-Based Medicine,' a conspiracy-friendly source, wrote in May, " ... while John Campbell, someone who seemed semi-reasonable early on in the pandemic but long ago turned into a total COVID-19 crank ... "
Being skeptical is good, but you're eighty-plus years old. You seem to have some need to embrace lunacy. Enjoy - and remember to remain afraid of the make believe.