Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: re: Analyzing the Deal
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 92 19:48:00 PDT
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits

jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes
>
>In article <kkaTqB2w164w@ham.almanac.bc.ca> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>>
>>>Gee, when you put it THAT way, the deal's just irresistable!
>>
>>No, it's not. Voting yes is the lesser of two evils. 
>
>Why should I as a BCer accept any evils? Quebec knows what it wants, and isn't
>prepared to swallow a load of crap. From this end of the country, it is
>very hard to convince myself that Quebecers are dancing in the streets
>over this "deal". And even in BC, it looks IFy. Well, we'll all know
>come October.
>

In my view, accepting the evil of a flawed constitution (and I certainly 
agree it's flawed) is infinitely preferable to the route you suggest. 
If we vote no, we've basically given up any chance we had of ending the
constitutional discussion and getting on with real problems. A no vote
will guarantee we'll spend the NEXT ten years discussing HOW to break up 
country.

>(you're probably from Ontario anyway, just a transplant British Columbian.
>even if you ARE, you probably don't appreciate the "distinctive society"
>we have out here. I think BC has as much to lose in a weak deal as Quebec
>does. Quebec's prepared to face things on its own, even if that involves
>hardship. I don't feel any differently)

Insulting me doesn't prove anything. 

>>It has been two years since Meech, and in case YOU haven't noticed, Quebec 
>>is ON it's way to independence. Or did you think October 26 is just 
>>for show? 
>
>I have noticed. What's your point? The rest of Canada should drop 
>everything just to save Quebec? Why should I be prepared to sacrifice my
>future in BC, any more than those in Quebec?
>
>I don't believe the breakup of Canada would benefit anyone. Even in
>Quebec, they could would gain control of their future, but at great
>burden. This would be OK if there were no alternative, but I think there
>is a viable alternative.

I'm more interested in what's best for us all as citizens of Canada,
rather than "saving" Quebec. The breakup of Canada will NOT be a picnic.
It will be a long, drawn-out, painful, and costly process. People will 
suffer REAL pain and hardship. While this is also pointed out by 
politicians whom you have no respect for, you dismiss it as propaganda.
With all respect, Jim, it's extremely cavalier of you to dismiss the
real problems people will have as a result of the break-up so lightly.

>This is at least the second time we face Canada seperating because of
>Quebec. How does the rest of Canada react? They come up with a patchwork
>quilt which barely pleases anyone. We don't need a constitution that 
>just covers up the cracks. We need to start from scratch, and work
>out what will truly satisfy each province.
>
>If we can't or won't do this, then we shouldn't be surprised if Quebec
>gets impatient, and wants out. If Quebec isn't really restless enough
>to leave, then we should be practical, and leave things alone. Chipping
>away at things will just bring the whole house down.
>
>Basically, my view is: do it right, or not at all. I can put up with things
>as they are. But don't waste our time with incomplete "solutions".
>

If we had done this in 1984 or so, we might indeed have "got away with it."
Since that isn't what happened ( a lot of water has gone under the 
bridge by now) it's pointless to suggest rolling back the clock. Voting 
yes give us the the time to deal with many of the economic problems 
we need so badly to deal with. And regardless of whether or not the 
accord is all we want, it's probably marginally better than the status
quo.

>Prelimanary polls suggest we've done a half baked job: there is a good 
>chance of a NO vote in Quebec. If it does pass, I bet it'll be out of
>fear. Is that what we aspire to? fear? Anyway, I strongly suspect that
>Bourrassa probably sold out Quebec for his own short term political
>interests. Quebecers" correct me if I'm wrong.
>
>If politicians are going to mess with the constitution, they'd better put
>their short term self-interest aside, and put their province first.

And what makes you so sure that's what they did? That none of them are
honourable men, or care at all about the future of our country? And are
you lumping them all together in this? Bah! You seem to assume that 
everyone has no honour or scruples - this may match your experience
but not mine. (Of course, some politicians are scoundrels! But many 
are hardworking decent men and women doing the best they can.)

>>>
>>You may have the illusion that Quebec is of no economic importance to B.C. 
>>It's just that - an illusion. We're not just talking inter-provincial
>>trade here, either. Don't you know what the dissolution of Canada - and 
>>the economic uncertainty the break-up will bring - will do to the value
>>of the Canadian dollar? And do you realize what interest rates will
>>have to be pushed to keep investment in Canada? And what that will do to 
>>businesses, jobs and borrowers evrywhere in Canada? WHAT THE HELL 
>>DO YOU MEAN "IT CAN'T HURT" !!

>It can't hurt because that kind of talk is politcal pandering to our
>worst fears. The politicians are using these issues to make us approve
>a constitutional deal under duress. Through the sovereignty referendum,
>through Meech, stockmarkets barely took notice. Should Quebec leave,
>it would take months if not years of negotiation to settle things.
>No doubt Canada would have lesser international standing. But interest rates
>would only rise if there is a perceived threat to foreign capital.
>There isn't much synergy between our economies that would cause less
>growth if there were a total breakup.
>The foreign markets have seen this all before and know that Canada vs
>Canada/Quebec would largely be a politcal formality, a change of title.
>
>IF you believe all this shameless fear-mongering and doomsaying, then
>you've been duped. CAnada did not self destruct after Meech. Either way,
>Canada will not self destruct on OCt 26th. With Yugoslavia, Somalia, 
>Cambodia, Iraq etc in the world, Canada's problems are laughable in
>comparison, and international magazines snicker at Canada's endless
>bickering.
>>
>>No, it's not. As you'll eventually find out, life is a sequence of
>>compromises.

Your optimism about international money markets is misplaced. As 
soon as there's a real likliehood that Canada will actually do the 
deed, they will react. How does 20 % interest sound to you?

>compromises are for car dealers. Don't ask me to write the word 
>compromise next to words like justice, equality, indivual rights.

I don't see why not. Individual rights are constantly compromised
by collective rights. Your individual right to shout, "fire" is 
compromised by a collective right to not have you shout it in a 
theatre not on fire.

>The constitution is the basis for our country. While we may compromise
>on day to day issues in a democracy, we don't call into question
>certain basic principles. If we don't spell out what those basic principles,
>are, then we won't have a sound basis for our political institutions.
>
>Example: if we agree in the principle that everyone is equal, and that
>our votes are equal, then the rest of the constitution shouldn't contradict
>that. If that one *basic, simple* principle is dealt away, even if
>it's a remote possibility that Quebec's population ever goes below
>25%, that is still wrong! It is not a matter of picking a lesser evil.

It may be wrong in theory, but it won't have any practical effect for 
thirty or forty years. Since that's the case, let's hold our collective
noses, vote yes, and get on with re-building the economy. Then, when 
the separatists have withered away to a rump group again, we can have 
another go at it - in twenty or thirty years, not NOW!

>If politicians can't even stay honest to the most basic things, then
>what hope is there? The correct response is to say NO, this goes against
>my own, and everyone else's set of ideals. NOT: how much lower do you
>want me to sink? There has to be a line where you say: I'm not backing 
>down.

Well, I'm not sure how much lower you can sink. That's up to you. :-)


emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)

The way to get things out of a government is to back them to the wall, 
put your hands to their throats, and you will get all that they have. 
- Agnes McPhail
Newsgroups: can.politics