Oct 272009
I’m a bit late on commentary (especially since I was in the audience), soI’ll keep this brief. Here is the final words Lord Monckton’s speech at the debut of his documentary.
In interest of fairness, I have found a reliable source to the text of the Copenhagen Treaty, or at least a draft. I haven’t read it yet myself, but I ask my readers to join me to determine if this speech is on target or just alarmist prattle. I honestly hope it is the latter of the choices.
Read on.
*edit* you can see his entire presentation here.
3 Responses to “Lord Monckton vs the treaty of Copenhagen”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
He mentions “world government” and “climate debt”.
I’d like to know what page these phrases appear on.
Or perhaps a better reference might be what section and what paragraph they appear in.
Thanks
had a looksee though, I find that the –finance section 7. — is probably of the most interesting, given that behind everything is money. in this it looks like a whole new banking system is going be created, and with dramatic impacts on whoever undersigns it (our governments) there’s 1 clause there that if a underveloped country is unable to make there payment (everyone gets deemed a depter for producing carborne ) than a industralized/fst world country has to pick up the tab. and that banking systems will apply.
It states it is a Legal text and in legaleese a depter is always in default. and a depter is always subserviant to a crediter.
unless the world no longer produces polution, I think our governments just mas as well be always bound by this.
and some things like
7. The Executive Committee and Boards may include representation from relevant
intergovernmental and non-governmental stakeholders
-.. wouldn’t these special interest groups tip the ballance on the ruling body?
this one is going to be a huge influince
The CMCP & CMKP should be flexible in the design of the auctioning rules
allowing for auctioning at the international or national level ( with subsequent transfer
of resources to the Copenhagen Climate Facility )
of concern:
ok- cmcp: is punitive mesures (punishment for bieng submisive to bieng legally in ‘default’)
and
cmkp: is a body ‘to facillitate’ it ‘may’ or ‘concider’ or ‘hear’ that which is ‘proposed’ by the commity / executive comitty…. …. that meens it basicly rules (or could one day be in the legal position via agreement)
if (our?)commity ‘may’ be heard or conciderd.. even after a vote, that meens the ones voting are only ‘acting’ albiet on the premise that the action will be taken
sor for the long blog, sortof getting my head on it as I go.
basicly what I was trying to point out that in legal terms, a depter or someone in default has no power. if you go into a court and announce you are a depter it’s a done deal.. u loose, the crediter can have whatever he ask/asks. the dept here by the agreement is having carborne emmisions. remember that as you read
qu. why do we want this?
On reflection it is fairly scary. the legal mechanisims that usually only trap the pesants (no offence here) to ‘serve’ (see legal term ie must or if you like proverbs 22:7) throught the conduet of dept don’t happent to goverments themsevs (persay) but if our goverments are stupid enouph to sign this, the \servetude: via dept/comitment creditor system is going to a new hight. -our governent becomes ADMINISTERS in perpetual dept.. all we can do is elect new administers to a defaulted account, there task is the same.
this agreement tips to outline what fuel you can put in your cars eg. is not going to change because of any power we have as a people :/ that is at the least that there is no out solid-transparant out clause created before this documentis signed