Thursday, June 10, 2004

A second thought on the Clarity Act

While my last post on the Clarity Act is a clearly personal response (and perhaps not at all well thought out), now I'll give you the other side of the coin that is my head. I'm not sure why I bother -- nobody's reading my political posts, anyway, I'm sure. Politics is just a dangerous topic to write about -- kind of like religion.

The biggest problem with a Quebec seccession from Canada, as I see it, is simply an economic one. How will the rest of the world see this, and what will it do to our dollar and financial standing on a global scale? I would imagine it would have a negative impact on Canada and on a separated Quebec. However, I think Canada would eventually recover, while Quebec would surely not (or at least it would take a hell of a lot longer to do so).

Back in the last Referendum, companies were packing their bags and running, not walking, away from Quebec and into other provinces or even into the U.S. When and if another Referendum is called, I'd expect to see the same kind of behaviour from the private sector ... and I wouldn't blame them one bit. If Quebec actually became an independent nation, what would happen then?

However, I don't know that I actually believe Jack Layton when he says he'll rip up the Clarity Act. Politicians make promises they don't keep all the time, and I'm starting to lean toward siding with Joey Slinger's views. Layton doesn't actually have a chance of winning the election, but he might have a shot at opposition. A few empty promises for the Quebec vote is only going to help him reach that goal, not hinder it.

Comments: Post a Comment



<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?



Number of visitors since Jan. 7, 2004: