From: dbowman@warp (Don A. Bowman)
Subject: Re: Scenes We'd Like to See
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 21:33:44 GMT

Evan Leibovitch (evan@telly.on.ca) wrote:
: 
: >This may be true. It's also extremely unlikely that anyone else is going 
: >to get the chance.
: 
: I'm interested to know upon what you base this opinion. This is not a
: rhetorical request. I'd like to know the underlying beliefs, facts and
: assumptions behind the view expressed above. I don't see any evidence at
: all that another attempt, led by some new faces with new approaches and
: a little less interest in confrontation, is "extremely unlikely".
: 

Answering for myself, and not the original poster of the question, I
believe this to be mostly true because:

1) If the deal is rejected outside Quebec, it will be seen as a rejection
of Quebec, and both the Liberals and the PQ will be forced to campaign on
a platform of independence, whether economic union political independence,
or total indepence. The spirit of compromise, however slight it may be,
will be gone.

2) If the deal is rejected within Quebec, it will be seen as a rejection
of Canada by Quebec. Once again, it will be viewed as a rejection by
Quebec, and there will be less of a willingness to compromise
further.

3) If the deal goes down, there will be no politicians willing to
stick their necks out to negotiate a new one. The current federal mandate
lasts for another year or so. I really believe that they will have to call an
election  if the deal goes down (except maybe for a 49-51 split or something
similar). Even if the current PM were re-elected, do you think he would try
again? How about the NDP? The Liberals? They'd really have to put that on
their electoral platform to get the mandate, and I don't believe any party
would after a public rejection.

I would counter your question with another -- who would be the new faces
There would be (possibly) a PC leadership convention. There's one. Still,
I don't think they will be likely to try again. If the new faces are
people like Preston Manning and Jacques Parizeau (after all, if they win
the referendum, don't they have the political mandate?) There will be less
of a willingness to compromise further.

I can hear Gerald leaping in here with his elected political conventions.
But, a government has to support and promote these. I don't believe there
will be a political willingness to do that.

To sum up:

basic assumptions:
  1) Deal is defeated and no politician will stick neck out to develop new
one along same lines. Only politicians who wish breakup will try for new
deal, one which carves up the pie instead of tying it together
  2) Massive loss of political faith brought on by a large non-confidence in
government prevents them from doing anything. (economic recovery, new
constitution, etc)
  3) A NO vote will mean "renewed federalism" will be a dirty word.
  4) In any future negotiations, a compromise will be harder to reach because
more special interest groups will be their, each province will look for more
power for themself, etc.

How about yourself, why do you believe there will be new negotiations,
starting from scratch? Who will be in charge, how will they be held, will you
through out all the Spicer, et al committees reports? Will you hold new
consultations, or are the old ones ok. Do we need a general election? If the
consitution were on the election platform, would we need a referendum, or
would that be a good enough mandate? How about the provinces... if the people
of Quebec reject Bourassa's acceptance of Charlottetown, can he continue with
his 2 years of mandate? How about BC -- if they reject, what about Harcourt?


--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca
Newsgroups: can.politics