From: dbowman@shade (Don A. Bowman)
Newsgroups: can.politics,talk.politics.misc,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: OK, I am biased, but...
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:20:08 GMT
Organization: University of Waterloo
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

W.A.Simon (alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca) wrote:
: It is interesting to watch how the arguments, for against the
: proposal, fly.  The YES side wants us to believe.  The NO side
: wants us to understand.
: 
: The NO side talks about the NO.  So does the YES side.  The YES
: side doesn't say much about what will happen after a YES vote.
: The NO side says it will be more of the same.  I would tend
: to question the YES side's approach.

The YES side has spoken of what will happen after a YES vote. The banks and
money lenders have indicated there will be a stable dollar, and thus a
downward pressure on interest rates.

: 
: The YES side says fire and brimstone will fall on our heads.
: The NO side says the current leaders will get their ass (in
: the political sense) rimmed.  Which is more likely to be true?

The NO side says that we will all die a horrible undemocratic death if we
vote YES. You're taking moderates from one side and contrasting with the
activists of the other. Listen to Kim Cambell. Listen to Bob Rae. They are
showing tolerance. Neither is fighting based on dire consequences. I think
you've been listening to the wrong people.

: 
: The YES side says the country will fall apart.  The NO side says
: that refusing a proposed vague and remote change can't make the
: country fall apart.  Which is more likely to be true?

Many of the NO side WANT the country to fall apart. They often couch it in
terms of Asymmetrical Federalism, or duality. What they mean is one or more
countries.

: 
: The YES side says the economy will go to the dogs.  The NO side
: says the economy is already in nowhere city because of the people
: who want us to sign a blank cheque.  Which is more likely to be
: true?
: 
: If I listen carefully, I think I detect two things:
: 	a) the YES side speaks with the voice of a medieval
: 	   inquisitor; we are not supposed to have a choice.
: 	b) the YES side only talks about the terrible things
: 	   that would happen in the event of a NO victory; it
: 	   doesn't seem to occur to them that they could win.

You haven't been listening. Did you see the CBC documentary on the
consequences of a YES vote? (Last Sunday). The head of the Bank of Montreal
sums up the economic consequences of a YES vote -- stable dollar, downward
pressure on interest rates, better employment. Why does he say this? He has
no possible political capital to gain -- he is not elected, doesn't have to
be re-elected, and is politically neutral. He says what he believes, what his
bank believes, what investors believe. You can argue that they are wrong
until you are blue in the face, but if they believe this, they will make it
so.

: 
: If I take my cues from the YES side, I must vote NO.  And,
: by the way, if the YES side is not lying to us, then they must
: be incredibly more naive (not to say stupid) than we can afford
: our leaders to be.
: 

If you take your cues from the DOCUMENT, the way you are supposed to, and
from the people who explain it to you, you will vote YES. Why wouldn't you?
It is stupid to say, "I'm going to vote NO because I don't like the YES side,
I don't like politicians" or whatever. You are supposed to be voting on our
future. This is not an election.

--
Don Bowman                (519) 744-6154     dbowman@zeus.uwaterloo.ca