Out of the Brexit Frying Pan Into the WHO Fire

1753590335030-picsay-01-picsay_optimized_450

Is Geneva the New Brussels?

HART

There are plenty of HART members and supporters who did not support Brexit. Reasonable people disagreed about whether leaving the EU was the right decision for Britain.

But whether you voted Leave or Remain, the parallels between the arguments to leave the EU and for leaving the WHO are uncanny.

The World Health Organization (WHO) insists its new Pandemic Agreement and International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments are harmless, just “non-binding technical guidance.” That was exactly what Brussels told us for decades: “Don’t worry, it’s only trade, it’s only guidance.” The initial plans have been watered down. For example, they backtracked on the removal of an obligation to uphold ‘full respect for the dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms’ to be replaced by principles of ‘equity, inclusivity and coherence’ – whatever that means.

We learned the hard way that what starts as guidance quickly becomes obligation. What matters is not where we are today. It is the intent and the direction of travel.

The Direction of Travel – They Wrote It Down

The WHO’s own drafts made its ambitions clear. Early WHO drafts proposed that each country:

“shall allocate no less than 5% of its annual health budget to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”

Five percent.

For Britain, that’s £9.4 billion a year – £785 million every month – £181 million every week.

If ever enforced, this would mean one pound in every twenty meant for your hospital, your nurse, your cancer treatment – gone. Siphoned away from frontline care. And for what? Not for patient care. Not even for prevention. They want to use it for global bureaucracy, virus hunting and animal surveillance programmes. The WHO’s criteria allow declaring a ‘pandemic’ based mainly on the spread of a novel virus and its potential ‘public health impact’ – a term broad enough to include healthcare disruption or travel bans rather than proven severe disease. That means any unusual virus can be described as leading to a ‘pandemic’ if it spreads – and viruses do spread. Once a pandemic has been declared, the WHO can demand 10-20% of a country’s “medicines, vaccines, diagnostics, medical devices, vector control products, personal protective equipment, decontamination products, assistive products, antidotes, cell- and gene-based therapies, and other health technologies” be given to them for free or not-for profit. Worse, Susan Michie, who chaired the UK government’s SPI‑B subgroup which was heavily criticised for making recommendations that fed into the UK’s fear campaign, has been hired by the WHO.

The budget demands faced an international backlash and they watered them down to an “encouragement” rather than obligation – for now. But this is a familiar strategy.
The EU started the same way: voluntary “harmonisation,” then “recommendations,” then outright legal requirements. If we learned anything from Brussels, it’s that global bureaucracies never give up power – they tighten their grip, one rule at a time. As with Brussels, today’s ‘voluntary guidance’ risks becoming tomorrow’s binding rules.
Other shocking aspects of their initial proposals, including replacing the words.

Undemocratic – just like the EU

The WHO is not a democratic organisation. It was not designed to be.
Like the EU Commission, it is run by unelected officials who are not accountable to the public. But its lack of democratic checks is even more blatant:

The WHO Constitution gives its Director-General (DG) authority to take “all necessary steps” in health emergencies, without requiring member-state approval.

The DG alone decides whether to declare a Pandemic.

In July 2022, DG Tedros Adhanom declared monkeypox (“mpox”) a pandemic, overruling his own expert committee, which had voted against such a declaration – “Nine and six are very, very close. Since the role of the committee is to advise, I then had to act as a tiebreaker”. One man’s decision, against expert advice, dictated global policy.

If this is how the WHO behaves before its Pandemic Agreement gives it new structures and influence, imagine what comes next.

A Mandate for Everything

The WHO’s One Health agenda is perhaps the greatest power grab in its history. It merges human, animal, and environmental health into a single framework – “an integrated, unifying approach that aims to sustainably balance and optimise the health of people, animals and ecosystems.”

That sounds harmless – who wouldn’t want healthy people, animals, and ecosystems? But this creates unlimited scope for interference. By merging human, animal, and environmental health, the One Health framework could in theory justify future regulations on farms, wildlife, even diets – all framed as health interventions. Because climate change is being framed as a health emergency, the WHO can justify interventions in almost every aspect of daily life.

If the direction of travel continues, nothing will be outside their remit.

CCP influence

Beijing does not provide most of the WHO’s funding. But money isn’t the only way to control an organisation.

In 2006, the CCP’s preferred candidate, Margaret Chan, became the WHO Director-General. In 2017, the CCP lobbied heavily for Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus – its preferred candidate, despite his lack of medical qualifications. Since then WHO officials have avoided even acknowledging Tibet’s existence to appease Beijing and praised China’s “transparency” while doctors were silenced.

British Values vs WHO Values

At its heart, there is a clash of values.

Britain’s health ethics are rooted in our Christian heritage. Informed consent, and bodily autonomy exist because of a value system where every person has inherent worth and dignity.

The WHO’s worldview is different: collectivist, not individualist. People are treated as tools for the “greater good.”

That’s why WHO policies repeatedly clash with British values:

Abortion up to birth is pushed by the WHO as a “universal right” – one that our elected representatives were happy to fall in line with recently.
The WHO sex education recommendations are shocking – from teaching toddlers about masturbation to 6 year olds about sexual intercourse, 9 year olds about pornography etc. This undermines parental rights and local decision-making.

Individual choices end up overridden whenever they conflict with “public health needs.”

These are not British values. These are the values of global ideologues we never voted for.

The WHO was created to help reduce infectious diseases like cholera and polio. It was meant to be a means of shared communication and a way to fund health campaigns in poorer countries. Its poor governance structures and constitution made it the perfect Trojan horse for an supranational take over. Now it has expressed plans for massive overreach – demanding money and data and dictating ethics.

The Travel Trick – We’ve Seen This Before

Remember the Remain campaign in 2016 emphasising one shallow selling point of shorter airport queues?

The WHO are playing the same game. Its IHR amendments are full of talk about “seamless international travel.” “Digital health passes = easy travel,” they’ll say. In the meantime, they are creating a global system of digital health passes, which – though officially decentralised – could function like a global database if WHO ever changed its governance rules.

And too many will once again trade freedom, privacy, and British values for an easier holiday.

We cannot make the same mistake twice.

Carbon Scores Next?

The WHO insists its digital health certificates are “just for travel.” But we’ve heard this before.

Once digital ID systems exist, they rarely stay limited:

Travel logs are already built in.
One Health and climate policies could justify tracking your diet, heating use, or lifestyle as “health risk factors.”

And the WHO is politically influenced by China, the global pioneer of social credit and carbon tracking systems.

Many fear that the WHO’s health passes could evolve into global carbon credit scores – a system where your travel and consumption choices are centrally monitored and restricted “for health.”

Crucially, no WHO official has ever denied this risk or given public reassurance it will not happen. Silence speaks volumes.

Accountability

You didn’t need to support Brexit to believe in self-government. You don’t need to oppose international cooperation to believe Britain should make its own health policies.

If we wouldn’t hand our laws to Brussels for a passport lane, why hand our health to Geneva for a WHO travel pass?

Have we learned nothing from the EU? Are we really going to abandon our history, our liberty, and our values to a supranational organisation that thinks it knows better?

Fortunately, several countries have had the political nouse to say NO!

••••

The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)

••••

Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.

••••

Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.

••••

Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.