Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re:Analyzing the Deal
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 19:10:43 PDT
Distribution: can
Organization: Robert Smits


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. 
>__________________________________________________________________________
> John Paul Morrison                     |  Just another "Enemy of Canada"
> University of British Columbia, Canada |  Say NO/NON to Constitutional
> Electrical Engineering                 |  hegomony and fear-mongering
> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca                     |  by politicians/scum.
>________________________________________|_________________________________

emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca  (Robert Smits, Ladysmith B.C.)

The way to get things out of a government is to back them to the wall, 
put your hands to their throats, and you will get all that they have. 
- Agnes McPhail
Newsgroups: can.politics