quote..col red..<<in a democracy,..we elect representatives to reflect the view of the entire community,..not just a professional specialty within it..>>oh come on col...how come over 50 percent of elected are/were lawyers...lol

<<Hence ordinary MPs,>>>lol<<from of all sorts of background>>.lol,

<<vote on matters..which enact statute concerning

Health/may not be doctors
Education/may not be teachers
Taxation/not be tax agents
Defense/not soldiers>>>..even though the majority..are lawyers..

should the/coluding elites...make the law..and then allow/their peers to judge..the laws...should be the real question/point

see that lawyers..formed govt...made govt that makes acts...to give...those under the act..powers and benifits...as well as duties[under/the act]

the constitution..out-lines..the bounds/of those..they can put under act...and that is limited to those...seeking..the benifits..of the powers..under the act

see no lawyer/is going to tell you...that acts...only apply..if your doing commerce..or seeking advantage..or licence...UNDER THE ACT..

that we are subjected..to the acts..because we applied..[apply means beg]..because we applied..[sic]... to fall/under the act

the question..is really put wrong...

should an elite lawyer club..thrust laws..upon those not fully and of informed concent...entraped into/under the act?

if your not getting the advantage/licence..UNDER THE ACT..your not subject to the act...the lie began when we registerd our birth..under the births/marages act...see only slaves /property needs be registerd under the act

but i guess the ignorant of the law..
just accept they..fall under the act...
designed just so the servants..of the law society...can do as they chose...hidding their fraud under hundreds of pages of gobbildy cook..then ruled/judged over by their peers

its a legal cartel...its not lawfull.

.but even cops NEVER got told..any different..

they are 'only' doing their job...or the law bites...[eats]..them...

ignorance of the law is no excuse..
because you applied/begged...to fall under THEIR act
thus they do as they please...

know you surtrender your rights by appointing govt[voting]..your vote gives them defactgo 'powers'...making you legally..a ward of the state...as such you are under their complete control...yet its all only an act

see the king gave,..
control over the estates of idiots and luniatics...

read the origonal orders..to phylip...
http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/resources/transcripts/nsw2_doc_1787.pdf

..by registering/birth..deaths/vehicles...by applying for licence...you became one./

..yet no lawyer..will explain that..to you

R0bert: "rstuart I know it's Wikipedia but ..."

Cruel words R0bert. I happen to think Wikipedia is about the only mechanism that comes remotely close to describing what the planet wide consensus on what the "truth" is on just about any given topic. I gave up trying to find fault with it years ago.

R0bert: "Kyoto gives a couple of examples which seem similar ... The Protocol also reaffirms the principle that developed countries have to pay billions of dollars, and supply technology to other countries for climate-related studies and projects"

But, it is just a principle. The only concrete implementation I could find in the Wikipedia article is: "In practice this means that non-Annex I countries have no GHG emission restrictions, but have financial incentives to develop GHG emission reduction projects to receive "carbon credits" that can then be sold to Annex I countries, encouraging sustainable development."

In other words: if we met our targets, we don't have to pay anyone anything. Alternatively we can keep emitting and bride bribe poorer countries to take the pain for us by reducing their emissions. It seems rather clever actually.

It is actually clever than it first appears, because the assuming we put some emissions reduction scheme in place, Australian Government (and hence the tax payer) will not paying anybody anything. The only "paying" that can occur is if some Australian business decides it is cheaper to purchase emission credits overseas than either reducing their emissions or purchasing the credits locally. Thus Spindoc's is effectively saying allowing Australian firms to purchase emission credits on the world market is allowing the UN to tax us. Obviously this is absurd.

And equally obviously, to say any sovereign country could not withdraw from the treaty is also absurd. The country would naturally be expected to honour any debts incured while they were signatories. But after the ramifications would be no different to not signing it in the first place. The effect would be pretty much the same. It would piss a lot of countries off.

the simple fact is wars end when..LEADERS..sign the peace treaty

DONT PRATTLE ON ABOUT TREATIES..NOT BEING BINDING...they clearly are punitive...your with us..or we put tarrifs on your products

THERE IS THE PROBLEM..product...

china's emmisions are rising...BECAUSE you global warning/nutters want your wind mills/solar cells ON YA ROOFS..

because..YOU want your energy efficient...new machines....
meaning we need to burn MORE fossil energy TO BUILD THEM

you need to wake up..you lot are the problem...think zero enmissions is about STOPPING,,your building of new product..

ie industry needs to shut down globally...not get into high gear building new stuff..mining new material...more polutive industry

we..[if you insane carbon/armogedon/end time nutters are correct..
need to take a long industrial/holiday...re use..not re cycle...need to ban cars/industry.. all together...

make every car die...use what we have..

not create a speck more of carbon...by gearing up NEW/industry..and even then carbon will/still.. keep building up for 100 years...due to the storage of co2..in the deep polar currents

what is the carbon debt..of indsustry?..
how much EXTRA polution ..do your solar cells/windmills..etc cause

if the issue IS SO IMPORTANT..why has bbc..just gone from the live/debate..and is currently reading the soccar scores...

why is no one else covering this supposedly urgent debate...im hearing football scores...get it..yes bbc knows/what more important

now abc is on the new aussie saint..THATS SO much more important that caRBON...lol..just ask the abc/bbc...

shut down industry...completly..if your serious...

and get rid of the govt media propaganda media..they arnt serving us..but to distract..decieve and enter-taint

rstuart, I’m not really sure how you avoid reality. The immense volume of documentation emitted by Copenhagen contains volumes of information about the UN scheme to raise and distribute Carbon Taxes to fund developing nations. Yet you still insist this is absurd.

Let me give you an example of how this works.

The Indian industrial giant Tata acquired the Dutch company Corus, who owned parts of the former British Steel industry. Tata has announced the closure of their Redcar steel mill in the UK at a cost of 1,700 jobs.

Corus in the Netherlands is expanding their production with 20m Euros of investment, 15m Euros from the EU and 5m Euros from the Dutch government. No compensation can be paid by the UK government to the Redcar plant or their employees because this is not allowed under state-aid-rules by the EU.
Corus’s real gain from stopping production at Redcar, however, is the saving it will make on its carbon allowances, allocated by the EU under its Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). By ceasing to emit a potential six million tonnes of CO2 a year, Corus will benefit from carbon allowances which could soon, according to European Commission projections, be worth up to £600 million over the three years before current allocations expire. Where on earth do you think this £600 million comes from but carbon taxes?
It just happens that Dr Pachauri's other main job, apart from being chairman of the IPCC, is as director-general of the Tata Energy Research Institute, funded by Tata, which he has run since 1981.
The AGW phenomena shares identical analogies with some 26 other previous “Forecasts of impending catastrophe”, 19 of these forecasts were categorically wrong (the direction of the effect was opposite to the alarming forecast), and the remaining 7 of the forecast effects were wrong in degree (no effect or only minor effects actually occurred)

As phenomena, it will dissipate over time yet governments as an act of self preservation will continue to make disastrous policy decisions that future generation will curse them for.
What of the “warmers? They too will dissipate.

spindoc: "The immense volume of documentation emitted by Copenhagen contains volumes of information about the UN scheme to raise and distribute Carbon Taxes to fund developing nations."

You have read it? I am impressed. Can you provide a link? My understanding of what happened at Copenhagen was a bit different. I thought it was a non event, primarily because the biggest emitter of them all, the US with 40% of total, has so far refused to sign onto to kyoto protocol. What country is going to commit themselves to the cost of reducing GHG emissions while letting the biggest and richest emitter of all get a free ride?

spindoc: "Where on earth do you think this £600 million comes from but carbon taxes?"

Whoever pays for them. I can't tell you who that is, because according to your story the emission credits haven't been sold yet. The European government hasn't sold any carbon credits so far, so it can't possibly be called a "tax".

That aside, it an interesting story spindoc, but I am not sure what is shows. It is evidence the emission trading scheme is actually making the economy adjust perhaps?

spindoc: "As phenomena, it will dissipate over time yet governments as an act of self preservation will continue to make disastrous policy decisions that future generation will curse them for. What of the “warmers? They too will dissipate."

This is your vision for the future? It looks pretty black to me, but we all have different ones I guess.

It seems that some of the posters are a little bit behind the times:

“My understanding of what happened at Copenhagen was a bit different. I thought it was a non event, primarily because the biggest emitter of them all, the US with 40% of total, has so far refused to sign onto to kyoto protocol. What country is going to commit themselves to the cost of reducing GHG emissions while letting the biggest and richest emitter of all get a free ride?”
Posted by rstuart, Sunday, 20 December 2009 6:51:13 PM

The biggest emitter by reliable accounts is now China.

“The United States, the number two emitter behind China…”
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLH602416

It's now official: China emits more greenhouse gases than any other country
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0628/p12s01-wogi.html