MPs debate Pandemic Treaty: It gives a massive extension of powers to unelected WHO officials but Labour and SNP fully support it

Andrew Bridgen MP gave an informative speech during a Westminster Hall debate on Monday warning of the dangers of handing more powers over to the World Health Organisation by way of the UK signing up to the proposed changes to the International Health Regulations and the Pandemic Treaty.

The debate was a result of a petition requesting that the Government commit to not signing any international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness established by the World Health Organisation unless it is approved through a public referendum.  The petition had received more than 156,000 signatures.  You can read the petition HERE.

Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…

“The WHO is domiciled in Geneva and so has special status. Its employees are exempt from tax and they and their families all have diplomatic immunity. It is indeed a supranational body, unelected and unaccountable,” Mr. Bridgen said during his speech.

“It is funded like many of our regulators in the UK: the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency is 86% funded by industry sources, and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, in its members’ personal declarations, declared more than £1 billion of interests in big pharma, the thing it was set up to regulate. That undermines public confidence. The WHO is no longer anything like majority-funded by its member states—the ones it is seeking to control. It is 86% funded by external sources.

“The second-largest donor after Germany is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and I think Gavi is the fifth, so if we add those together, they are the biggest donors to the WHO. We have to ask: why are they doing this? They are also the biggest investors in pharmaceuticals and the experimental mRNA technology that proved so profitable for those who proposed and produced it during the last pandemic.

“The WHO is promoting the influence of private-public partnerships … Anyone can buy influence at the WHO; it will just cost them money.

“I suggest that right hon. and hon. Members read the treaty. It is a massive extension of powers. At the drop of a hat, one man – Mr Tedros – can call for massive powers for the WHO. Not only will he call for them; when he takes the powers, he will decide when the pandemic or emergency is over and when he will give the powers back to this House, where elected representatives are supposed to be representing the interests of our constituents. All that will be suspended.”

You can watch Mr. Bridgen’s full speech in the video below and read the transcript in the Hansard HERE.  If the video is removed from YouTube, you can watch it on Rumble HERE.

Other MPs Issue Warnings About WHO’s Power Grab

Sir Christopher Chope (Con), MP for Christchurch, also warned of the dangers and questioned who is in control of WHO and would, therefore, be in control of national governments. “If we think that the only way to deal with pandemics is for all countries across the globe to unite, let us remind ourselves that, if we had our time again, many of us would have said that the Swedes got it right … Why would we want to have a treaty that gave no flexibility to individual countries to decide what was best in their particular circumstances in any given situation? … Those of us in this House who have long expressed concerns about undue Chinese influence over our lives, and over the freedom of western civilisation, need to take stock and ask ourselves who is in charge of this World Health Organisation … Mr Ghebreyesus won support from Beijing in order to become the director general of the WHO, and China has quite a large control, through him, of the WHO. Margaret Chan, a former WHO director general, said in 2012 that the WHO budget is driven by donor interests. Let us be quite open about it: the Bill Gates Foundation, big pharma and big tech are supplying a lot of the resource to the WHO. They are not covering that up; they are proud of it – indeed, they make a big thing of the fact that more than half of the WHO’s expenditure is now on vaccine programmes rather than other ways of alleviating malnutrition and health problems across the globe.”

Danny Kruger (Con), MP for Devizes, expressed his concerns: “During covid-19, we had an excess of global collaboration and not enough independence – and certainly not enough parliamentary scrutiny. That is why I am concerned about the treaty and what lies beneath it. The treaty would create, via amendments to international health regulations, the infrastructure and funding to implement changes that are being planned anyway. Those amendments are of greater concern. The proposed new regulations would hardwire into international law and our domestic policy a top-down approach to pandemics and global public health. Yes, we need co-operation and strategic vision, but no, we do not need ever more centralised solutions … I am challenging the proposed regulations and treaty, because they are wholly and fundamentally wrong, and they represent an assault on our freedoms. We should object.”

Sally Anne Hart (Con), MP for Hastings and Rye, relayed the concerns of her constituents, as an MP should: “There is a claim that a legally binding WHO pandemic treaty will give the WHO the authority during a pandemic to trump sovereignty and control UK policies, including on lockdowns, school closures and vaccines. If true, that would be a valid concern for every country. Will the Minister reassure my constituents who signed the petition that the treaty is voluntary, that it does not overrule the UK’s ability to legislate for our own pandemic-related policies, and that no UK sovereignty would be ceded at any time to the WHO?” 

Sadly, Hart ended with the “conspiracy theory” mantra: “What we must be wary of, however, is conspiracy theories distorting the facts and scaring people. Transparency of debate is therefore needed to squash those conspiracy theories, to provide proper scrutiny, and to put people’s minds at rest.”  Proving her heart wasn’t really behind the concerns of her constituents and probably didn’t fully understand their concerns.

Esther McVey, MP for Tatton and co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on pandemic response and recovery, had conducted more research than Hart and so was better informed.  She fully understood the concerns of her constituents: “The World Health Organisation is preparing an international treaty on pandemic prevention and preparedness. The treaty seeks to enhance international co-operation, which sounds good in theory, but critics say that in practice it could transfer power away from sovereign and democratically elected nations, and the rights of the individual into the hands of the WHO, an unelected and largely privately funded bureaucracy.

“Here, for the Minister to address, are just a couple of the issues that my constituents have flagged up. It is those word changes – it is not that countries would have to ‘consider’, but that they will now ‘follow’; it is not that these things are non-binding, but that they are binding. My constituents are not some kind of conspiracy theorists. They come to me saying, ‘You are my Member of Parliament. I want to hear you debate things on the Floor of the House. I want you to be accountable and, if you are not, we will vote you out at the next election. We want to know that we are in control of what is going on’. That is why we are here today. They are concerned about those word changes and what we are doing.”

Sir Christopher and Ms McVey’s speeches are worth reading in full, read HERE and HERE. You can watch the full two hour debate HERE.

MP Uses Divisive Language

Nick Fletcher (Con), Member of Parliament for Don Valley, introduced the debate and after Mr. Bridgen interjected and asked: “When it comes to the matter of sovereignty, surely it lies with the people?”

Fletcher suggested that: “Referendums are divisive; they polarise positions and leave a lasting legacy of division. Whether a referendum is appropriate is for the Government to decide, and if they think it is, they must make all the facts known.” 

He immediately followed his “referendums are divisive” with a divisive comment of his own: “I suggest that petitioners while playing their part in the education process, must do so in a sensible manner. I have no time for conspiracy theories.” 

Who appointed Fletcher the arbiter of the truth? Fletcher needs to learn that challenging the official narrative and challenging government policies are not “conspiracy theories” – it is democracy.  He forgets, it is “conspiracy theorists” who have stopped and exposed nefarious plots in the past.  For example, does he recall the swine flu falsified pandemic of 2009 or does he simply brush that off as a “conspiracy theory” as well?  How about Julian Assange?  Is Julian Assange just another “conspiracy theory”? It is unacceptable that a sitting Member of Parliament should refer to those who challenge Government’s narratives, or an individual MP’s views, in such terms – it reeks of top-down control of what people are permitted to think and talk about. 

MP Takes the Opportunity to Promote Vaccines

“I am a huge supporter of our alliance with the US, but within it there is an appalling subculture of those who live by conspiracy theories. The anti-vaccine campaign is one of those, with a detrimental impact on health. That obviously then fed into covid,” John Spellar (Lab), Member of Parliament for Warley, said.   Here it is again … if you can’t win a debate with good honest science or provable arguments then revert to the “conspiracy theory” mantra – it is a dead give away that these MPs are not serving the nation, they are serving private corporate interests. 

Using terms such as “conspiracy theory,” created as part of a psychological operation to discredit anyone who doubts the “official narrative,” gives their game away.  MPs will know the origins and purpose of the use of this term and are using it deliberately and purposefully.  Warley, you need to vote John Spellar out of office as soon as you are able – his ideology is a danger to society.

Justin Madders (Lab), MP for Ellesmere Port and Neston, made the same mistake and used the term “conspiracy theory” too readily: “While doing research for this debate, I found a broad range of concerns, some of which are entirely reasonable and others that are completely absurd. On the absurd side, a narrative has been created that the World Health Organisation is a body intent on world domination. Borrowing tropes from conspiracy theories, I found one website referring to the WHO as ‘globalists’ that ‘drain our resources, serve our enemies, and continue working to establish a global dictatorship over everyone and everything’. That sentiment is clearly ludicrous, as is the reference to the WHO being owned by Bill Gates or the Chinese Government.”

And then made the mortal error of relying on “fact-checkers” for assurances: “Fact checkers have consistently stated that the WHO would have no capacity to force members to comply with public health measures.” Unsurprisingly, Madders supports the WHO’s treaty: “Creating a global treaty is an entirely reasonable and responsible course of action.”  Reading Madder’s entire speech, he comes across as naïve and far too trusting in a system that has proven to disseminate lies since early 2020.  It’s as if he simply refuses to believe he has been lied to.

SNP And Labour Fully Support a Legally Binding WHO Treaty

Despite all the revelations during the debate two parties categorically laid down their intention to fully support a legally binding WHO treaty.

Anne McLaughlin, MP for Glasgow North, said: “The SNP fully supports this WHO agreement … Scotland stands ready to play our part in international efforts to collaborate and co-operate – not compete – on pandemic preparedness, awareness responses and collective prevention, so we do not support the petition.”

Do you agree with McLaughlin Scotland? Or is she only speaking for the SNP and arrogantly thinks that the SNP is Scotland?  If the SNP is not representing your voice, you need to vote them out.

Preet Kaur Gill (Lab/Co-op), MP for Birmingham, began with a good dose of covid fear-mongering, which in retrospect looks rather pathetic.  Then he went on to say: “While it might feel like the pandemic is over now, the threat is not. That is what today’s debate is about.”  No Preet, that is not what the debate was about.  Did you read the petition? HERE it is, Preet, so you can better prepare for the next debate.  

“Pandemic preparedness must therefore be taken seriously as a matter of national security. Future threats could be far deadlier than covid-19,” Preet continued. The tactic seems to be, if you don’t have an argument that will convince people, why not frighten them into it.  “The lesson of the pandemic was that no one is safe until everyone is safe, and that global health is local health, so global co-operation on pandemic preparedness and biological threats clearly needs to be strengthened. That is why the Opposition absolutely support the principle of a legally binding WHO treaty that sets the standard for all countries to contribute to global health security.”

Labour, in this one speech, has revealed exactly where their loyalties lie and it is not with the voting public of the UK.  The Labour Party has no place in a liberal democracy.  Don’t vote for autocratic politicians that have shown intent to give away your rights and freedoms. Instead, vote for an independent.

Follow Daily Expose on Telegram