The big caveat, even if the treaty as written matches what he says, is his conditional:
And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.
(emphasis added)
Of course, the US Constitution, despite what some right-wing anti-treaty conspiracy advocates might say, says nothing of the sort. Here's the relevant part of the US constitution often cited.
Article VI, Clause 2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Supremacy Clause states that the Constitution, Federal Law, and US Treaties, overrule state constitutions and law when they are properly in conflict. It does not state the treaties overrule the US Constitution (and one could even reasonably argue that a treaty which requires the US to violate it's constitution could not be "made under the Authority of the United States". Federal laws have occasionally been deemed to be unconstitutional and unenforceable; I see no reason why treaties couldn't fall into that same category.
I looked at the treaty document he is discussing. It's not the final treaty -- far from it. It's the current working draft of the committee working on the language. It includes many, many,
many options, alternatives, fill-in-the-blanks, etc. Finalization of the text won't happen until the Copenhagen meeting. Any claim that this is "the treaty" is laughable.
However, I can see the text that is referred to. The only two uses of the word "government" I was able to find that do not refer to existing sovereign governments are on page 18, paragraph 38 (of the PDF at
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... n-2009.pdf), in which the basis for "The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention" is described. The three bases listed are "government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism". Subparagraph 38(a) describes the "government", 38(b) describes the Convention's financial mechanism, and 38(c) describes the facilitative mechanism.
In context, reading the rest of paragraph 38, it's clear that by "government", what is meant is "governance of the Convention", not a supreme world government supplanting the sovereignty of signatory parties.
Furthermore, given that this is a draft document, it is somewhat unsurprising that the
very next part of the document is headed "
Alternative to paragraph 1-38" (italics and underline in the original), which would replace the previous 12 pages with a few half-baked subordinate clauses suggesting a different thrust (and I half-baked, I mean it. The final three suggested clauses are "Considering, in that regard, that [ ] is/are desirable global indicator(s), Having a shared vision of [summary that ties together the elements of the agreement], Hereby adopts [an implementing agreement]."