@SPQR:

Thanks for the link - not quite so sinister in context, is it?

"Senator Brown said a global parliament would tackle international questions such as nuclear proliferation, currency speculation, marine eco-system destruction ''and those billion people who could be fed and literate if only a tenth of global military spending was sent to their assistance''.

But such a body would not replace sovereign governments - it would have to be established with the agreement of these governments".

While such a body is probably inevitable, Brown emphasises that its establishment will not happen any time in the foreseeable future. More the pity, because a world parliament would be ideally suited to tackling climate change cooperatively, or wrestling with other global problems that have no unilateral solutions - like the refugees that seem to get people in a lather.

I think that Brown was unwise to use the terminology "one world parliament", precisely because it invites the kind of deliberate misrepresentation that we see here. Oh well, nobody's perfect!

Morgan, you people are unbelievable. You could rationalise mass murder as helping the planet. The only deliberate misrepresentation we see around here is that perpetuated by Gillard, Brown & company, & propagated by folk like you.

I read the linked article and while I disagree with what seem like some of the likely consequences of such a government it's not as extreme an idea as some.

I don't personally want the worlds billions overriding Australia's millions on what our laws should be, it's hard enough getting the governments we have now to treat people with decency and not to harm some groups to pander for targetted voting blocks of others.

R0bert

@ Hasbeen:

So you're not going to admit that your memory of Brown's words is faulty? To give you the benefit of the doubt, TV reports often only give half the story, undoubtedly so for the populist crap that appears to be your main source of information. Here's a tip: if you're going to rely on TV as the basis for your hysterical claims, verify your source before embarrassing yourself forever in public.

In my experience, anybody who denies AGW (particularly to the ridiculous extent of claiming global cooling) and also goes into histrionics about "one world government", is most likely to have a roo or two loose in their top paddock. Once upon a time you used to post interesting, sane comments, even if from an ultra-conservative position.

Lately it's all just abuse and bile. What's happened?

@Morgan

<< not quite so sinister in context, is it? >>

On the contrary –in context –it’s terrifying . Here’s the context:
1) We have the leader of the greens and govts key coalition partner declaring he’s for world govt and “one person one vote”.
2) We have “the greatest moral cause of the age” working for, among other things, world wealth and power redistribution:
http://toryaardvark.com/2010/11/18/un-ipcc-official-admits-we-redistribute-worlds-wealth-by-climate-policy/
3) We have a history of OZ govts, of all persuasions, being too eager to sign up to commitments that are not in our interests.
(none of which sounded too threatening or sinister when they were entered into!)

And this bit of fluff : << it would have to be established with the agreement of these governments">>
is right up there with whoppers like :

1) : "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead," or

2) Australia’s saving in CO2 under the Gillard carbon tax “ 0.000463933% of the worlds CO2”
is going to save the barrier reef!

@ SPQR:

Oh dear. I'm surprised you didn't throw the Illuminati in there somewhere. Like I said, Bob Brown was unwise to refer to a future 'one world parliament', because it's almost an invitation to bring the 'one world government' millennial nutters out from their usual obscurity. He specifically said that the conceptual body would operate alongside existing sovereign governments, so sorry - no "one world government", I'm afraid.

Given the lack of success of the UN, I think that such a body could replace that lumbering, nepotism-riddled bureaucracy. Certainly, in the 21st century globalised world where we are all affected by international problems that can't be solved independently, it makes a lot of sense to start talking about better means of cooperation between nations. Maybe that's Brown's intention in raising the issue now - it should perhaps be interpreted as a brave, principled intiative by a well-respected Australian political thinker.

I'd like to know how we can hope to address international problems like AGW and refugees without having an effective international body where representatives from all sovereign nations can collaborate to produce strategies upon which they agree. One of the major arguments used by those who oppose Australia doing anything about AGW is that any actions we take independently are futile unless others do likewise. It seems to me that the sort of body mooted by Bob Brown is precisely the sort of structure to facilitate such cooperation.

I know that none of that's as exciting or scary as the 'one world government' conspiracy theory to which you apparently subscribe. That aside, how do you think that sovereign governments around the world should go about dealing with international problems like climate change or the massive proliferation of refugees currently being experienced by the wealthier nations like ours?