UK in Race to Opt Out of WHO Lockdown Powers

Britain has just weeks to escape new powers allowing the World Health Organisation to recommend imposing lockdowns in future pandemics, a group of MPs and peers has warned. The Telegraph has more.

The UK must opt out of the WHO’s new international health regulations (IHRs) by July 19th to avoid the body co-ordinating the response to any future Covid-style pandemic.

In a letter to the Foreign Office, 14 leading Parliamentarians urge the Government to exercise Britain’s right to ignore amendments to the regulations before the looming deadline.

The IHRs were drawn up by member states of the WHO in the aftermath of the Covid pandemic, and increase the organisation’s powers to co-ordinate future global responses to pandemics.

But critics have warned they give too much power to the WHO and risk undermining individual countries’ right to manage their own affairs.

The regulations say WHO member states must “support WHO-coordinated response activities”, which critics argue could amount to an obligation to support the body’s recommendation to lock down in a future pandemic.

A Government spokesman told the Telegraph “no decision” had yet been made on which of the amendments were in the “national interest”.

Writing for the Telegraph, Suella Braverman, a former home secretary, warned that the regulations “present the most serious threat to national sovereignty in a generation”.

She wrote: “What the British public sees – what they intuit – is not just bureaucratic overreach but a creeping usurpation of their democratic rights. 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 WHO spokesman said the body “does not have the right or ability to take any decision concerning health within a sovereign state,” adding: “Such authority will and always remain with the countries themselves.

“These recommendations are always based on advice provided by an emergency committee of international experts, and information provided by countries. The goal is to prevent or reduce the international spread of disease and avoid unnecessary interference with international trade and travel.”

Ms Braverman is joined in the letter by the Conservative MPs Danny Kruger, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Esther McVey and Jack Rankin. Labour’s Graham Stringer, the DUP’s Sammy Wilson, and the former Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe have also signed it alongside Lord Frost, the Tory peer and former chief Brexit negotiator.

They warn that it would be “premature and pre-emptive” for the UK to agree to new pandemic-related regulations before the conclusion of the Covid Inquiry, which is ongoing.

They also argue that “serious doubts” have been raised about the legality of the WHO’s process for updating the IHRs, and warn that the package could “amount to a breach of international law”.

The WHO said it had fulfilled all legal requirements in the ratification process for the IHRs, including consulting the UK Government.

The US has already opted out of the IHRs by withdrawing completely from the WHO in the first days of the second Donald Trump administration.

“The executive order withdrawing the USA cited serious concerns, including in relation to the poor performance of the WHO and its leadership during the pandemic, its failure to adopt urgently needed reforms, and its inability to demonstrate independence from inappropriate political influence,” the Parliamentarians’ letter said.

While earlier proposed amendments to the IHRs suggested that the WHO could have the power to impose public health measures on member states, the latest version only gives it the ability to recommend an approach.

Worth reading in full.

Dr Meryl Nass says she is “relieved” that “all the controversial ideas have been kicked down the road” and there is “nothing binding” that will be a problem:

• This version of the treaty does not commit any nation to doing anything it does not want to do.
• Nor does it promise nations anything of value: no privileges or benefits.
• You might be lucky and get some free or cheap vaccine or drugs if manufacturers agree in future to give them away.
• All the controversial areas have been kicked down the road.
• There is nothing binding in this document that is a problem for nations.

If this was the level of agreement at 3.5 years, we can assume they won’t get much further over the next few years. The US and Argentina will be out. I imagine all the nations will approve this document, since it is virtually meaningless, only providing a skeleton — which the globalists hope can be dressed up later with the awful provisions. But since the globalists just had their biggest funding stream turned off (USAID) they made no obvious attempt to use bribery to gain agreement on more restrictive provisions. And even this meagre document required an extra negotiating day and meetings to the wee hours.

Never say never, but I am very relieved.

It is good news that the pandemic treaty has been largely neutered. But the idea that the WHO should be empowered to recommend lockdowns still seems very unwise to me. Would our politicians and officials really have the testicular fortitude to rely on their own cool assessments of the evidence rather than just go along with what the WHO is telling them to do, and which would inevitably have the jumpy public behind it as well? The UK would be sensible to listen to this letter, then, and opt out of the ‘advisory’ WHO powers as well.

---

This article (UK in Race to Opt Out of WHO Lockdown Powers) was created and published by Daily Sceptic and is republished here under “Fair Use” with attribution to the author Will Jones

WHO’s Pandemic Treaty is not binding but to stop it happening in the UK, a section of the Public Health Act must be repealed

RHODA WILSON

Last week, the World Health Assembly reached an agreement on a draft Pandemic Agreement.  It will be put forward for adoption next month.  However,  the London Chapter of the Weston A. Price Foundation says that international agreements are not binding on the UK. 

The problem for British citizens is that a section included in the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act [1984] empowers the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, currently Wes Streeting, to adopt or give effect to “any international agreement or arrangement relating to the spread of infection or contamination.”

To stop WHO’s nefarious pandemic agenda being implemented in the UK, this section, section 45 of the Public Health Act, needs to be repealed.

The World Health Assembly (“WHA”) reached a significant milestone on 16 April 2025 by finalising a draft global agreement aimed at controlling how countries prepare for and respond to pandemics. This agreement, known as the Pandemic Agreement, will be submitted to the 78th World Health Assembly in May 2025 for adoption.

Note:  The Pandemic Agreement has been called various names over the years.  It has also been referred to as the Pandemic Treaty, Pandemic Accord and WHO Convention Agreement + (“WHO CA+”). 

As Dr. Meryl Nass noted, most of the paragraphs of the Pandemic Agreement that began with “shall,” implying that nations “must obey,” have been removed from the draft.  “So, although the delegates hammer the fact that this is a ‘legally binding’ treaty, it really is not.”

Although the draft provides that national sovereignty is guaranteed, it comes with a proviso: it is subject to “obligations under international law.”  The draft Agreement states:

9. … respecting States’ rights to implement health measures in accordance with their relevant national law and obligations under international law, and recalling World Health Assembly Decision SSA2(5).

Intergovernmental Negotiating Body to draft and negotiate a WHO convention, agreement or other international instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response, Proposal for the WHO Pandemic Agreement, World Health Organisation, 16 April 2025, pg. 4

Dr. Nass also pointed out, “The language now includes climate change, which could be a justification for declaring a [climate] emergency … And while this draft restricts pandemics and “public health emergencies of international concern” to infectious diseases, it also defines a public health risk that could include climate change, gun violence, etc … [And the document] still says nations will promote the One Health approach.”

WHO’s nefarious One Health initiative integrates human, animal and environmental health across the organisation. The initiative includes collaboration with the United Nations (“UN”) Food and Agriculture Organisation (“FAO”), the UN Environment Programme (“UNEP”) and the World Organisation for Animal Health (“WOAH”) as part of a One Health Quadripartite.  The initiative is all-encompassing and will infiltrate and dictate all aspects of our lives.

Additionally, and unsurprisingly, national governments all go along with censoring citizens, Dr. Nass said.  The draft states: “15. Recognising the importance of building trust and ensuring the timely sharing of information to prevent misinformation, disinformation and stigmatisation.”

By sheer coincidence, at the same time that WHA was negotiating the draft, WHO was pushing for a permanent alliance with technology companies to control digital health messaging and behaviour.  On 15 April, a day before the WHA finalised the draft Pandemic Agreement, Andy Pattison, WHO’s Team Lead for Digital Channels at, said he wants to create a “health online collective” to replicate the cooperation seen during the covid “pandemic” on a constant basis.

As Reclaim the Net reported, the goal is to use this alliance to manipulate behaviour and influence decision-making, rather than just disseminating information, with the help of technology companies and healthcare influencers.

On Monday, the UK Chapter of The Weston A. Price Foundation posted a thread on Twitter (now X) explaining why Britons should ignore these international agreements and treaties and instead focus on repealing section 45 of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act [1984]. 

The Act forms the basis of various legislation connected to the management of infectious diseases in the United Kingdom, including measures taken during the covid “pandemic.”  Section 45 of the Act gives the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care the power to give effect in the UK to any international agreement, i.e. one person, the Secretary of State, can adopt WHO’s Pandemic Agreement that will significantly and destructively impact all our lives.

We have republished Weston A. Price Foundation’s Twitter thread below.

Featured image: themoscowtimes.com

••••

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.