Can the CWB honour the plebiscite results?

[jdepape]

I've re-read shaney's post. He's not saying he's
for or against a vote. He's saying in the event
that the plebiscite results agree with government
(supporting the elimination of the single desk) it
will give the CWB an "interesting choice" since
they've said they will abide by it.

I agree with his sentiment - I just don't think we'll
see that result from the plebiscite.

[bucket]

The plebiscite was rigged to go to the pro board result.

When you phone the election coordinator (MNP) and they say things like estates should have a vote because they are following the cwb act as it is an entity carrying on business, you know there is no moral thinking going on.

Why should we vote on our neighbor's business or for that matter their kid's future business?

[newguy]

You can not vote on a human rights issue because in Canada minorities have rights too.

[jdepape]

Back to Shaney's point (or what I think it is)....

I recognize like most of us that the plebiscite is
skewed, flawed and an absolute ridiculous waste
of money. Could even be illegal (the way they
did it contravenes the CWB Act).

But - even so, what does the CWB board do if
the results show the majority voted for a market
without the CWB? It actually should happen on
barley (but the vote is so tainted that I doubt it.)

This is the same question in my article that
started this thread. Abiding by an "anti single
desk" vote would be illegal by their own
argument about why they can't work with
government on reforming the CWB.

[Kodiak]

John and Shawn:

I understand your premise regarding the survey and the CWB's response, should it show a majority in favour of eliminating the single desk status. But it's only an interesting secondary, legal question. It’s fun to contemplate the pickle the Board of Directors might put themselves into. This time it would be a brine of their own making. But we've seen them contort themselves into double helix pretzels a million times trying to defend the indefensible. This time it might resemble a ball of garter snakes in the quarries around Narcisse!

But my point is that it’s irrelevant, or should be, in a country founded on the principles of democracy and a market economy. Neither Shawn, John, Allan, nor Ralph should have a direct say in how I manage my business and property. And, aside from a political philosophy which runs counter to the founding principles I mention above, they should not want me directing their business affairs either.

So a vote on the matter is an anathema. It was, and is, a leftover piece of crap from Ralph Goodale’s corrupt political manoeuvrings and a result of his total and complete lack of morals, principle, and respect for anyone who does not share and contribute to his lust for political power. Ralph is a tyrant, and like all tyrants will do anything to gain power including trampling the basic rights of people, their property, and the principles of democracy.

So while musing about the outcome of the CWB survey and their possible responses to it is an interesting academic question, it should bear no weight on how the government deals with the CWB, or the CWB deals with itself . There is only one right thing to do. Repeal the Act and end 75 years of trampling on the legitimate rights of farmers and unleash the power and creativeness of the market economy which exists in the grain industry.
Swimming in the cesspool of Goodale’s creation is a sickening prospect for me. I want no part of it. I destroyed the survey question they sent me.

[Kodiak]

One more thought. Even though the CWB's little surveying exercise is not exactly as Ralph prescibed it should be, it is born out of the same warped ideology. An ideology he holds which says its OK to trample the rights of individuals, even though the country he purports to serve is one based on democratic principles.

Redefining 'democracy', contorting its basic tenets to suit your lustful desire for power and the perks of office, or to line your own pockets is immoral.

My conscience and belief in the principles I've described here and in the installment above would not allow me to participate in this political game.

[shaney]

John,
You read my comment correctly. Arguing over over
the existence of the plebiscite at this point is not
interesting. Whats interesting is what happens
next.

I am very interested in how this plays out for Oberg
if the result goes the other way. Based on the
amount of people that destroyed their ballots, I
agree with you that the result is bound to be in
favor of the status quo. The sad part is that this
will just give the current BOD the encouragement to
continue this hopeless campaign.

[jdepape]

Kodiak:

I understand your revulsion of the whole process, but “musing” about how the CWB board conducts itself is not just “fun” nor is it just an “interesting academic question”. We should all be interested in the process between now and Aug 1, 2012 because, any delay or hiccup could alter the course of change dramatically. And not in a good way. And of course that is the Borg’s objective.

You’re right, though – how the CWB board reacts to the plebiscite results <b>should</b> be irrelevant, but it’s not. It will define the next few months of wrangling, which could cause a delay or hiccup.

How the Minister reacts to the CWB board is even more important than what the CWB board does; in other words, what the CWB board does should absolutely “bear weight on how the government deals with the CWB”.

Plugging your ears and humming, citing what the right thing to do is, will not make the ongoing challenges between now and Aug 1st go away. Hopefully the Minister doesn’t share your approach; you may not want to play this political game but we can only hope the Minister is up to it.

[bucket]

shaney

How do you interpret the results? If 68000 ballots were sent out and 25000 sent back in with only 13000 voting to keep the status quo - does that mean the majority wants the single desk? What about the other 55000 votes? Or the other 43000? How do you figure all of this out?

The cwb will make a gong show of this one way or another.

[wilagro]

The stupid ones are those who destroy or mis-direct their ballots to Ritz or other MPs instead of voting. Squawking about the vote not being fair is so dumb and does not help. There are mistakes made I'm sure but they can be rectified if one really wants them to be.

[parsley]

Doesn't voting and sending in the ballot validate a bullshit process based upon gerymandering, ballot favoring, voter list compilation favoritism, and pandering to media

Why endorse the CWB process?

[parsley]

"Arguing over over the existence of the plebiscite" is the REAL point.

If you really understand the issue, it boils down to a simple premise: one shouldn't have to vote over whether we own the grain we grow.

If you concede to voting on the issue....you've already forsaken ownership.

How about your land? Want to have a vote? Pars