Is no one worried about Boris signing over sovereignty to the WHO?

[happydappy2]

Britain will join 194 other countries in giving up sovereignty to the WHO & Bill Gates. Our elected government will no longer determine how the country deals with diseases the WHO determine to be a pandemic. One global health government-no one voted for this.

The WHO are unelected-what if we disagree with their policies? We can't vote them out...there has been so little in the press about this but the implications are huge. The WHO have dubious form for their opinion of women, ie should we be allowed to drink alcohol if we are of child bearing age.

Who is advising the WHO? Have they bought into the SOGI narrative?

Well our independent unfairly elected government really showed the who how it should be done didn't they ?

But @happydappy2 you're getting very worked up over this and you don't even know the facts of the case. The people you listen to and read on twitter have their own agendas and present the "facts" to serve their own purposes. Why don't you read the proper facts before getting angry? This is what the media and SM did during covid. Release misstatements and twist facts so they could scare and manipulate us.

@UnmentionedElephantDildo
Actually I am against the UN. The policies of the UN and what countries sign up to the Hagie Convention have hugely impacted my life in a seriously harmful way.
They are an unaccountable body with no democratic insight and no way of holding them accountable under International Law. Because that is how they designed the system and that is very wrong indeed.

Letita how do you come to the conclusion I'm worked up & angry?

what a strange comment

If you think our government have been elected fairly then think again.

Most British people didn't vote for this shit show of a government. How is that democratic?

Completely agree @BorisJohnsonsHair

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8749/

@happydappy2 I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to offend you. It just read that you were cross over this treaty but I guess that's the problem with reading, you can't hear a person's tone. So sorry.

The WHO are unelected-what if we disagree with their policies?

Then Parliament doesn't ratify. Because these proposals are all about the better working of international pandemic response. Not about imposing domestic regulation (though there might be greater influence over international carriage)

Though I can see why Trump supporters (withdrew from Paris Accord) and passionate Brexiteers might not want to touch this with a bargepole. But when you look at the proposals - which are essentially for better co-ordination and considerably more information sharing - then it makes sense. But the highly insular will never go for this sort of international cooperation.

But when you look at the proposals - which are essentially for better co-ordination and considerably more information sharing - then it makes sense

I agree with this for now, it’s not legally binding. We need international debate and planning (to an extent) after what happened.

But if they ever dare come on strong with all those ‘zero virus forever’ strategies, then we need to be on guard, it’s a literal economic, political and social attack. It goes against everything that is democracy. Digital identity passports!!?? Just an attempt at communist style controlling by fear, tracking etc. (Might get my ex out of dodging his child maintenance though!). But ultimately “who exactly” would gain control over our entire population’s records/info!

Yeah. Depressing.

All of this talk as well about "beaurocrats" aka people with knowledge making decisions with powers invested in them by sovereign states - as experts in their area. Surely this is better than politicians with no specialist knowledge feeling their way in the dark with no expertise or technical or medical knowledge? Especially when we know how susceptible politicians are to pressure and influence from nefarious sources. Whereas professionals in their fields will be far less so.

WHO can't implement laws. 😆😆

This. Some people seem to be literally clueless about how international relations works. How could we ever solve global issues that require global action without global organisations and some co-operation.

The idea that the WHO could "create laws" in any jurisdiction is farcical.

It's like the Brexit hyperbole all over again: that we lose "sovereignty" by having international treaties and voluntary cooperation in polices that we helped to write.

People are totally insane

It would only have power invested in it by our legislature though obviously, like all other expert bodies that handle all manner of complex issues both domestically and internationally. Parliament could withdraw its support for that at any time. How can people get to adulthood and still be incapable of grasping this?

Can you explain how?

Why do you feel it necessary to be so rude? I'm saying that it makes it harder for us to hold our own government to account when their response is enmeshed with agreements made prior to an event beyond the scrutiny of the general public. Yes, the government could withdraw support but it is unlikely to do so when this diffused decision making and accountability acts as a convenient buffer between them and the full thrust of a dissatisfied electorate.

I'm not sat here making decisions about who you are and what other things you probably believe based on your opinion on this particular matter and I'm not searching for ways to decide that you are an idiot based on cynical readings and mis-readings of your posts. You'd think we could have a conversation with different opinions without all that.

To those saying the WHO don’t make laws, they would be the ones declaring we are in a pandemic, therefore under their control…it is very enlightening how offensive and on the attack certain posters on this thread are…

So many people do not want a UK government to be responsible for anything any more.

But no single govt can coordinate a global response. Other govts won't listen to them.
Hey here's a thought, why don't we get a load of medical specialists together and get them to work with countries round the world to build up connections and understanding of geographical regions so that they know how to best deliver services. They could develop contacts in govts and health systems so they fully understand the geographical, political and local problems and traditions. We could get them to coordinate global responses to make sure all countries receive fair and equal treatment. But what should we call this organisation?
How about the World Health Organisation.

Can you explain coherently why you think the uk is “giving up sovereignty” to Bill Gates?

It doesn’t make any difference if they say there is a pandemic or not. They still don’t make laws. They are an international ngo. How our government at the time responds to anything they say is up to them.

That is not what I am reading in many other places.

Isnt it just? Quite frankly, I dont trust them.

Anyone else bored of the strange threads that keep getting posted in the feminist section? 🙄 It's pretty tedious.

If you think it's a strange thread, you don't need to engage with it. the WHO might well not have womens best interests at the front of their policies, so it is a feminist issue. Action Aid and Stonewall have lost their grip on biological reality-many organisations that start off 'good' turn very bad. The WHO seem to be in Chinas pocket-there is no escaping that fact.