Originally Posted by
Sink r8
I think there are guys that specialize in letting something pass, but not being on the record as being for it. This just gives them more of a platform. Either the MEC agrees to pass this on to ratify, or it doesn't. If it passes it on, it needs to do a paper such as Ferd suggested, which would serve the same purpose as a pro/con because it would give us something to chew on, EXCEPT it wouldn't let people take politically-motivated positions.
If I was trying my hand at populism, I would write the CON paper, arguing like crazy that we should have gotten MORE. That's amazingly simple to do. By keeping the inside politics inside, you avoid this.
I think we all agree we want peace and quiet, and no sell-job. Ferd gave a very elegant method for the MEC to give a post-action summary, after which they can then shut up and let us decide.
Maybe the idea of a "sell job" is a little over sensitive. I guess one could choose to look at the road shows that way, but As Scambo said, it is incumbent upon each of us to be our own expert. And THAT certainly entails looking at sections other than section 3 and section 1 for that matter. I trust those that were in the negotiating room at the time to try and get me the best deal that they can. If I don't believe that it is, then I will vote no. Unlike some other people around here, voting no for the sake of voting no is a moronic idea that I will not entertain. And FWIW, I certainly believe that the brothers from the north as a whole aren't insipid enough to believe that voting no "just because" is a good idea. Ferd excepted.
