[martin14]

bootlegga bootlegga:

ASLplease ASLplease:

having a referendum would work. cost effective, too.

We tried that under Mulroney (look up Charlottetown Accord sometime) and even ALBERTA voted against senate reform because it was packaged with something else they didn't like.

Given that senate reformers want senate reform but are unwilling to surrender anything to those provinces that would lose influence (like the Maritimes and both Ontario and Quebec), it really just boils down to a case of a bunch of babies wanting their cake and eating it too.

hmmm, a watered down triple E proposal packaged in with
distinct society status for Quebec.

Its a bit unfair to say Charlottetown was all about Senate reform.


Try a referendum with only Senate reform on the table and we'll see.

[bootlegga]

Thanks for proving my point about senate reformers not being willing to give up anything for more representation, Martin.

Why should PEI, Quebec or anyone else with more representation in the Senate than Alberta give up that representation without getting something in return? The answer is simple, ey won't. For that to happen, we'd have to live in a perfect world where communism actually works or the UN was an effective international forum or it rains donuts.

But in the real world we live in, if you want something, you have to give something. Want a new TV? Then get a job and fork over some money. Same goes for senate reform. If provinces which are under-represented right now want more say, than they have to be willing to sacrifice something to get it. I voted to accept Charlottetown because I was willing to give something to get something. How about you?

Asking for a referendum on senate reform and senate reform alone is as doomed to failure as a referendum to re-distribute seats from rural ridings to urban ones.

It ain't gonna fly.

[ASLplease]

perhaps if you spin it again, you'd see how Albertans gave up the EEE senate over the idea of equal representation for other provinces.

[bootlegga]

It ain't spin.

It was an exercise in nothing more than pettiness and that's why I have nothing but scorn for the current crop of senate reformers. Albertans (along with most Canadians) choose to say fuck you to Quebec (helping to ignite the whole national unity crisis too) instead of choosing an elected and equal senate. It might not have been a true Triple E senate, but it would have been far better than the archaic institution we have today. The province has tried an end run around it by electing 'senators' but no other province has followed suit, making their effort look like the partisan joke it is.

As for Quebec wanting 'distinct society' status, they essentially got it anyways (via a variety of announcements by Chretien and Harper), so what did everyone else accomplish? SWEET FUCK ALL.

Charlottetown was far from perfect, but had it passed, lots of stupid, little grievances would have gone the way of the dodo (like Alberta constantly bitching about the federal government interfering in health care). Instead, Quebec got what they wanted and the rest of Canada got screwed. Ironically, it was by themsleves, not the Quebecois this time.

[Lemmy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Thanks for proving my point about senate reformers not being willing to give up anything for more representation, Martin.

Why should PEI, Quebec or anyone else with more representation in the Senate than Alberta give up that representation without getting something in return? The answer is simple, ey won't. For that to happen, we'd have to live in a perfect world where communism actually works or the UN was an effective international forum or it rains donuts.

But in the real world we live in, if you want something, you have to give something. Want a new TV? Then get a job and fork over some money. Same goes for senate reform. If provinces which are under-represented right now want more say, than they have to be willing to sacrifice something to get it. I voted to accept Charlottetown because I was willing to give something to get something. How about you?

Asking for a referendum on senate reform and senate reform alone is as doomed to failure as a referendum to re-distribute seats from rural ridings to urban ones.

It ain't gonna fly.

Good points. The other problem with referrenda is that the people voting are often voting for something completely different than the question before them. In the case of 1995, the people were so pissed off with the whole drawn-out Constitutional process, and what was perceived as "Whining Quebeckers", that the vote was doomed. People didn't really even care what the Charlottetown Accord was. I doubt the majority of voters even knew what the hell they were saying "Yes" or "No" to. They perceived a "No" vote as a raised middle finger to Quebec. Period. Referrenda seem logical, democratic means to decide an issue, but they presume an informed citizenry. We know that's fantasy-land.

[ASLplease]

it is a spin.

I voted No because something like the 30% vito that Quebec wanted does not belong in a constitution where the theme of equality should exist. I didn't need any other reason than that. My 'NO' vote was a 'YES' vote for equality.

[bootlegga]

Then stop bitching about senate reform.

Nothing in life is free bud. You had your chance and blew it.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Then stop bitching about senate reform.

Nothing in life is free bud. You had your chance and blew it.

What the Charlottetown Accord proposed for the Senate would not have been any better (in some ways it would have been worse) than what we have now.

What the Accord proposed was NOT a triple E Senate.

[martin14]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Then stop bitching about senate reform.

Nothing in life is free bud. You had your chance and blew it.

What the Charlottetown Accord proposed for the Senate would not have been any better (in some ways it would have been worse) than what we have now.

What the Accord proposed was NOT a triple E Senate.

True, and bootie chose to misinterpret my previous post.

Distinct society should not be in the Constitution, it would have
created so many more problems with it than without.

The referendum could have given me a gold plated bike,
I still would have voted no, never mind watered down senate reform.
Too much like our 200 plant C-15.

[ASLplease]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Then stop bitching about senate reform.

Nothing in life is free bud. You had your chance and blew it.

wow.dont know whether its worth responding to .


I follow your logic and its pretty weak even for a liberal.

[Curtman]

martin14 martin14:

Distinct society should not be in the Constitution, it would have
created so many more problems with it than without.

How do you feel about them being "a nation within a united Canada"? Is it just the word distinct, or the constitution that you are upset about?

[bootlegga]

ASLplease ASLplease:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Then stop bitching about senate reform.

Nothing in life is free bud. You had your chance and blew it.

wow.dont know whether its worth responding to .


I follow your logic and its pretty weak even for a liberal.

Try stringing together more than a couple of sentences and then we'll talk...

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Then stop bitching about senate reform.

Nothing in life is free bud. You had your chance and blew it.

What the Charlottetown Accord proposed for the Senate would not have been any better (in some ways it would have been worse) than what we have now.

What the Accord proposed was NOT a triple E Senate.

No, it wasn't Triple E, but it would have been elected and equal.

To me, that's a pretty big step towards Triple E.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Then stop bitching about senate reform.

Nothing in life is free bud. You had your chance and blew it.

What the Charlottetown Accord proposed for the Senate would not have been any better (in some ways it would have been worse) than what we have now.

What the Accord proposed was NOT a triple E Senate.

No, it wasn't Triple E, but it would have been elected and equal.

To me, that's a pretty big step towards Triple E.

Elected? Charlottetown would allow provincial governments to decide whether its citizens could vote for Senators or not, it did not mandate it.

Equal? Equal means more than how the seats are split between provinces. Is giving Quebec special veto rights in the Senate equal? I don't think so.