The British Parliament’s Concerns about Sovereignty and the World Health Organisation

In a recent session of the British Parliament, Member of Parliament Andrew Bridgen expressed concerns about the formation of new unions and the potential loss of democratic permission from the people. He specifically highlighted the international Health regulations and the post-pandemic agreements being pushed through by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Bridgen questioned why governments worldwide seemed willing to give away their sovereignty and surrender to potential totalitarian futures. This article aims to delve into Bridgen’s concerns and explore the implications of these decisions.

shadowy figure as a puppeteer
Learn about MP Andrew Bridgen’s fight for national sovereignty against international agreements and the WHO’s power. Explore the risks to democracy and human rights in the face of potential global control.

Upholding Sovereignty

Bridgen proposed a bill in Parliament to prohibit government ministers from implementing any legal instrument inconsistent with the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament unless a referendum has approved it.

The bill seeks to protect the integrity and sovereignty of the nation. Bridgen argued that this bill would mainly prevent the government from blindly accepting the WHO’s amendments to the international Health regulations and post-pandemic agreements without consulting Parliament or the public.

He believes these decisions would make the British Parliament redundant, fundamentally changing the relationship between citizens and the state.

Video – UK Debate on Power Grab

Watch the YouTube video “UK Debate on Power Grab” presented by Dr John Campbell.

Concerns about WHO’s Power Grab

Bridgen expressed concerns about the WHO’s intentions and its potential impact on democratic and human rights. He highlighted the WHO’s accusations of undue Chinese influence, the mismanagement and cover-up of the COVID-19 pandemic, and its funding from commercial and private interests.

He questioned the wisdom of giving such an organisation more power without proper scrutiny. Bridgen argued that the WHO’s power grab would include the ability to declare public health emergencies, control the lives of citizens, impose lockdown restrictions, and mandate vaccinations and medications.

He warned that these decisions could bypass human trials and safety testing, potentially resulting in catastrophic mistakes.

Threats to Democracy and Human Rights

Bridgen emphasized that the decisions being made could lead to a one-world dictatorship as nations around the globe sign up to these agreements. He criticized the lack of debate and consultation in Parliament and questioned why elected representatives would hand over powers to a discredited organisation.

Bridgen argued that the sovereignty of the people must be protected, and any surrender of power should be decided through a referendum. He warned that failure to do so would have catastrophic consequences for democracy and human rights.

Changes in International Health Regulations

Bridgen provided an article-by-article comparison of the previous 2005 International Health regulations to the proposed changes. He highlighted several concerning amendments, such as the removal of language emphasizing respect for human rights, the introduction of surveillance activities by the WHO, and the lack of consultation with individual states.

Bridgen expressed discomfort with the scaling up of the production of health products, the digitalisation of traveller information, and the potential control over citizens through global health passports. He recommended watching previous interviews with global campaigners for a more detailed understanding of these changes.

Continuation of The Fight

Bridgen concluded his speech by vowing to continue his fight for national sovereignty despite the looming prospect of prorogation and the potential failure of his bill. He expressed deep concern about the erosion of democracy and the surrendering of power to organisations such as the WHO without proper discussion or public input.

Bridgen believed that this surrender of sovereignty, without a referendum, would be catastrophic and potentially lead to a one-world dictatorship. He stressed the importance of protecting the rights and freedoms of the people. He called on his fellow parliamentarians to uphold their duty to serve and protect the interests of the citizens they represent.