From: donald@sq.sq.com (Donald Teed)
Subject: Re: Banks and the October referendum
Keywords: hype
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, Canada
Distribution: can
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 15:13:15 GMT

Marc Riese writes:
>Donald Teed writes:
>>Two major banks have come out with heavy public announcements
>>that we had better all vote yes or we will be shooting ourselves
>>in terms of the financial state of the nation.
>
>Mr Tweed goes on to state that, in fact, it just ain't so.
>What would the boards of two major banks know that he does not?
>Of course, as Mr Tweed will have us believe, investors will *line up*
>to put their money in Canada after a "no" on October 26th. 
>Investors *LOVE* countries that are on the brink of separation. 
>Anyway, the Quebecois are just kidding and, like other Canadians, 
>they would be happy to go through many more rounds of constitutional debate.
>What else should a government be concerned about than inventing clauses?

There is a difference between this particular constitutional proposal
and how it is being carried out, and possible solutions and how
they could be carried out which would make a big difference in how
I would vote.  The point is not to vote according to blackmail and
not to vote according to the number of meetings that have taken place,
but to vote in terms of CONTENT.  Why is this such a strange idea?
The blackmail is happening in terms of Mulroney's threats and the
Banks threats, and the Quebec political movement threating to separate
from Canada.  If there is any uncertainty about the future of our
country, it is stemming from these public statements and not from the
referendum in itself.  If Quebec had defined exactly what it is
that was going to happen as a result of a 'No' in the referendum,
or the structural changes that would take place in separating from
Canada, there would be less uncertainty.  I think the fact that the
dollar fell after the statement from the head of the CIBC, illustrates
how the statement from the banks has more of an effect than the
referendum in itself.

>> pin striped over weight men wagging their fingers

>Argument ad hominem. Very impressive.

Just trying to make it look as ridiculous as it really is.  People
have too much respect for the rich.

>>Even if what they said were true, why
>>would the blame fall on the voters and not Quebec ...
>
>Canadians take heart!
>If you lose your job, at least you can blame Quebec while on welfare.

So your position is to always approve of anyones demands when they
make a threat which will have negative consequences?  Again, this is if
what they said were true.

The whole thing about Quebec's "feelings" is totally out of the
picture to me.  They say there are two perceptions of the country,
one of ten equal provinces, and one of two partners, Quebec
and English Canada.  I see Canada as being the ten equal provinces plus two
territories.  This is what is in the BNA Act and the Constitution.
When the negotiations took place, it required all of the premiers to
meet, and the constitution indicates that 7 provinces representing 50% percent
of the population are required to make amendments to the constitution.
If Quebec has a problem with its position and its powers in the
country, it will need to make proposals that are concrete, and
be prepared for the other provinces to expect the same powers.  No one
wants to pay the price of handing any kind of special status or powers to
Quebec.  This is the bottom line, as Mulroney found out when Meech Lake died.
If Quebec cannot accept this, then fine, it should separate.
There is no reason to believe this will cause economic hardship.
That is my position, in a nutshell.  I have no hatred, no fear of french
language or any of the other things people associate with a position
that doesn't blindly say "yes" to unity.  If you contrast the state of
Quebec, in terms of the economy, the kind of respect in how it
is treated in Canada, with the province of Newfoundland, I think
you would agree that Quebec is doing much better.  It doesn't fair
as well as Ontario, but no other province does.

>>... Wonder what is in it for them?...
>
>Ah yes, it's a conspiracy. Of course.

I cannot see any other reason for such a self fulfilling prophecy to
be made public by two banks.  Are you a stranger to how these things
work?  You must underestimate the tools available to these financial
types.  Fluctuations are where great amounts of money can be made.

>In a similar display of profound thought, 
>Crawford Kilian writes:
>>If the consequences of voting No are so horrendous, according to the bankers,
>>party leaders, and other assorted Jeremiahs, then why on Earth have 
>>responsible leaders put the country in a position to do itself such damage?
>
>Good point. Obviously they wouldn't. History shows that partisan
>leaders have never put their countries in perilous situations.

The point is, that the whole scenario is too stupid to be taken
at face value.  This analogy serves to illustrate how idiotic
the ruling class takes us to be.

Do you have anything to say?  Or do you just enjoy making quips?
Perhaps your reactionary attitude illustrates what is wrong
between Canadians that has caused the leaders of the provinces
to be forced to have such difficult time finding a common denominator.