From: dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:08:58 GMT

Denis Beauregard (beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca) wrote:
: In article <BvILHo.2tC@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman) writes:
: >
: >This is not a fraudulent argument. Our PM and premiers already have made a
: >deal. We've just watched them do it. They did it because it was good for
:        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: 
: So, you assisted to secrete debates at Charlottetown?  Can you give us
: some more secrets (we already know that Bourassa caved, that Ontario
: particularly, but CHQ in general making pressure on him).  

We 'know' Bourassa caved because someone who was NOT THERE said so. Your
argument is that it was secret, but that we know what happened?

We knew what they were debating there. We knew when they had agreements on
each area. We got a summary of what they agreed on. We are now being asked to
give our elected officials a mandate to implement the deal. What is wrong
with any of this? It seems open to me.

: 
: >deal. We've just watched them do it. They did it because it was good for
:                                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >Canada. They did it because the electorate demanded it. Sure they were an
:  ^^^^^^
: You mean, they believed it would help them be re-elected without having to 
: improve their economics policy?

Lets face it -- the NO side is just as political. How many NO supporters hope
to get elected if it goes down? Preston Manning? Judy Rebick? ...

Another thing -- if each politician did this for his/her own good, why would
the NDP and Liberals back up the feds? The province of Ontario has all three
parties in favour. Obviously they are not all going to get re-elected on this
platform. The PCs in Ontario aren't going to get re-elected over the NDP on
this issue since they agree on it.


: >unlikely alliance, but they rose above personal differences to agree. I'm
: >sure the NDP premiers would have loved more on the Social Charter. I'm sure
: >the PC would have liked more for Government, etc,etc,etc. The fact is that
: >they agreed. They compromised. They rose above personal differences,
: >ideological differences, and compromised. This compromise is the best for ALL
:                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >Canadians. The problem with the individual NO groups is that each solution is
:  ^^^^^^^^^
: >only the best for a SINGLE group.
: 
: So, if the YES passes 8 provinces on 10, or even on 7, will you agree
: that the proposal was not the best for ALL?  Or do you mean among the
: many possibilities, this compromise is ranked the best?  I would like
: to see any demonstration of that, for example a survey of other
: possible compromises like soft Asymetrical Federalism, hard A-F and
: Quebec secession with or without Canada becoming a true common market,
: that the current compromise be rated by ordinary people (or at least
: people understanding a minimum of what each option means).

Most people are having a hard enough time making up their mind on one issue.
If we put three alternatives forwards, what do you think the result would be?
A clear mandate for any one of them?

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics