From: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: can.politics,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: OK, I am biased, but... (getting longer)
Date: 14 Oct 92 20:14:37 EDT

In <Bw2FxK.3t8@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>
dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
gives a good argument:

> W.A.Simon (alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca) wrote:
> : The NO side talks about the NO.  So does the YES side.  The YES
> : side doesn't say much about what will happen after a YES vote.
> : The NO side says it will be more of the same.  I would tend
> : to question the YES side's approach.
> The YES side has spoken of what will happen after a YES vote. The banks and
> money lenders have indicated there will be a stable dollar, and thus a
> downward pressure on interest rates.

	Follow me and the sky will be blue.  Trust me and spring
	eternal will ensue.  Love me and you will never be sick.
	This is, again, a faith argument.  The banks and money
	lenders have their own axe to grind... more later.

> : The YES side says fire and brimstone will fall on our heads.
> : The NO side says the current leaders will get their ass (in
> : the political sense) rimmed.  Which is more likely to be true?
> The NO side says that we will all die a horrible undemocratic death if we
> vote YES.

	You must be kidding.  I would like some quote.

>           You're taking moderates from one side and contrasting with the
> activists of the other.
	
	You have a good point here, I did that.  I took the
	moderates from the YES side and contrasted them with
	the activists from the NO side.  This YES campaign is
	the most shameful exploitation of public funds for petty
	private political gains I have ever seen.  It is the
	most blatant manipulation of people and the most hideous
	cultivation of their fears.

>                         Listen to Kim Cambell.

	The fact that she says something you like to hear does
	not necessarily qualify her.  The fact that she is part
	of Mulroney's mafia disqualifies her as a rational arbiter.

>                                                Listen to Bob Rae.

	It will be very cold in Hell when I take advice from
	anyone from the NDP or any other left wing party.  If
	they like this deal, then it must stink.  These people
	wouldn't know truth if it hit them in the tush.  What
	they are doing to Ontario should be ground for a tar and
	feather treatment (at least). 

>                                                                   They are
> showing tolerance. Neither is fighting based on dire consequences. I think
> you've been listening to the wrong people.

	No, I heard them too.  They are a bit more intelligent.
	Which should not be confused with palatable.

> : The YES side says the country will fall apart.  The NO side says
> : that refusing a proposed vague and remote change can't make the
> : country fall apart.  Which is more likely to be true?
> Many of the NO side WANT the country to fall apart. They often couch it in
> terms of Asymmetrical Federalism, or duality. What they mean is one or more
> countries.

	Not many.  Quebec has a particular brand of NO which
	indeed wants a different Canada.  One without Quebec.
	I don't approve, but I don't question their intelligence,
	or their integrity.  This deal is bad for nationalists
	in Quebec and it is bad for people who want a good
	Canadian deal everywhere else.  Canada deserves better.
	So dies Quebec (within or without).

> : 	b) the YES side only talks about the terrible things
> : 	   that would happen in the event of a NO victory; it
> : 	   doesn't seem to occur to them that they could win.
> You haven't been listening. Did you see the CBC documentary on the
> consequences of a YES vote? (Last Sunday). The head of the Bank of Montreal
> sums up the economic consequences of a YES vote -- stable dollar, downward
> pressure on interest rates, better employment. Why does he say this? He has
> no possible political capital to gain -- he is not elected, doesn't have to
> be re-elected, and is politically neutral. He says what he believes, what his
> bank believes, what investors believe. You can argue that they are wrong
> until you are blue in the face, but if they believe this, they will make it
> so.

	a) the business and finance point of view:
		Business people, rightly or wrongly, like to keep
		things the way they are, and they tend to support
		the people currently in government (within limits)
		whomever they happen to be at the time.  They value
		stability over freedom, democracy and quality of
		life.  That's what they do and that's the way it
		must be.  They also have a vested interest in
		keeping the currently powerful mafia sweet, since
		most business nowadays trickles down from G. contracts.
		If the current arm twisting is any indication, it
		could be very unhealthy to antagonize the YES side
		since this referendum (as Boubou keeps telling us)
		is not an election.  This mafia will still be there
		even after a NO vote.  Business people are wise.
		Don't confuse pragmatism with true faith.  Should
		the NO side win (as it will), you will witness
		a rapid accomodation, on the part of business, with
		reality.

	b) the consequences of a YES vote.
		If the YES vote, by some unexpected turn of events,
		were to win, the Charlottetown accord would
		become the working draft for countless rounds
		of continuing negociations.  The debate and the
		conflicts would continue.  The clowns would continue
		to amuse the media.  Their bufoonery would be
		legitimized.  They would also have an excuse for
		not addressing the economy (which has suffered less
		from the political incertitude that it has from
		the greed, inefficiency and stupidity of our elites).

> : If I take my cues from the YES side, I must vote NO.  And,
> : by the way, if the YES side is not lying to us, then they must
> : be incredibly more naive (not to say stupid) than we can afford
> : our leaders to be.
> If you take your cues from the DOCUMENT, the way you are supposed to, and
> from the people who explain it to you, you will vote YES. Why wouldn't you?
> It is stupid to say, "I'm going to vote NO because I don't like the YES side,
> I don't like politicians" or whatever. You are supposed to be voting on our
> future. This is not an election.

	I think I gathered that.  This DOCUMENT as you call it
	is a DRAFT for further negociations.  And I like neither
	the tone of it nor its contents.  However, I repeat, this
	is not relevant; what is relevant is that we are being
	snookered.  Whatever is in the document will somehow be
	forgotten before the dust settles.  The whole exercise
	has one major purpose: obtain a renewed mandate to
	continue the farce without significant hindrance.  The
	minor purpose was to prevent a vote on sovereignty in Quebec.



--
 Alain