As governments around the world prepare to ratify the World Health Organization’s new Pandemic Agreement citizens everywhere should pause and look closely. This treaty, hailed by its supporters as a sensible step toward “global pandemic preparedness,” is in fact one of the most audacious grabs for supranational power we’ve seen in the post-war era. It is also a direct threat to democracy, accountability, transparency, and the sovereignty of the nation-state.
Under the pretext of preventing future pandemics, the WHO seeks to entrench itself as the ultimate arbiter of public health emergencies, capable of directing national governments on issues ranging from lockdowns to vaccine distribution, border controls, information regulation, and supply chain coordination. If this agreement were merely advisory, it would still warrant serious alarm. But it is not advisory in spirit and probably not in letter. This is an instrument designed to compel, not suggest. To put it bluntly, it is a near worldwide globalist coup, and we should call it what it is: a calculated circumvention of national democratic processes, masquerading as global cooperation.
The treaty’s architects argue that COVID-19 proves the need for global cooperation. Leaving aside the strong possibility that the infamous pandemic was a planned trial, a fake and a huge fraud, that is not in dispute. What is in dispute is that cooperation requires surrendering authority to an unelected body in Geneva with no constitutional relationship to the citizenry of any nation.
The WHO has positioned itself as a neutral, scientific agency, but its record shows that it is anything but. During COVID-19, it repeatedly deferred to the Chinese Communist Party, sowed confusion over airborne transmission, and oscillated on critical policy recommendations like travel restrictions and masking. Its pandemic playbook turned out to be incoherent, overly centralised, and riddled with political pressure. And now it wants more power. And so, we need to remember, does the Globalist Cabal behind it.
Under this new treaty, the WHO will have the ability to declare public health emergencies of international concern, trigger legal obligations on states to respond and, in true totalitarian tradition, oversee the dissemination of "official information" in the name of combating “misinformation.” This creates a perverse system where the body declaring the emergency is also the one empowered to dictate the global response. There is no independent oversight, no accountability, no appeal. And we all know what happened here during the Covid tyranny, where the “misinformation” put out by respected scientists was met with ferocious vilification, but which turned out to be the truth.
In short, the treaty proposes a structure in which individual nations will retain the appearance of autonomy but lose the substance of it.
Treaty supporters insist that the agreement is “not legally binding,” but this is the kind of legal ambiguity that should raise red flags. The distinction between “binding” and “non-binding” treaties has long been eroded and “voluntary” agreements are often enforced through financial leverage, diplomatic pressure, and legal activism. If your funding, travel access, trade routes, and vaccine supply are contingent on compliance with a “non-binding” agreement, it is binding in all the ways that matter. And note well, Parliament’s pusillanimous response to the petition against the treaty clearly referred to the need for a legally binding one.
Furthermore, the draft treaty includes commitments to “national implementation plans” and calls for countries to align their domestic laws with the WHO’s frameworks. This is where theory becomes praxis: established custom and practice. A global body issues directives; national governments reshape their laws accordingly, often by executive order or secondary legislation, bypassing parliaments entirely. This is not democracy. It is anti-democratic tyranny.
The most insidious provision in the treaty is its language around information governance. Disguised in the sinister rhetoric of “fighting misinformation,” the WHO proposes a regime of information surveillance and narrative control that would make Orwell raise an eyebrow. No. Both eyebrows.
The pandemic years already showed us how willing governments and tech platforms were to suppress dissenting views. Entire swathes of medical professionals, scientists, and independent journalists were deplatformed or demonised for voicing alternative views. Under the new treaty, this censorship is not just likely, it is mandatory, as the treaty mandates that countries “tackle false, misleading, misinformation or disinformation” in future pandemics. But who decides what qualifies as misinformation? The WHO? National health bureaucracies? AI-driven moderation tools designed by politically biased contractors?
The public in a democracy has a right to proper debate, to challenge consensus, and to question official narratives, especially when those narratives inform policies that restrict fundamental freedoms. A treaty that seeks to internationalise censorship under the guise of health protection is not protecting public health. It is protecting institutional power from democratic scrutiny.
At its heart, the WHO treaty reflects a deeper trend: the steady destruction of the nation-state and the rise of transnational managerialism—Globalism, in other words. Global institutions, once tasked with facilitating cooperation, are increasingly taking on the functions of governance without elections, without consent, and without limits. Totalitarianism, in other words.
This treaty is not an isolated aberration. It is part of a broader ideological drift toward post-national governance, where power is exercised by faceless technocrats, insulated from domestic political pressure and answerable only to an ultra-rich globalist élite. These are people you cannot vote out, who do not answer to your courts, and who are not bound by your constitutions. The impulse behind this shift is clear: national governments are seen by the global elite as messy, slow and inconvenient.
Even if the treaty were perfectly drafted (it is not), and even if the WHO were a dispassionate scientific body (it is not), the principle remains unacceptable. No international organisation should be able to dictate domestic policy to sovereign nations, and most especially not in areas that affect core civil liberties. If the WHO treaty were truly about cooperation, its drafters would welcome public debate. But that is precisely what has been avoided. The negotiations have taken place behind closed doors. Drafts are published in dense, inaccessible language. National governments have avoided public consultation. The entire process reeks of autocratic globalism.
In the United Kingdom, Australia, and elsewhere, the treaty is being presented as afait accompli. Few citizens are even aware it exists. Parliamentary debates, where they’ve happened, are superficial. In many cases, the ratification process may bypass legislatures altogether through executive action. Thankfully, it looks like neither the USA nor Argentina will participate in this attack on freedom, thanks to their patriotic presidents, though it seems like the sneaky 2024 World Health Assembly's, far-reaching amendments to the International Health Regulations rules will be deemed to be accepted unless explicitly rejected by 19 July 2025 )Israel has already rejected it). These amendments were adopted via a resolution by consensus, that is, without a vote.
If the pandemic Treaty and the WHA amendment are only about medical affairs, why are their architects so allergic to transparency? The burden of proof lies with those who seek to reshape global governance in the name of pandemic prevention. They must demonstrate not only that their model works (the COVID response suggests otherwise), but that it is legitimate. They have done neither. Because they cannot do it.
The rational response to this treaty is not paranoia. It is vigilance. It is entirely reasonable—indeed morally imperative—for citizens to be wary of any international instrument that proposes to restrict movement, mandate medical interventions, control information, and bypass national legislatures. History teaches us that emergency powers, once created, rarely disappear. The temptation to declare emergencies, and to keep them going, will always exist where power is unchecked and the people are shut out.
If national leaders ratify this treaty without public debate or referendum, they are not acting as representatives. They are acting as agents of a transnational regime. And that is a betrayal of democratic principle. In other words, treason.
We must now demand transparency. Every version of the treaty must be made public in plain language. Public interest groups, legal scholars, and civil liberties organisations must launch immediate challenges to any provision that seeks to override constitutional protections. Legal ambiguity cannot be allowed to stand. Britain—indeed, all nations—must reaffirm the principle that international treaties cannot and must not replace domestic legislative authority on matters as profound as national sovereignty. And we must have a referendum on the definitive version, as Parliament cannot be trusted. Remember its arrogant dismissal of the possibility when they briefly debated the petition calling for them to tell the WHO to get lost in April 2023? The full text of its response can be found here – and again, note well the reference to a ‘legally binding agreement’.
There is still time to get Parliament to reject this sinister treaty, despite the April 2025 proceedings in the main chamber when a minister provided an update on the WHO “pandemic accord” and Parliament’s subsequent acceptance in principle of signing the treaty. There has not been a parliamentary vote on ratification and no real debates. What has passed for debate were only informative or petition-related, not formal votes on adopting or rejecting the treaty.
The UK Government treats treaties under the "Ponsonby Rule": they’re laid before Parliament, which can object, but there's no automatic requirement for a vote. Unless Parliament actively raises concern or blocks them, treaties proceed. We must all join together and make sure they block it – and this means a major guerrilla war on our part starting with calls for silent - on this issue - Starmer to reject the 2024 WHA Amendment before 19 July.
The treaty was formally adopted at the WHO’s World Health Assembly on 20 May 2025, with 124 countries voting in favour. Sadly, none voted against it, though there were eleven abstentions (Italy, Russia, Iran, Bulgaria, Poland, Jamaica, Israel, Romania, Paraguay, Guatemala and Slovakia). It will need 60 national ratifications to come into force but the treaty, still in the bureaucratic stage, is not yet open for ratification as the key “Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing” annex still needs to be negotiated and adopted—probably sometime in 2026—when the final treaty will be opened for signature by WHO Member States.
Ideally by then the UK should have left the wretched WHO, but sadly that’s unlikely, so we should all start now hectoring and badgering our MPs and spreading the word to make sure it is rejected.
Here’s a draft letter I’m going to send to my MP:
“I am writing as a concerned constituent to strongly oppose the UK’s proposed ratification of the WHO Pandemic Treaty, which represents a serious threat to national sovereignty, democratic accountability, and civil liberties.
The government has no democratic mandate to surrender sovereign powers over public health policy, freedom of speech, or emergency decision-making to an unelected international body. There has been no public consultation, no referendum, and no proper Parliamentary scrutiny of this far-reaching agreement.
The treaty would empower the WHO to declare global health emergencies and issue directions affecting UK domestic policy—including lockdowns, vaccinations, and travel restrictions.
Provisions to combat “misinformation” are dangerously vague and open the door to state-backed censorship and the suppression of dissenting scientific opinion. Even if “non-binding,” the treaty obliges legal alignment with WHO frameworks. This is an indirect override of Parliament by treaty.
The WHO is unelected, unaccountable, and has shown serious failures in past pandemics. Giving it greater control is neither justified nor safe.
I urge you to:
Demand that the British government officially rejects the 2024 amendments to the International Health Regulations before the deadline of Saturday July 19, 2025
Oppose ratification unless there is full Parliamentary debate and a clear public mandate by means of a referendum.
Demand a clear, public explanation of the treaty’s legal implications.
Insist that UK law remains sovereign, and that no international body be granted authority over our domestic affairs.
The British public was never asked to approve this. It is constitutionally unacceptable for the government to commit the UK to such obligations without explicit democratic consent.
I look forward to your urgent response on this matter.
Yours”
Please join the crusade.
