Sunday 6 December 2009

Climate Change = World Government

Has Anyone Read the Copenhagen Agreement?
U.N. plans for a new 'government' are scary.

* Article
* Comments (22)

more in Opinion »

* Email
* Printer
* Share:

facebook ↓ More
o StumbleUpon
o Digg
o Twitter
o Yahoo! Buzz
o Fark
o Reddit
o LinkedIn
o MySpace

Save This ↓ More
* smaller Text larger


We can only hope that world leaders will do nothing more than enjoy a pleasant bicycle ride around the charming streets of Copenhagen come December. For if they actually manage to wring out an agreement based on the current draft text of the Copenhagen climate-change treaty, the world is in for some nasty surprises. Draft text, you say? If you haven't heard about it, that's because none of our otherwise talkative political leaders have bothered to tell us what the drafters have already cobbled together for leaders to consider. And neither have the media.

Enter Lord Christopher Monckton. The former adviser to Margaret Thatcher gave an address at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota, earlier this month that made quite a splash. For the first time, the public heard about the 181 pages, dated Sept. 15, that comprise the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—a rough draft of what could be signed come December.

So far there have been more than a million hits on the YouTube post of his address. It deserves millions more because Lord Monckton warns that the aim of the Copenhagen draft treaty is to set up a transnational "government" on a scale the world has never before seen.

The "scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention" that starts on page 18 contains the provision for a "government." The aim is to give a new as yet unnamed U.N. body the power to directly intervene in the financial, economic, tax and environmental affairs of all the nations that sign the Copenhagen treaty.

The reason for the power grab is clear enough: Clause after complicated clause of the draft treaty requires developed countries to pay an "adaptation debt" to developing countries to supposedly support climate change mitigation. Clause 33 on page 39 says that "by 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least $67 billion] or [in the range of $70 billion to $140 billion per year]."

And how will developed countries be slugged to provide for this financial flow to the developing world? The draft text sets out various alternatives, including option seven on page 135, which provides for "a [global] levy of 2 per cent on international financial market [monetary] transactions to Annex I Parties." Annex 1 countries are industrialized countries, which include among others the U.S., Australia, Britain and Canada.

To be sure, countries that sign international treaties always cede powers to a U.N. body responsible for implementing treaty obligations. But the difference is that this treaty appears to have been subject to unusual attempts to conceal its convoluted contents. And apart from the difficulty of trying to decipher the U.N. verbiage, there are plenty of draft clauses described as "alternatives" and "options" that should raise the ire of free and democratic countries concerned about preserving their sovereignty.

Lord Monckton himself only became aware of the extraordinary powers to be vested in this new world government when a friend found an obscure U.N. Web site and searched through several layers of hyperlinks before discovering a document that isn't even called the draft "treaty." Instead, it's labelled a "Note by the Secretariat."

Interviewed by broadcaster Alan Jones on Sydney radio Monday, Lord Monckton said "this is the first time I've ever seen any transnational treaty referring to a new body to be set up under that treaty as a 'government.' But it's the powers that are going to be given to this entirely unelected government that are so frightening." He added: "The sheer ambition of this new world government is enormous right from the start—that's even before it starts accreting powers to itself in the way that these entities inevitably always do."

Critics have admonished Lord Monckton for his colorful language. He has certainly been vigorous. In his exposé of the draft Copenhagen treaty in St. Paul, he warned Americans that "in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever." Yet his critics fail to deal with the substance of what he says.

Ask yourself this question: Given that our political leaders spend hundreds of hours talking about climate change and the need for a global consensus in Copenhagen, why have none of them talked openly about the details of this draft climate-change treaty? After all, the final treaty will bind signatories for years to come. What exactly are they hiding? Thanks to Lord Monckton we now know something of their plans.

Janos Pasztor, director of the Secretary-General's Climate Change Support Team, told reporters in New York Monday that with the U.S. Congress yet to pass a climate-change bill, a global climate-change treaty is now an unlikely outcome in Copenhagen. Let's hope he is right. And thank you, America.

Add to Technorati Favorites


ulsterpatriot said...

I purchased Lord Monckton's dvd and it doesn't half open your eyes to the greatest swindle of our time.

BNP quiet as a mouse said...

This is why i have been so depresed that the BNP have been so coy on such a critical matter!

To scared to say anything in case they be described as conspiracy nuts, now who are the nuts as we try and play catch up!

This was THE one issue - NWO that could have revealed the whole rotten plot and yet the BNP have had next to nothing to say on the issue, done scant research as far as i can see and have made NO impact on the public in relation to this. Same with the EU, the BNP said next to nothing, instead it kept banging the Islamist drum! apparently the only drum the party can bang, as it certainly never gets any other message across with any wieght or exposure.

Yes it's importnat but so are other matters, or were the BNP really ignorant? I don't suspect the BNP were, especially not Nick or Lee so why the quiet as a mouse approach to the NWO?

Has this insanity stemmed from not wanting to appear insane, yet while that may have been true short term it would have made a march on all other parties with their heads in the sand, iunfortunately the BNP chose to be one of them.

This since the economic crash has been a golden opportunity wasted.

I can only hope that Nick has something rather special up his sleave to make amends at this late stage.

So NOW what?

I personally now feel our only hope will spring from the USA and the libertarian constitutional movement there.

Not a fan of libertarians myself but seeing as that country is far less down the communist state route than the EU it is the only hope we now have given the power of the elite and the lack of opposition to it.

Anonymous said...

No taxation without representation, seems to ring a bell, seeing as the EU wing of the NWO now run us!

perhaps the BNP should start using the slogan, might draw some support from the USA and start a new popular movement there.

Anonymous said...

"Global" problems require "Global" solutions or so the Wankers whine....This should remind us of the dobbing sniveller, goody two shoes and teacher's pet who always sat up the front of the class pushing his answer arm up as hard as he can with his free hand so that he could receive the teacher's approval...and be "first" to be noticed.

In Australia we have such a recremental little Prig running the show...Forever leg humpin' and polishing someone's apple for favors.

Would make a good concentration camp Kapo.