|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
From: Jean-Francois Brousseau <krapht@hbe.ca> To: cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 17:12:32 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <9910091717290X.00181@nulix> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Reply-To: Jean-Francois Brousseau <krapht@hbe.ca> The first vote actually happened in 1982. Although I know little about what happened between our governments during referendums, it is clear that the United States want Canada to stay as one country. Then again, maybe Clinton would propose to buy Quebec. Politics in Quebec are kinda weird right now. Many people await the next referendum with lots of anticipation, as it might be the 'good one'. The main concern right now is what's gonna happen when (if) the referendum actually works, especially on the business level. On Sat, 09 Oct 1999, Craig McKie wrote: > >At 09:49 PM 10/8/99 -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > > >A Canadian friend told me that during the first secession vote Clinton and > >his advisors were on the phone all night with Canada's federal leaders. It > >was clear from Canadian news coverage that Clinton viewed any victory by > >Quebec secessionists as a possible catalyst to similar anti-federal groups > >in the U.S. None of this, to my knowledge, was related in the major U.S. media. > > That would be the SECOND referendum. It was a much closer run thing > with the result being decided in the negative by a very small > majority. The first vote occurred according to my recollection in the > late 1970s. During the second referendum, there were consultations > between the Prime Minister's office and various American officials > possibly, probably including Clinton. Little doubt has been left in > the minds of Canadians of all political persuasions that the United > States sees that its national interest lies in preserving the present > Canadian federation. This position no doubt played a part in the > outcome of both referenda. I will leave it to others to interpret WHY > U.S. national interests have been defined in this way. One possibility > is, as the original post suggests, that a successful referendum might > serve as an example for domestic de-federalizers. There are other > plausible reasons including current military arrangements, the UKUSA > arrangement, the FTA treaty, etc. etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |