From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Plan S -- Quebec separation
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 92 20:15:08 GMT

In article <schuck.721245283@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>
>>In article <schuck.721174910@sfu.ca> Bruce_Schuck@sfu.ca writes:
>>>thood@corvus.matrox.com (Thomas Hood) writes:
>>>
>>>>Obviously, ROC would have to elect leaders not associated with Quebec.
>>>>I do not agree that they should be ruthless.
>>>
>>>If we are not ruthless, Canada will not survive.
>
>>If "we" ARE ruthless, Canada would also not survive.
>
>>Parliament, which is the "we" that is the primary decision making body
>>of the government of Canada, doesn't have any way of becoming as
>>ruthless as you suggest, without it being effectively (or actually)
>>dissolved, which would mean that Canada would be GONE as we know it
>>now.
>
>Parliament would have "zero" legitimacy if it was not dissolved and an
>election called with no members of a secessionist province allowed to
>run. That is the only way we could go on as a country.

SOMEONE is going to have to call these shots, and that someone is
either (a) going to have to convince a lot of Canadians that this is
necessary, or (b) do the job as a dictator.

It's becoming quite clear that we're going to have to agree to
disagree on the necessity of "ruthless action."

Unfortunately for your position, there's going to be a LOT of people
disagreeing on the necessity of "ruthless action."  The only way of
forcing it through would be by some unilateral action, essentially by
some form of dictator.

This could reflect the Prime Minister invoking some form of the War
Measures Act; I can't see a Prime Minister being willing to as
ruthless as you propose.  It looks really bad in the history books; it
destroys any chance of re-election, both of which are (perhaps
unfotunately) more imporant to Prime Ministers than you'd like.

More importantly, it requires that the PM be legally responsible for
denaturalizing several million Canadians.  You can imagine someone
doing this.  I'm sorry, but I can't.  Politics doesn't work this way.

>>Any of the alternatives involve dictators, which certainly counts as
>>Canada not surviving, in my books.
>
>Nonsense. The ruthlessness I talk about is necessary to legitimize the
>national institutions after secession is chosen.
>
>If it isn't done Canada will cease to exist.

(a) Regardless of what is done, their legitimacy would be called into
question.

(b) If ruthless action is taken, the questions will be more pointed.

>>My Canada doesn't condone ruthlessness against Quebec.
>
>Then your Canada will split apart into several pieces the minute a
>Quebecker attempts to exercise power within Canada because we were too
>gutless to kick him out.

They won't have much political legitimacy in TROC if and when Quebec
became a sovereign state, regardless of any legal standing.  I think
Canada is stronger than this, but I will rephrase it.

"My Canada doesn't condone ruthlessness against Quebec simply for the
sake of hatred."

Is that more accurate?

I don't expect people to be "nice" to Quebec just for the sake that
they like the place or the people - I expect them to act in the best
interests of Canada.

This means trying to make a deal that won't start a civil war.

This means NEGOTIATING.

And negotiators that think only of their own side don't make very good
negotiators.  Making Quebec a secession "offer" which amounts pretty
much just to punishment is NOT a good offer.  They might as well start
punishing Canada back.

You can't just think about the first order effects of the separation
proposals, i.e. - the immediate effects on Quebec.  You have to
consider as well the second order effects of:
(a) Quebec's reaction
(b) The way the proposals affect TROC
(c) The way the US would react
(d) The way the world community would react.

Those things have implications too.

For instance, if TROC cut off all trade with Quebec, contrary to the
spirit of GATT, if not the letter of that law, this would be a
wonderful opportunity for protectionists the world around to put up
barriers against Canada.  Monkey see, monkey do.  And the first ones
to start the arguments would be the Americans.

If we can't handle our own affairs well enough to avoid what is
essentially an "internal" trade war, how can we hope to deal with
international trade?

-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |===================================
University of Ottawa              |  The Personal Computer:  Colt 45
Master of System Science Program  |  of the Information Frontier
Newsgroups: can.politics