Newsgroups: can.politics
From: robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson)
Subject: Re: Analyzing the Deal
Reply-To: robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com (Jim Robinson)
Organization: Motorola - Mobile Data Division; Richmond, BC
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Distribution: can
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:22:45 GMT

emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca wrote:
>
>robinson@mdivax1.uucp (Jim Robinson) writes:
>>>
>>>Look, let's put it in perspective. Sure, the agreement is flawed in many 
>>>ways - not all the senators will be elected, they sure aren't going to be 
>>>effective, I don't agree with the 25% floor for Quebec, and nobody has 
>>>yet defined for me exactly what aboriginal self government means, etc.
>>>Be that as it may, there is no way at all that Quebec will agree to less 
>>>than the current proposal. 
>>
>>Gee, when you put it THAT way, the deal's just irresistable!
>
>No, it's not. Voting yes is the lesser of two evils. 
>
>>>
>>>The choice isn't whether or not this is a good constitution that will 
>>>meet our requirements for the next one hundred years or more - it's 
>>>whether or not we'll have any COUNTRY at all in ten years from now. It's 
>>>true that separatist forces will continue to push for an independent 
>>>Quebec but if TROC rejects this accord we'll have no chance to keep 
>>>Quebec within Canada at all. 
>>
>>
>>I don't buy the argument one bit. It's been two years since Meech, and 
>>Canada hasn't disappeared. Rather than accepting a half assed deal,
>>the status quo is (almost) preferable. We can afford to ignore the 
>>constitution for a year or two, and focus on more pressing problems.
>>
>
>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? 
>
>>Before Mulroney got the urge to play "great statesman" a couple of years
>>ago, everybody was more or less happy. This isn't to say there weren't any
>>flaws. It's just that this whole "crisis" is imaginary. All we have seen
>>is a lot of bluffing and fake consultation by politicians.
>>
>While this was true in 1984, the Quebec 'nationalist' movement has acquired
>a lot of momentum since then. There is simply no way of returning to
>conditions as they were in 1984. The present situation, while brought
>about largely because of Mulroney's meddling, is far more serious than
>you assume.
>
>>>Lastly, we simply do not have the luxury of pissing around with the 
>>>consitutional arrangement for another ten years. Our jobs are 
>>>disappearing, the economy is going to hell in a handbasket, the education 
>>>system is falling to bits, etc. We simply MUST start paying attention to 
>>>some of the other problems out there. 
>>
>>I completely agree with this.
>
>Good. At least we agree on something.
>
>>>If TROC accepts this accord, distasteful though it is to many of us, we 
>>>may have to go through this again - in forty or fifty years. If we reject 
>>>it, it won't matter whether it was perfect or not.
>>
>>What makes you think it will be any better or easier next time round?
>>People are already saying this is "A constituion to last Canada the next 10
>> years" I think not.
>>
>Why on earth do you think I think it will be better or easier next 
>time around? Of course it won't! At least if we vote Yes we'll have
>a chance to still have a country in 10 years!
>
>>As a BCer, you should realize that BC is of no importance to Quebecers.
>>And Quebec is basically of no economic importance to BC. BC's future
>>is with the rest of the Pacific countries, with Washington/Oregon/California.
>>With Japan. If British Columbian's are unlucky enough to have a visionless,
>>non-leader (ie Harcourt), then we should hold our ground, and rejecting
>>it can't hurt. Why should one province compromise its goals?
>>
>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" !!
>
>>Why can't Canadians come up with simple principles we can all aspire to,
>>instead of a bunch of ifs and excepts. I would NOT be happy to see Canada
>>break up, or Quebec leave, but can you blame Quebec for wanting out,
>>if the rest of Canada can't get its act together? The status quo might not
>>be overtly bad, and I don't believe for a moment that English Canada is 
>>ganging up on Quebec. But even though things aren't that bad, the status
>>quo is preventing provinces from moving on to better things (esp. Quebec
>>BC, Alberta). If provincial goals are irreconcilable, then compromise
>>is worse than seperation.
>
>No, it's not. As you'll eventually find out, life is a sequence of
>compromises.
>
>>The American's managed to draw up a constitution and bill of rights which
>>represents the principles they believe in. Why can't Canada find its own
>>essence? Compromise, exceptions, exemptions etc. are not becoming in a
>>constitution.
>
>Without ANY exceptions I am aware of, every Constitution is full
>of compromises, exceptions and exemptions. 

Just for the record, Robert was incorrect in attributing the above words
to me. 
-- 
Jim Robinson
robinson@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson

Newsgroups: can.politics