Government Response to Pandemic Treaty Petition – Read Between the Lines!

The Government has responded to the petition ‘Do not sign any WHO Pandemic Treaty unless it is approved via public referendum’ which has reached over 151,000 signatures. Let’s read between the lines of the -government’s answer:

Government response, given on 27 May 2022

To protect lives, the economy and future generations from future pandemics, the UK government supports a new legally-binding instrument to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

The lockdowns didn’t ‘protect lives’, in fact they caused more deaths than covid. Mask-wearing has also done more harm than good, and we all know by now that the vaccines are causing an avalanche of adverse reactions and deaths. The lockdowns also had a hugely negative impact on small and middle-sized businesses. Everything indicates that it wasn’t the intent of the government to protect lives. Such decisions were made by the WHO in collaboration with our government under the pretence of pandemic response.

COVID-19 has demonstrated that no-one is safe until we are all safe, and that effective global cooperation is needed to better protect the UK and other countries around the world from the detrimental health, social and economic impacts of pandemics and other health threats. The UK supports a new international legally-binding instrument as part of a cooperative and comprehensive approach to pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.

‘No-one is safe until we are all safe’ is another false statement. Firstly, it is impossible and secondly it only induces more divide. People who do not do something ‘for the safety of others’ will be deemed selfish and evil—even if the ‘safety measures’ are unlogical and harmful. Under the guise of protecting health, we are being overrun by the a world order which has been in the planning for decades.

At a World Health Assembly Special Session in late 2021, the 194 countries of the World Health Organization (WHO) agreed to launch a process to draft and negotiate a new instrument, through the auspices of WHO, to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response. The negotiating process will be led by member states, including the UK.

This gives the false impression that the idea for an international response to pandemic prevention was something that emerged as a result of covid. But there is enough evidence to show that the pandemic was orchestrated long before with the intention of launching the great reset.

The instrument aims to improve how the world prevents, better prepares for, and responds to future disease outbreaks of pandemic potential at national, regional and global level. It would complement the existing international instruments which the UK has already agreed, such as the International Health Regulations. It would promote greater collective action and accountability.

This is not the real reason for the treaty, but the way it is presented makes it more acceptable for the general public. They are hiding the true intentions of a one world order which will lead to digital enslavement.

A treaty is an international agreement concluded between States or with international organisations in written form and governed by international law. The UK is party to a large number of multilateral treaties, including many through the United Nations (UN) and its specialised agencies such as the WHO. These instruments reflect obligations states have agreed to enter into to further common goals.

The WHO and the UN are made up of rich oligarchs who are not elected by the people, yet are making arrogant decisions over our health and lives, promoting dangerous vaccines and causing worldwide atrocities. The traitors (governments), who are supposed to represent our country, are signing a pact that the people have not agreed to. This is not a treaty (agreement) between the WHO and the people.

The current target date for agreeing the text of the new instrument is at the World Health Assembly in May 2024. Over the next two years the UK aims to work towards building a consensus on how the global community can better prevent, prepare for, and respond to future pandemics and will actively shape, develop and negotiate the text. The new instrument would only be adopted by the World Health Assembly if the text achieves a two-thirds vote of the Health Assembly (Article 19 of the WHO Constitution). The Health Assembly is made up of representatives of WHO Member States.

More positive terms to delude you. The same tactics have been used throughout the last two years to make everyone believe that their intentions are good.

Once adopted, the instrument would only become binding on the UK if and when the UK accepts (ratifies) it in accordance with its constitutional process. In the UK this requires the treaty to be laid before Parliament for a period of 21 sitting days before the Government can ratify it on behalf of the UK.

The Government always carefully considers whether domestic legislation will be required to implement the UK’s international obligations when negotiating a treaty. Not every treaty requires implementing legislation and it is too early to say if that would apply here. However, in all circumstances, the UK’s ability to exercise its sovereignty would remain unchanged and the UK would remain in control of any future domestic decisions about national restrictions or other measures.

What difference does it make if our government representatives are all bought into the great reset? It doesn’t matter if they do it through an international treaty or at a national level. The globalists will pursue their goal and will not care about your freedom.

If changes to UK law were considered necessary or appropriate to reflect obligations under the treaty, proposals for domestic legislation would go through the usual Parliamentary process and the UK would not ratify the treaty until domestic measures, agreed by Parliament, were in place.

This process of ratification allows scrutiny by elected representatives of both the treaty and any appropriate domestic legislation in accordance with the UK’s constitutional arrangements. The Government does not consider a referendum is necessary, appropriate or in keeping with precedent for such an agreement.

The powers-that-be have betrayed, threatened, bullied and murdered/have been complicit in murder for the past two years… do you want to entrust them with your health, your freedom, your children?

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office


Comment from a reader:

Considering that WHO is financed by Bill Gates it must be considered that if you assign your sovereignty to WHO, Bill Gates will be controlling your country.

Bear in mind the problems of disconnecting the UK from the EU.

The greatest concern is the constant eroding of democracy. If the people don’t have a voice in decisions of National importance then democracy doesn’t exist.
(GP)


Prison+Gates+300


Airport queues… John Lewis Clothing Rental Service… Scientists Plan To Feed Insects To Primary Schools… All Part of the Great Reset (Hugo Talks/YT)