Re: Lord Monckton and the Copenhagen Treaty on Climate Change.
First off, I have had replies to emails I sent to Lord Monkton. I don't always get replies to letters or emails to my local councilor and only after an agonising wait from my MP.
Secondly, The EU is bound by its own treaty to address global issues through treaty making and not through unilateral action.
Treaties are generally arrived at through discussion and rely on several key factors for success which include:
Implimenation, enforcement, verification and monitoring.
Of course, a successful treaty is achieved through a process of negotiation which necessarily depends on no one treaty party obtaining or conceding any significant advantage over another.
Green activists refer to treaties as "compromises" by which they mean that the resultant treaty is less effective than it could have been but which studies suggest are actually more effective than if a more draconian solution were arrived at which did not achieve the consent of all the parties.
The reason for this is that the individual treaty states are each responsible for enforcement and monitoring within their own sovereign territory.
SO, if we instead create a new form of treaty which creates its own "sovereign powers" it means that enforcement and monitoring are then no longer a regional or state by state responsibility.
This means of course that the door is open to more draconian legislation.
This is a dangerous path to step down because once you have an organisation which has sovereign powers that supercede an treaty nations own sovereign powers we are indeed on the way to a world state which is probably not going to be a democracy but a totalitarian state, if the EU is any guide.
The main aspect of success of any conventional treaty is the willingness of the treaty states to accede to the legislation.
WE can see clear examples of supported and unsupported legislation if we compare speed laws with drink drive laws.
Both depend on the same enforcement agency but speed laws, which are the easiest to monitor and enforce as less well obeyed that drink drive laws and the difference is in the willingness of the population to be governed by these laws.
Of course, how bad laws are enforced depends on the degree to which the legislators are prepared to enforce them. Clearly in a totalitarian state even speed laws could be enforced by simply linking GPS readings into automatic roadside data downloaders so that motorists could be automatically monitored and fined. The technology is there but as yet, in the UK, the Government doesn't feel it has eroded democracy enough to attempt such a measure.
How might this affect global environmental legislation if we have an undemocratic global enforcement agency rather than individual nation states responsible for enforcement?