> Possibly because implementation will be delayed until the government who sign the agreement have left office,
I don't get it, why would the next government be any more eager to implement the proposals? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these sorts of agreements broken all the time because signors couldn't get the necessary laws passed?
> I don't get it, why would the next government be any more eager to implement the proposals?
Compared to "all at once", the blame is now spread around and some of it can be blamed on those who are absent. Meanwhile, the companies continue to invest lobbying/funding/legalized-bribes to push it forward.
In addition, if enforcement of an unpopular law/policy begins while the old regime is in office, the unpopular law/policy would become a campaign issue for the next election (see Greece).
With delayed enforcement, proponents of soon-to-be-unpopular laws can help to elect a new government that supports their interests, before the populace becomes broadly aware of the pending problems.
This creates a window of lobbying opportunity that spans two governments, without pesky election campaign promises about the ticking legal time bombs.
I don't get it, why would the next government be any more eager to implement the proposals? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these sorts of agreements broken all the time because signors couldn't get the necessary laws passed?