The conspiracy theorists have been saying for years that global warming is about global governance. Christopher Monckton claimed that the Copenhagen agreement would have resulted in this. I have been skeptical on that, though now the party of red, green and Brown has declared that it is behind this idea (at least they would like it democratic). At the national press club yesterday, Bob Brown said it was inevitable that we take our part in the global parliamentary system. He was careful to avoid the term “global governance”. I am prepared to accept for now that this ambition is separate to the global warming issue.
Andrew Bolt points out what is wrong with this ideological, feel-good, green dream on MTR. Some highlights: How would the corrupt, tyrannical and undemocratic countries of the world fit into this? How do our 22 million get our fair say with a billion in China and India a piece? The senate helps the less populous states get their concerns heard, but Tasmania isn’t fifty times as small as New South Wales and their interests aren’t at the opposite end of the spectrum. Wouldn’t homophobic nations conflict with Brown’s interests (and those of any reasonable person)? Where will our sovereignty go?
The greens are ideological, naive and do not consider the consequences of their policies. This global governance business is the worst of it. Tomorrow they gain the balance of power in the senate. That is too much power for a party that wants to:
- shut down the coal industry
- join a world government
- force a carbon dioxide tax on us
- end all live export (not just to the inhumane abattoirs)
- lower the voting age to 16 (that’s most of their votes right there)
- advocates the precautionary principle
- ban genetically-modified organisms
- ban nuclear power
- boycott Israeli product (some parts of the party)
We don’t need just an election. We need a double dissolution election.