From: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Why I like the Charlottetown Accord
Summary: I don't
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:46:35 GMT

In <BvILrn.32z@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca>
dbowman@rainbow (Don A. Bowman)
tries:

> [ ... ]
>                                 Much rhetoric is heard from both sides
> of the issue, but lost in the rhetoric is the details.

	Yes, the details are lost in the rhetorics.  In fact, some
	of the rhetoric argues that the details are not important,
	but that the essence is.

>                                                        Here is what I like
> about the Charlottetown Accord:
> Canadians were consulted before negotiations started. A big criticism of
> Meech Lake was that it was negotiated and presented before we knew what was
> going on. This time we had commissions and talk lines. We had travelling
> committees and write-ins. People told their governments what they wanted,
> what they needed. The government listened, and coalesced it into the
> Charlottetown Accord. I believe this provided our premiers with the
> mandate to negotiate, and a basis to negotiate on.

	You actually believe they listened?  Allaire is on the
	NO side, and he was one of the people who had to listen
	to us.  He knows Charlottetown is a sham that has nothing
	to do with the best interest of the people, and everything
	to do with image projection.

> I believe the Canada clause is going to prove beneficial to all Canadians.
> The Canada clause is designed to interpret the Charter of Rights where it
> [ ... ]
> rights, will make Canada a better and more tolerant place for all Canadians.

	This is a declaration of faith.  No more.  You accept
	the written words for what you think they mean, when
	many others tell you they can VERY easily mean something
	else, and when not a few tell you that the words are
	only as trustworthy as the politicians who wrote them.

> There is another important section of the Accord which deals with our
> Social and Economic Union. It commits our government to providing us with
>  [ ... ]
> have access to food, housing, and other basic necessities. This ensures a
> basic minimum that all Canadians will have.

	Big whooping deal!  We have this in the current setup.
	We don't need to sign a blank check to have it. 

> Under this section our government is committed to high-quality primary and
> secondary education. It provides for reasonable access to post-secondary
> education. I believe that, since education is so fundamental to our
> quality of life and maintenance of our standard of living, that it should
> be firmly entrenched in our constitution. This the Charlottetown Accord
> will do.

	Motherhood and apple pie.  But not realistic, not affordable.
	They know this and they will say so when it is time to deliver.
	But only after the elections.  Refusing the proposal doesn't
	mean we refuse this idea, it means "don't fuck with it, you
	are not qualified".

> [ ... Fast Forward... ]

	Great principles.  I just don't trust the princes
	to implement them.  All of the points you raise are
	relevant, but you make one basic assumption which
	I think is flawed: you trust our politicians to
	do the right things.

	Everything that is described in the accord is in some
	way commendable.  But there are as many possible ways
	to interpret it all as there are political factions
	and pragmatic moods...  the text is very rich in details
	but the wording is always vague; it relies too much on
	good will and reason.  This doesn't work.  And they
	know it.

> A lot of political capital is made by the "NO" side as to the
> unavailability of the deal. Read the summary. It's not going to change
> drastically.

	I agree with you, the final text is not that important
	when one trusts the politicians to act in our best
	interest.  The precision or lack thereof, in the legal
	text, will tell us a lot about their commitment.

	As a rule however, nobody likes to sign a blank cheque.

>              Any major change would require the consent of all of the
> premiers, the first peoples, the federal government, etc. You can rest
> assured that there will be no surprises between the summary and the final
> document.

	There will be surprises aplenty.  Bet on it.  The little
	incident with Clyde Wells at the beginning of the week
	is an indication of things to come.

	If Bourassa discovers his spine, he will raise a few
	points of his own which will force major changes.  It
	will all be very cosmetic, that's the way of politics.

	In the end, the game is "fool most of the people most
	of the time".  It doesn't have to be that way, but the
	way this deal has been sold can't exactly be qualified
	as perestroika or glastnost.  We have ground for concern.

> It is extremely important that every Canadian vote in this plebescite. It

	Yes.  Abstaining is counter-productive.  It's like
	saying you don't need the right to vote.  Eventually
	the politicians will take us up on it.

> is of fundamental importance that you vote on the contents of the
> Charlottetown Accord. You should not vote the way someone tells you to. You

	Exactly.  Vote the way your instincts and your intelligence
	tell you to vote.  The YES side has tried to browbeat you
	into submission.  Don't let them.  Terrorism should not
	be given in to.

> should not vote because of something you heard. Ignore the rhetoric, rise
> above the name calling. Don't vote "NO" because you like Preston Manning.

	I don't like him.  I vote NO.
	I don't like Trudeau.  I vote NO.
	I don't approve of Parizeau's goals.  I vote NO.

> Don't vote "YES" to spite Jacques Parizeau. Vote your mind. Read the
> Accord, check those items you like, check those items you do not. Balance
> the two. What can you live with. What do you like. What do you dislike, but
> would campaign to change. Remember, we all have to live with the
> consequences of a vote.

	You insist the details matter.  They don't.  The
	fact that our politicians have to lie to us, and
	scare us to make us vote YES is a clear indication
	that something is rotten.

> Remember, a YES vote gives us a framework for future discussions,

	Remember, a NO vote says: "I don't trust you to change
	anything fundamental in our society".

> revisions, and clarifications. A NO vote simply puts us back to the start,
> looking for consensus in a strained environment.

	A YES would place us in a situation where the organized
	criminals in Government can forge on without ever getting
	our assent on points.

	The current proposal addresses the Quebec issue, the first
	nations issue, the Senate issue, social issues, philosophical
	issues... and they ask us ONE single vote, and they say that
	a NO vote is a betrayal of Canada.  This alone disqualifies
	them... 

> Don Bowman

--
 Alain