As of 1 January 2024 – there are two separate but interconnected events taking place at the same time.
The first event is the drafting and negotiation of the pandemic response treaty, noting that to date there have been 2 drafts of this treaty published, the first was on the 1st of February 2023 and the second was on the 30th of October 2023. The draft of the treaty currently under review is the 30th of October 2023 version and the body carrying out the drafting and negotiation of the treaty is the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (the “INB”).
The second event is the negotiation of amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005. With respect to the Health Regulations, a body called the Review Committee was established to collate amendments proposed by State Parties, noting that State Parties have proposed more than 300 amendments to the regulations as part of this process to date. The Review Committee has published 1 report on the 6th of February 2023, which includes both their commentary on the proposed amendments and also a record of all proposed amendments.
We have prepared a comprehensive video (which can be found here: https://youtu.be/R-ZTc5bdx8Y?si=O4hCC9umQHeSuwAD ) which reviews in detail both the 30th of October 2023 draft Pandemic Treaty and the 6th of February 2023 Review Committee Report on the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations and we would strongly urge you to watch this video in full.
It is important to note that the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (the “INB”) and the Review Committee have and continue to work together to ensure harmony between the final versions of the Pandemic Treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations, such that there is considerably over lap and repetition between the two documents – meaning that if the vote on the Pandemic Treaty were to pass but the vote on the amendments to the International Health Regulations were to fail or vice versa, the outcome would still be detrimental in terms of a loss of individual freedom, political accountability and state sovereignty.
For this reason we would implore you to focus your attention on ensuring that both of these events fails, as opposed to focusing your attention on just one of these events. Also, it should be noted that the INB and the Review Committee meet in both public sessions – the agendas, working documents and reports from which are publicly available, however they also meet in private sessions, noting that the general public are not entitled to view the records of these meetings.
Given the very serious consequences that are likely to flow from yes votes to either the Pandemic Treaty or proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations, it seems astonishing that any meetings would be held in secret session, the only logical conclusion being that there are matters being discussed that neither the INB nor the Review Committee want the general public to aware of.
In terms of deadlines, it is intended that countries will vote on both the passage of the Pandemic Treaty and proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations at the next World Health Assembly meeting in May 2024, so there is less than 5 months until these critical votes take place.
If you want an in-depth understanding of why yes votes on either the Pandemic Treaty or proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations would lead to a loss of individual freedom political accountability and state sovereignty, we recommend that you watch the video in full, as this recap section only lends to the following summarized version.
There are currently 195 recognised independent sovereign states in the world. 193 of these states are members of the United Nations, while the remaining 2 states are referred to as non-member observer states. The World Health Organisation can be referred to as the Department of Health of the United Nations, given that the UN itself states that the WHO is the “directing and coordinating authority on international health within the United Nations system”.
The World Health Assembly (or the WHA), is the decision making body of the WHO and it is at the next WHA meeting that these critical votes on the Pandemic Treaty and proposed amendments to the Health Regulations will take place. Given that the vast majority of recognised sovereign states are members of the United Nations/WHO/WHA, it is reasonable to conclude that authority for global public health (but not just public health) is going to be centralized in one governing body, namely the World Health Organisation, if either the Pandemic Treaty or the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations are passed.
In relation to our earlier comment regarding a yes vote leading to a loss of individual freedom, political accountability and state sovereignty, we say this given that both the Pandemic Treaty and proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations seek to extend significantly the remit and authority of the WHO to authorize it to make legally binding orders (which the WHO refer to as recommendations, however, these recommendations would be legally binding), outside of areas that the average person would regard as encompassing only public health.
To understand fully what we mean, we would direct you to the following:
The definition section of the Pandemic Treaty, where the term “One Health Approach” is defined. The Pandemic Treaty, if passed, seeks to implement a One Health Approach at national, regional and international level – which as the term suggests is not limited to human health, but also includes animal health (both domestic and wild), plant health, the wider ecosystem, and also water, energy, air, food, climate change and sustainable development
It is also important to note that according to Article 2.2, this One Health Approach would apply at all times, and not just when a pandemic was declared; and
Article 2 (scope and purpose) of the proposed amendments to the International Health regulations, which if passed, seeks to amend the scope of the regulations which are currently “restricted to public health” only to include “all risks with a potential to impact on public health” and as stated earlier given the level of coordination between the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body and the Review Committee, it is fair to conclude that the Review Committee intend “all risks with a potential to impact on public health” to include all those areas identified under a One Health Approach in the Pandemic Treaty
So in essence, if either the Pandemic Treaty or the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations are passed, independent sovereign countries (like Ireland), will have relinquished their electorally mandated authority to a singular governing body, the WHO, to implement legally binding orders, both during and outside of pandemics, at national, regional and international level over public health, animal health, plant health, the wider ecosystem, water, energy, air, food, climate change, sustainable development and over any other area that has a potential to impact on public health
We believe that this delegation of authority, at least in an Irish context, will be found to be unconstitutional unless a referendum is put to the people, given the 1987 Supreme Court judgment in Crotty v An Taoiseach – the details of which can be found at section 8 of the full video.
That said and regardless of whether a court finds that a referendum must be held or not, there can be little denying that the WHO is seeking to significantly expand its power, such that it would have the legal authority to encroach on every possible aspect of your life, such as:
– how many vaccines and boosters you must take to participate in society;
– whether your allowed to eat meat or not;
– the mode of transport you can use and how far you can travel;
– whether you are allowed to use oil, turf or coal to keep warm during the Winter;
– what source of energy you can use;
– how many cows you can keep on your own land or whether your allowed to keep animals at all.
All of these decisions, and many more, will be centralized in the WHO and this will absolutely remove any meaningful notion of what it means to be free. As regards political accountability, given that the WHO are not elected by the people, they are not accountable to the people and like we have heard our politicians utter countless times with regards to immigration “we have international obligations” – the very same excuse will be used to free politicians from any responsibility as regards decisions made by the WHO if the Pandemic Treaty or proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations are passed, regardless of how those decisions impact on the people of any particular country and if the people of any particular country can no longer make their own laws, they can no longer be called sovereign.
Given the level of cooperation on foreign policy that is required between States Parties under both the Pandemic Treaty and proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations, coupled with the intention to significantly extend the power and remit of the WHO to authorize it to make legally binding orders against State Parties – we would contend that the circumstances that existed giving rise to the Crotty v An Taoiseach judgement in 1987 (the details of which can be found at section 8 of the full vide) were less severe in terms of an unauthorized delegation of authority.
In light of this, we believe that in May 2024, the Irish Government will agree, in principle, to be bound by the Pandemic Treaty and amendments to the International Health Regulations, however, we also believe that thereafter they will put this matter to a referendum – therefore we would recommend the following courses of action:
1) Start lobbying both your TD’s and Senators now – to tell them to Vote No in May 2024; and
2) And probably more important, start educating family and friends about the dangers that lie ahead, should they Vote Yes once this referendum comes around
The full video can be found here: https://youtu.be/R-ZTc5bdx8Y?si=O4hCC9umQHeSuwAD