From: beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Denis Beauregard)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Globe and Mail article
Date: 28 Sep 92 18:04:03 GMT
Organization: Institut de recherche d'Hydro-Quebec, Varennes, Canada

In article <1992Sep24.115458.11499@meadow.uucp> marc@meadow.UUCP (Marc Riehm) writes:
>
>He has had to play the public relations games very carefully, and I think that
>those who say he "caved in" either don't understand the game or are being

Those who say that was a near collaborator.  If a near collaborator does not
understand the game, then the one who chose the collaborator doesn't too.

>disingenuous.  After all, in order to appease nationalist tendencies and in
>order to intimidate TROC as much as possible, he had to put up a strong front
>for years.  Then, when it came down to the wire, he had to scramble for as
>much as he could get and then start the selling job.

So, from what you said, Bourassa was never a nationalist and called for
sovereignty just for fake?  In that case, he lied to electorship.
HOWEVER...

Suppose for one minute, Boubou is nationalist and changed his mind after
loosing elections in 1976.  After that, he went to Europe and studied the
then existing and proposed European communauty.  That communauty is
economically some acceptable compromise (something like asymetrical
federalism or sovereignty-association).  When back to power, as any
new government, he tried to improve economics etc.  But, the question
of Quebec status is still pending.  So, he mayhave thought this complicated
strategy : 

1st, propose the independence.  This lead to a referendum and 
    made pressure on CHQ.
2nd, take any agreement, good or bad and change referendum question.
If good, be sincere and made campaign for it.  (This alternative is delayed) 
If bad, be not sincere, pretend it is good for Quebec and made campaign.
3rd, have your more nationalistics assistants absent from table so that
they can feel angry and you could accept quite unacceptable deal.
4th, plot so that those nationalistics talk and have PM looking like a fool.
5th, hold and loose the referendum.  Then, you get a lot of trouble for
many reason (i.e. PM is a fool, reject of Quebec, no more power, no more
step since 1980 referendum, etc.).
6th, call for election.  Boubou lose, Parizeau and PQ win, and voila.
Quebec secedes and that's all.

Quite complex, but, Boubou can be presented as having the same idea all along.
Changing the referendum question is not a viable strategy for Boubou.
Boubou did not sa recently that independence was bad.  He just said it
was too soon for it.  No word for how soon, just it is too soon.
Because the agreement solved nothing, then there will be some wave saying
stop fooling people with pseudo-agreements and make a true proposition.
What can't do, general public opinion following the referendum will do it
and federal will have to campaign in favor of asymetrical federalism which
is a suitable form for Quebec independence while keeping Canada market,
and give more power to west in most subject where Quebec will retire.



>
>Do you really think that he wanted to hold a provincial referendum on
>sovereignty?

There is a bill for that.  If he never had the intent, then he fooled electors.

>Can you name someone else who could have done a better job?

It depends on what you call a better job :-).  Is it getting more power
for Quebec (Lucien Bouchard or Jacques Parizeau would have get more because
it would have been more obvious they won't change their mind if no suitable
offers).  Is it having a final solution to Canadian problem of unity?  This
is not the job of Boubou at all.

>marc@meadow.UUCP


-- 
  \_\    Denis Beauregard  *  internet:beaurega@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
 /   \   Genealogiste officiel : Beauregard/Jarret/Jarest/Vincent
J   __>  Un Quebec renouvele dans une Amerique renovee
\_.-===                                                  Opinions ? Et pis non !
Newsgroups: can.politics