NationStates Jolt Archive

Yesterday, I watched a documentery on CBC (strange that we get CBC in East Lansing). It was about the Quebec Independance referendum of 1995. It was titled Breaking Point.

It was an exquisite documentery, with very fine production qualities.

As many of you know, the Oui side lost.

My question, which is mostly directed at Canadians, is...

Would you have supported an independent Quebec if the Oui side had won?

Come now, no one is going to take a crack at this?

Not without grave reservations. I was born in Quebec, still have friends, family, and property there. For me to give a thumbs-up to independence, I'd need a guarantee of dual-citizen status - as well as a guarantee to enjoy all the rights, freedoms and privileges due to a citizen of Quebec, with no penalties or fears of exclusion due to my non-francophone heritage.

And that last bit is far from a done deal, as far as I'm concerned. Why do you think I had to take my leave?

I support most self-determination movements as a general principle, so I'd support an independent Quebec. However, me not being Canadian my opinion doesn't matter so much on this particular subject.

I can get CBC too, but I live 45 mins north of you in Mt. Pleasant.

Would you have supported an independent Quebec if the Oui side had won?If the Slovaks democratically vote to be independent,
If the Kurds democratically vote to be independent,
If the Armenians democratically vote to be independent,
If the Timorese democratically vote to be independent,
If the Kasaks democratically vote to be independent,
If the Tibetans democratically vote to be independent,
If the Lithuanians democratically vote to be independent,

They will absolutely get my support...

And so will Quebec...if most of them democratically elect to be Independent.

Would you have supported an independent Quebec if the Oui side had won?

I would, being Quebecois myself. At the time, if I had had the required age to vote, I would've voted Oui. Now I'm not so sure anymore. I guess I'm a mild supporter of the movement.

In a way, I'd much prefer that our province stays Canadian. On the other hand, the federal government is too arrogant, behaving like the country belongs to them, and happily flaunts its wealth in front of provinces who just can't face their responsibilities of providing public services. Quebec isn't the only province getting fucked up the ass repeatedly by the federal Liberals, but if you add the fact that we have a different language and culture from the rest of Canada, well, you get a separatist movement.

Thrash the current way of doing things in the confederation, and start anew with a central government that supports the provinces instead of trying to replace them, and that actually redistributes the money where it's needed, and I'll be the first to vote NON at the next referendum.

Because we all know it's coming. Soon.

If the Slovaks democratically vote to be independent,
If the Kurds democratically vote to be independent,
If the Armenians democratically vote to be independent,
If the Timorese democratically vote to be independent,
If the Kasaks democratically vote to be independent,
If the Tibetans democratically vote to be independent,
If the Lithuanians democratically vote to be independent,

They will absolutely get my support...

And so will Quebec...if most of them democratically elect to be Independent.
Agreed! But only if they allow the populations within Quebec to also become Independent if they so choose. See, you've mentioned mostly ethnic groups, but the Quebecois are not ethnically homogenous. Native groups would also want the right to self-determination, and anglophones could perhaps want a shot at it too...

...I would support Quebec in its bid for Independence if that is really what they ALL want. So far, that is not the case.

Thrash the current way of doing things in the confederation, and start anew with a central government that supports the provinces instead of trying to replace them, and that actually redistributes the money where it's needed, and I'll be the first to vote NON at the next referendum.


YES!

If the people of Québec want to become independent then I would fully support them just as here in Scotland I am a strong of our country becoming independent from the rest of the UK. This however is not based on nationalist reasons but because I believe the working classes of Scotland and Québec will be better off once they free themselves of the domination of the neoliberal, mainly pro-American governments of the UK and Canada.

Is Quebec an economically viable entity on its own? One might compare it to say, Northern Ireland. Its touch and go whether that could sustain itself. Or possibly Euskadi- the have a better shot at success as they are the second wealthiest (if not the wealthiest) region in Spain.

The ideals are all well and good- but would it make sense?

The ideals are all well and good- but would it make sense?
When did sense ever motivate politicians?

If the Slovaks democratically vote to be independent,
If the Kurds democratically vote to be independent,
If the Armenians democratically vote to be independent,
If the Timorese democratically vote to be independent,
If the Kasaks democratically vote to be independent,
If the Tibetans democratically vote to be independent,

But most of the Countries you've listed came from some sort of political oppression, This is not the case with Quebec. Quite the opposite actually;The French lost the war for claim of Canada, the province of Quebec exists because the English agreed to allow them to stay. They were offered the same liberties and freedoms, despite the fact that they were in actuality prisoners of war.


And what of the Native American people living in Quebec, who wish to remain part of Canada, who had made agreements with the it's government? If Quebec becomes seperate, it will no longer be accountable to keep any of these promises. Civil War will be inevitable.

What of the economy? Quebec is disillusioned if they believe they will be using Canadian Currency, and the last thing we need is another third world on our continent.

When did sense ever motivate politicians?

Ah touche.

I studied Quebecois independence claims for part of my undergrad degree in the past- Kylimcka et al. For the ethnicity claims, language rights, culture etc it would probably be justified. But at the end of the day- the region would want to be economically sound.

Euskadi has a massive shipping industry, Northern Ireland USED to have a large ship building/industrial heartland but now that has dissipated so much that it cannot be the core of NI economy.

What is the situation in Quebec? Normally, these regions go for independence becuause they feel their wealth is being sucked out by the Centre.

I've heard that Quebec, assuming it were to join NAFTA and such, would be viable, but I don't have any figures to support that. However, I doubt that Quebec could maintain the levels of funding they have for social services if they were to attempt to create an expeditionary military or any other such nonsense. They would have to be realistic with what they did with their money and be prepared to do more with less.

That is a good point, though. Here in Michigan there are infrequent and half-hearted calls for the Upper Peninsula to leave Michigan and become its own state. It wouldn't be viable because we pump a great deal of money from the state coffers into the UP and get rather little in return.

Is Quebec an economically viable entity on its own?

The short answer is NO.

Is Quebec an economically viable entity on its own? One might compare it to say, Northern Ireland. Its touch and go whether that could sustain itself. Or possibly Euskadi- the have a better shot at success as they are the second wealthiest (if not the wealthiest) region in Spain.

The ideals are all well and good- but would it make sense?

Technically speaking, Quebec alone would be in the ranges of 20th-something world economy. I do believe we could manage.

We would probably be comparable to Denmark, Sweden, or Norway in terms of population or economy. Not a world superpower, but a relatively small but well managed country who can really hold its own.

Quebec would be fine on it's own. They have a huge part of Canada's population, 2 very important cities (Montréal, Québec), and they control the St. Lawrence river (VERY important to Canada). They also have a very strong manufacturing back-bone, but they would have to cut services to the public because as of now they do get funds from the federal government and that will obviously stop.

Anyways, being a Canadian myself, I don't think they should split from Canada. We're known for welcoming different cultures other than our own and Quebec is no exception. We've done a lot to try and keep them in and there have been efforts made to help relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada. So it will always be my wish that Quebec stays with Canada, signs on to the constitution and that Canadians embrace the fact that Quebec is different socially and culturally and we can all get along.

Civil War will be inevitable.


Dude, where do you get your weed? It just has GOT to be Quebec Gold brand. We don't go around having civil wars here in the civilized world. We parley and negociate. The arrangments with the natives would be either maintained, or renegociated. Either way, the government of Quebec has a good track record with that kind of thing. Our great dams in northern Quebec were accepted by their communities because generous offers were provided. I have no doubt that an independant Quebec would do as much.



What of the economy? Quebec is disillusioned if they believe they will be using Canadian Currency, and the last thing we need is another third world on our continent.

See my previous post about economy.

As for Canadian currency, it's you who's disillusioned if you think Quebec WON'T be using Canadian money. Quebec is a huge source of exports to the USA: changing currencies would have the Canadian dollar drop so fast the rest of Canada would enter a recession. As far as the currency goes, it's a mutual necessity for us to share the same.

You might want to try to force us to use another currency to spite us, but that would backfire quickly.

Agreed! But only if they allow the populations within Quebec to also become Independent if they so choose. See, you've mentioned mostly ethnic groups, but the Quebecois are not ethnically homogenous. Native groups would also want the right to self-determination, and anglophones could perhaps want a shot at it too...

...I would support Quebec in its bid for Independence if that is really what they ALL want. So far, that is not the case.


Absolutely. If Canada is divisible then so is Quebec. They can't have it both ways. And the Cree will be the first ones taking their half of the province back to Canada with them.


But the ongoing rhetoric of Quebec is unmanageable. You want to go? Fine. and here's your precentage of the National Debt calculated per capita to take with you.

Oh yes, and either Air Canada relocates from Montreal or it loses it's flag as a domestic airline in Canada. Acceptance to NAFTA? well, we can talk about it. It's not just up to us though. Using Canadian currency? Fuck off. Either you want to be independant or you don't. But if I don't get your tax dollars, well then your lousy economy no longer depresses the value of my currency.


I could go on.....


But the fact is that the seperatist movement sells the population this unreasonable notion of "soverignty association" where they get the benefits of being a citizen, without the obligations. To that I say NON!!!

you want to stay - great! Love you!

You want to go? Too bad. We love you, we'll miss you, but go ALL the way. Nothing half-assed. you aren;t the college kid whose idea of "moving out" is where you still stop by for pocket change and Sunday meals. you're a big kid now. Act like it!!!

The short answer is NO.

I disagree with that statement. Don't forget we have a very strong exportation sector, and Montreal is very proficient in new technologies: software developing, pharmaceutical reaserch, and the likes.

The money we would save by not having to send our income taxes to Ottawa would also allow us to lower taxes, and stimulate economic growth.

So, the short answer is YES. We're far from being one of the "have not" provinces(an appellation I find quite insulting to the residents of said provinces).

I would support it, but as with any such situation only if the majority in the province in question had actually voted for it in a referendum.

We've done a lot to try and keep them in and there have been efforts made to help relations between Quebec and the rest of Canada. So it will always be my wish that Quebec stays with Canada, signs on to the constitution and that Canadians embrace the fact that Quebec is different socially and culturally and we can all get along.

I agree with the rest of your post, but man, where have you been?

We get nothing but contempt from the federal government and other federal political formations(Except the Bloc, obviously). I happen to be bilingual (obviously as well) and I do watch the electoral debates in English as well. The hypocrisy is blatant, and the contempt... contemptible.

It's always a freakings nightmare negociating with the federal government. Having asymetrical arrangements is easy for any canadian province... except us, because that would be seen as favoritism toward the "little separatist crybaby".

Why is it that Newfoundland can have an arrangment discounting revenue from its oil industry easily, while Quebec has to push and shove to keep its government-funded childcare program intact? That program, UPON WHICH the federal program is based, should be rearranged to the likings of the federal government or else we wouldn't receive funding. This is one of many examples of Quebec doing something right on its own, the federal taking example of it, and then trying to force Quebec to change under threats of not receiving the same funding as the rest of Canada.

So, to end my rant, while in general the rest of the canadian population might have done said efforts to make us feel wlcome and part of the whole, the canadian government certainly hasn't.

</rant>

I disagree with that statement. Don't forget we have a very strong exportation sector, and Montreal is very proficient in new technologies: software developing, pharmaceutical reaserch, and the likes.

The money we would save by not having to send our income taxes to Ottawa would also allow us to lower taxes, and stimulate economic growth.

So, the short answer is YES. We're far from being one of the "have not" provinces(an appellation I find quite insulting to the residents of said provinces).

You and most separatist seem to be under the delusion that Canadian business would stay in Quebec if they ever decided to separate. separatist are also under the delusion that they would be allowed to keep Canadian currency.

In 1995 I worked quite hard at keeping Quebec in Canada, my mother and her entire family are from Quebec, I live in Ottawa. All these things were discussed at the time, I assure you should Quebec ever separate it would be no different than a nasty divorce. Just remember what happened to Montreal in 1995, it became a ghost town as most big business relocated to Toronto. And I won't even get into how much monies would be owned to Canada for Quebec's portion of the national debt.

No, Quebec is not viable on it's own. It's a pipe dream and not a very realistic one at that. Oh and don't forget if Quebec were to try again they have to ask "yes" or "no" it can't be like last time where the question was so messed up half the people didn't even know what the hell they were being asked in the first place. In a straight up or down vote, Quebec will not leave Canada, at least not in our life times.

I disagree with that statement. Don't forget we have a very strong exportation sector, and Montreal is very proficient in new technologies: software developing, pharmaceutical reaserch, and the likes.

The money we would save by not having to send our income taxes to Ottawa would also allow us to lower taxes, and stimulate economic growth.

So, the short answer is YES. We're far from being one of the "have not" provinces(an appellation I find quite insulting to the residents of said provinces).


OK, so you're not a "have not".


You're a "recipient of transfer payments from Ontario and Alberta".


Sheesh - you make it sound like you don't get anything for your dollars sent to Ottawa...... like border control, international mediation and treaty negotiation on your behalf, air traffic control, infrastructure, safety standards testing, EI, transfer payments back that cover huge chunks of education and medical care.

No no, you send it to Ottawa and they streal it right? No services rendered at all? That 15B coming back to you next year is a figment of your imagination?


But hey, if you think you can police all Quebec borders more cheaply that the whole country can chip in to protect the Quebec-US border as part of a unified effort, well then you go right ahead thinking that.....

Some of us out here though know a thing or two about a fundamental concept known as "Economies of scale".

Once Quebec leaves, it's alllll over.

Maybe the US can break the 50+ state barrier as we pick the remainder of Canada apart.

We will crush the Ontarians, have them driven before us, and hear the lamentations of their women. Then we'll get Alberta and its tasty oil. :p

Once Quebec leaves, it's alllll over.

Maybe the US can break the 50+ state barrier as we pick the remainder of Canada apart.

We will crush the Ontarians, have them driven before us, hear the lamentations of their women. Then we'll get Alberta and its tasty oil. :p

Hahaha, I don't thik so dude. ;)

You and most separatist seem to be under the delusion that Canadian business would stay in Quebec if they ever decided to separate. separatist are also under the delusion that they would be allowed to keep Canadian currency.

Canadian businesses will stay in Quebec as long as there's a buck to be made. Businesses don't care about politics, they care about money. And even though Canadian interests moved their offices to Toronto, they stayed in Montreal and kept doing business with us. It's you who's delusionnal if you think those suit-and-tie guys are gonna say "Hey, we're canadian, we can't do business outside our country".

As for currency, I explained in a previous post that english Canada will most likely beg us to keep using their currency. A nasty divorce isn't worth the both of us going broke because of a few political fanatics who just couldn't digest those "evil,nasty separatists" using the same dollars. You lose Quebec's exports, and your currency goes down. Simple as that. Ontario's car manufacturing and Albert's oil alone aren't enough to keep the Canadian dollar at its actual level.



No, Quebec is not viable on it's own. It's a pipe dream and not a very realistic one at that. Oh and don't forget if Quebec were to try again they have to ask "yes" or "no" it can't be like last time where the question was so messed up half the people didn't even know what the hell they were being asked in the first place. In a straight up or down vote, Quebec will not leave Canada, at least not in our life times.

The myth that Quebec isn't viable alone is not only a falsity, but also a terribly contemptuous statement. If Norway, Denmark and Sweden can manage, then so can Quebec. And it's when I hear comments like yours that my nationalist fiber flares up. Stop fucking acting as if we're too dumb and inefficient to manage our own problems ourselves. If you'd start by seeing us more like partners with whom to build a great country.

Jesus fucking Christ, it's not normal that I have to stand up and state that we're by no means inferior to the rest of Canada. I'm not even a separatist, and I feel insulted to the extreme by some of the things that are said on this thread. Don't be surprised so many of us want to leave: with an attitude like yours, any sane person would want to leave and slam the door.

You're a "recipient of transfer payments from Ontario and Alberta".


Sheesh - you make it sound like you don't get anything for your dollars sent to Ottawa...... like border control, international mediation and treaty negotiation on your behalf, air traffic control, infrastructure, safety standards testing, EI, transfer payments back that cover huge chunks of education and medical care.

No no, you send it to Ottawa and they streal it right? No services rendered at all? That 15B coming back to you next year is a figment of your imagination?


I feel like I have to point out that we send MUCH more than those 15B in taxes to Ottawa. That those "transfer payments" have been severely cut down in the last ten years. And that the federal government, instead of increasing transfers for healtcare and education, prefers to hold a joke of an exercise in fiscal previsions that gives it, YEAR after freaking YEAR, budget excedents of several billion dollars.

Like I said before, we're not the only province that gets abused by the federal. That sentiment is wholeheartedly shared by most Albertans.

That being said, if we lost the federal transfers because we split from Canada, we would also stop paying taxes to Ottawa. If those taxes were instead paid at Quebec, we would end up with more money that we have at the moment, "transfer payments" notwithstanding.

Again, I should not have to say this : Quebec is perfectly able to function on its own.

I do not wish it to be so. But if we keep getting abused by a corrupt, arrogant and fiscally irresponsible federal government, then we WILL be better off by ourselves. At the risk of repeating myself, thrash the actual culture of doing things and give me a real, responsible, effective and respectful Canadian government, and I will oppose any nationalist movement in Quebec.

You're never going to convince any Québécois not to separate by saying "You're too poor and little and dumb to fend off for yourself, nyah!". That's childish behaviour and it only provokes us to show you how wrong you are. If you want to destroy Quebec separatism for good, the only way to go is by giving us the federal government we deserve. Not Paul Martin's joke of a country.

Canadian businesses will stay in Quebec as long as there's a buck to be made. Businesses don't care about politics, they care about money. And even though Canadian interests moved their offices to Toronto, they stayed in Montreal and kept doing business with us. It's you who's delusionnal if you think those suit-and-tie guys are gonna say "Hey, we're canadian, we can't do business outside our country".

Sure they'd do business with you, but what money would you have and from where? what would be your source of income? per capita you're Canada's largest welfare province and always have been. Or do you forget that too?

As for currency, I explained in a previous post that english Canada will most likely beg us to keep using their currency. A nasty divorce isn't worth the both of us going broke because of a few political fanatics who just couldn't digest those "evil,nasty separatists" using the same dollars. You lose Quebec's exports, and your currency goes down. Simple as that. Ontario's car manufacturing and Albert's oil alone aren't enough to keep the Canadian dollar at its actual level.

Ontario and Alberta support the majority of Canada, you should just be thankful to be Canadian at all. Oh and believe me, after all the concessions Canada has made towards Quebec over the years, a nasty divorce is exactly what you will get. You want our money, buy it! Our currency in fact would go up without Quebec. Even Bombardier which has been a staple of Quebec since it started has stated it would leave Quebec should they separate. Separatists in my experience tend to be the most uneducated people I've ever met. They know nothing of what true separation would mean. They live in a dream world..

Ontario and Alberta support the majority of Canada, you should just be thankful to be Canadian at all. Oh and believe me, after all the concessions Canada has made towards Quebec over the years, a nasty divorce is exactly what you will get. You want our money, buy it! Our currency in fact would go up without Quebec. Even Bombardier which has been a staple of Quebec since it started has stated it would leave Quebec should they separate. Separatists in my experience tend to be the most uneducated people I've ever met. They know nothing of what true separation would mean. They live in a dream world..


Alright, this is so insulting I'm actually working myself up to a rage over my keyboard. I'm gonna stop posting to this thread before I say something I might regret.

I'm a little saddened, Stephistan, because I usually find your posts well-thought and sensible. I boldened some parts of your post so you can actually see how you sounds. There are no words to describe how insulted, angered and hurt I am by your lack of openness on this issue, and your arrogance and agressivity toward it. As I said, this is the kind of attitude that actually makes me want to get some distance between the rest of Canada and us.

Because you're just so much better than we are.

Canadian businesses will stay in Quebec as long as there's a buck to be made. Businesses don't care about politics, they care about money. And even though Canadian interests moved their offices to Toronto, they stayed in Montreal and kept doing business with us. It's you who's delusionnal if you think those suit-and-tie guys are gonna say "Hey, we're canadian, we can't do business outside our country".


Correct. Except that history has shown that most businesses feel that more money is to be made by staying in Canada instead of Quebec as they feel that they will make MORE money there. This fact nearly devestated Montreal once already.


As for currency, I explained in a previous post that english Canada will most likely beg us to keep using their currency. A nasty divorce isn't worth the both of us going broke because of a few political fanatics who just couldn't digest those "evil,nasty separatists" using the same dollars. You lose Quebec's exports, and your currency goes down. Simple as that. Ontario's car manufacturing and Albert's oil alone aren't enough to keep the Canadian dollar at its actual level.


Beg you to use our dollars? Not a chance. And we won't be going broke by having Quebec leave the country. Yes we lose Quebec exports, but they add little to the bottom line for the rest of us unless they are owned by a company from the rest of canada. OTherwise it is the IMPORTS that matter as that is what we collect tarriffs on. Incidentally, Quebec's exports to the rest of Canada aren't that far behind their exports to the rest of the world. Nice how that balances out....

Frankly, I think you need a refresher on currency policy.



The myth that Quebec isn't viable alone is not only a falsity, but also a terribly contemptuous statement. If Norway, Denmark and Sweden can manage, then so can Quebec. And it's when I hear comments like yours that my nationalist fiber flares up. Stop fucking acting as if we're too dumb and inefficient to manage our own problems ourselves. If you'd start by seeing us more like partners with whom to build a great country.


Maybe you haven't noticed, but we DO feel that way. It's the seperatists that aren't acting much like partners.... which is how we wound up with the "notwithstanding" clause. We're just tired of having to pet egos to remind you that we want you as a partner when we keep getting called the equivalent of racists stomping on the poor, poor pur-laine.

You keep calling someone a bigot, eventually they start thinking that they might as well act like one.

Jesus fucking Christ, it's not normal that I have to stand up and state that we're by no means inferior to the rest of Canada. I'm not even a separatist, and I feel insulted to the extreme by some of the things that are said on this thread. Don't be surprised so many of us want to leave: with an attitude like yours, any sane person would want to leave and slam the door.

Methinks it might be a problem with your own inferiority complex speaking here. And you've clearly thought through what you feel are the benefits to leaving, so this statement that you are not a seperatist rings false to me....

you rush to the defense of the peoplewho want to rip my beloved country in half without recognizing why that hurts us. You then call us bigots and idiots. And then you point the finger of blame at us for your own words.


Sorry, it just doesn't fly with me.


I'm born in Montreal. Grew up in the Outauais. I'm a land owner in Quebec.

And I'm a staunch Canadian.

But, as I've said - if you have to leave - bles you, good luck, but LEAVE! No expecting me to tie my money to yours. Build up your own consular offices around the world. Be a real country all to it's own and with full control over it;s own destiny.

Separation is one thing. I don't like it, but I will accept it.

Sovereignty-association, on the other hand, is a notion that can kiss my ass.

Whoa.... and here's me thinking Canadians are all cuddly...:eek: :eek:

Alright, this is so insulting I'm actually working myself up to a rage over my keyboard. I'm gonna stop posting to this thread before I say something I might regret.

I'm a little saddened, Stephistan, because I usually find your posts well-thought and sensible. I boldened some parts of your post so you can actually see how you sounds. There are no words to describe how insulted, angered and hurt I am by your lack of openness on this issue, and your arrogance and agressivity toward it. As I said, this is the kind of attitude that actually makes me want to get some distance between the rest of Canada and us.

Because you're just so much better than we are.

I do make sense it's the separatist who live in la la land. I love Quebec, some of my best memories are times I've spent in Quebec. The majority of people who live in Quebec don't want to leave Canada, it just seems that way because the separatists scream the loudest. Separatists are the ones with a problem, not Quebec as a whole.

I do make sense it's the separatist who live in la la land. I love Quebec, some of my best memories are times I've spent in Quebec. The majority of people who live in Quebec don't want to leave Canada, it just seems that way because the separatists scream the loudest. Separatists are the ones with a problem, not Quebec as a whole.

*rubs temples*

Wow.. this is such a flashback to my own country's history....

federal government is too arrogant, behaving like the country belongs to them
Isn't that the point of a federal government. To rule over the entire country?

Also, I am sure Quebec would do fine as an independent county and so would alot of provinces or states if they seperated. Yet, it is better if we all stick together.

I couldn't bear to see Quebec and Canada part. If this were to happen, I could no longer make fun of French Canadians for being both French and Canadian.;)

Seriously, though, I don't think I'd support a separatist movement concerning Quebec. I don't think Quebec's citizens are oppressed, and I think the social and economic effects of a united Canada are best for all.

This is a tough issue for me, though. The states' rights side of me wants to support an independent Quebec (and for this reason I'd advocate support for such a state should it be favored in referrendum), but I still think overall it would be better for all involved for Canada to be united, including Quebec.

I don't know much about the tax-return situation in Canada, as I don't pay Canadian taxes, but I would be in favor of government reform favoring lower and/or better distributed taxes.

Whoa.... and here's me thinking Canadians are all cuddly...:eek: :eek:


Sorry, but speaking only for myself - I'm tired of a group of people who a) call me a bigot, b) keep telling me that they'd be better off without me while expecting me to constantly convince them why they shouln't leave, and then c) Tell me that they want to be able to leave while maintaining the perks of citizenship in the country they seem to dislike so much.


Because that is exactly how the Seperatist rhetoric sounds to me, and much of the rest of us.

I love Canada. I love Quebec. But I'm tired of being blamed for all their problems while being rebuffed when we try to talk to them to make things work out, and then being told that I'M the whole problem.

In essence, what you have read here is that Quebec will be better off without Canada. Which implies that Canada is somehow holding them back. At the same time, we're told that we can;t do without Quebec's exports which begs the question as to why we would be possibly holding them back from being more of an economic powerhouse to our own benefit.

Of course, we aren't holding them back. Yes, Federal-provincial affairs sometimes get heated between Ottawa and Quebec. Same as between Ottawa-Victoria, OTtawa-Toronto, OTtawa-Halifax..... but no, when it comes to Quebec it is always described to be "bad faith bargaining", when in fact the Federal Giovernment has a mandate to be considering the needs of the country as a whole and not just Quebec's.

Just don't tell them that......

No, the rest of Canada gets to be the whipping-boys for all of Quebec's problems, which excuses them from spending more effort actually SOLVING those problems within a Federalist environment and instead gives them lots of fodder to complain about.

I was in college back in 1995 when this big. I had a history professor that mentioned that one of the other Canadian provinces was discussing if it should seek admission into the U.S. if Quebec actually became independant. Was there any truth to that, or just rumor?

Sorry, but speaking only for myself - I'm tired of a group of people... snip

There there.
*hands Silliopolous a mug of hot chocolate and some marshmallows*
:fluffle:

Quebec wants to get rid of English Canadian Laws
Brittany wants to kick off French from the land
Scots wants jordies to naff off.

Now I wonder how the flemish and the wallons will sort out their diffrences?

I would give them bloody independance, after 10 years they'll be crying for mummy to help them... :fluffle:

I was in college back in 1995 when this big. I had a history professor that mentioned that one of the other Canadian provinces was discussing if it should seek admission into the U.S. if Quebec actually became independant. Was there any truth to that, or just rumor?


Some people in Alberta have brought it up under the notion that if Canada was fracturing should they take it as time to explore options for their own destiny. It was never truly discussed at a policy level - as much as some may have wanted it discussed.


Frankly, I have even less respect for that notion than Quebec's.

At least Quebec's position is that if it isn;t working out for them that they want to strike out on their own as an independant nation.


The Alberta option implies simply changing WHICH federal government they want to pay taxes to and which they want to complain about......

If the Slovaks democratically vote to be independent,
If the Kurds democratically vote to be independent,
If the Armenians democratically vote to be independent,
If the Timorese democratically vote to be independent,
If the Kasaks democratically vote to be independent,
If the Tibetans democratically vote to be independent,
If the Lithuanians democratically vote to be independent,

They will absolutely get my support...

Brilliant.
Allow me to give you the latest news (most recent ones are from 2000, the rest from 1990-93):
The Slovaks are independent (and part of the European Union).
The Armenians are independent.
The Timorese (East Timorese, I guess you mean) are independent.
The "Kasaks" are independent (you mean "Kazakhs" or "Cossacks" - the latter are not independent, they live in the Ukraine and Russia and are not really an ethnicity).
The Lithuanians are independent (and part of the European Union).

The day Quebec separates is the day I start spamming Ottawa that we don't have to treat Quebecer's like our own spoiled children, and can remove all of the ridiculous laws and such that we've put in place to hold one province on a pedestal and make them feel special.
I for one am for EQUAL treatment of all people. Not SPECIAL treatment for anyone.
Maybe I'd even be able to run for office, as I would demand we didn't need to be bilingual anymore.
There's only so much whining about not being spoiled enough that I can take. I'm all for taking an axe to "special" groups and saying, "Listen, you're Canadian. I'm Canadian. Why should you get better treatment than any other Canadian? You shouldn't. If you want special priviledges, work for them. Raise the funding yourselves for your special interests."
I hate the stance the gov't has taken on catering to any group who whines enough. It'd be nice to have someone in there with a spine who would stand up to special interest groups. Sure, minorities shouldn't be discriminated against. But why work in clauses that say you must have X number of token (insert minority type here) workers? Go on credentials. If they meet standards, hire them. If not, don't.

Speaking from a french-speaking quebecers who is a stauch defender of the federal system and who don't want to leave:

First of all, a little reminder: it was the NON camp that won the referendum. The earlier posts inversed who was for what.

Second, if Quebec do separate, it will be viable as an economy. Maybe not with the canadian currency, maybe without some of the big enterprises currently here and definately not at it's current level but it will manage to get back on track and become a stable country with a prospering economy. I predict it would take around 10 years to do it.

Third, There is some contempt from the english-canadians. Some of it is from sheer frustration since Quebec seems to be single-minded in it's obsession with this question. Everytime someone new comes into politic, the first question is not whether they are for abortion (like in the States) but whether they are a separatist. But there is contempt and some comment like those made by Stephistan don't help.

Fourth, Quebec is the one to blame for the discrepancies in our economy and that of Ontario. With the Quebec government tendencies to duplicate evrything that comes from the federal. We are the only province to have to produce two revenues declarations every year. Remove the duplicate programs and we would be taxed exactly like Ontario or BC. We have a bigger tax burden specifically since the quebec gevernment refuses categorically to work with the federal government.

Recently, most provinces accepted various deals with the federal to inject new money in healthcare. What did Quebec do? They asked for the funds but reserved the right to spend it however they like. Even if it means roads instead of healthcare. Had I been in the federal government, I would have balked too. If I cut you a check for your car, I expect it to go into your car and not on some new DVD movies.

Fifth, It is naive to think that Canada would refuse to let Quebec use it's currency if Quebec separates. It would be just as bad for them than Quebec if they had to deal with currency exchange rate and to keep another currency in large reserve to deal with the simple fact that you are too proud to concede that a part of the population wanted to leave. That is a knee-jerk childish attitude that is good only for opinion papers and will never hold water in the eyes of econoc expediency. The hindrances far outweight the devaluation the dollar would (hypothetically) suffer.

Sixth, If Quebec do separate, I'm leaving. I'm living in Montreal right now but I'd say goodbye to the city I love in a heartbeat. The instability and economic recession would be too much of a hassle for me. I'd take my stuff and join my fellow Canadians, probably in Ontario.

Olara']I don't know much about the tax-return situation in Canada, as I don't pay Canadian taxes, but I would be in favor of government reform favoring lower and/or better distributed taxes.


In Canada you pay provincial and federal taxes. We don't quite separate our obligations as well as you do because provinces have some autnomy on implementation of some services within legal guidelines, but the money to pay for such services is subsidized to a large extent from teh Federal level.

Case in point, universal health care: Each province must provide it, and they each administer their own hospital networks and have their own regulations as to billing etc, and much of this is covered by provincial payroll deductions. A large chunk of it, hwoever, gets paid by the federal government from federal taxes. This is used to try and ensure a level of service in areas that might not otherwise have the tax base.

In the US, for example, rural areas are often gettin more poorly served. In Canada because health care is not aprofit industry, we make more of an effort to provide services everywhere - even when it would not normally be affordable to do so. This is underwritten by the federal government.

How this is managed is via what we call "transfer payments" where the total pot of federal taxes after covering federal programs (military, borders, air traffic, consular, yada, yada) get divied up to account for population distribution and need.

What that has really boiled down to over the past half centure is Ontario and (more recently) Alberta sending tax dollars to the Fed of which a good chunk is distributed to poorer provinces.

So, in other words, a "transfer payment recipient" such as quebec, is a province who, after all federal programs are paid for, receive proportionally more back in transfer payments than they sent in.


Hmmm. A real world example.


You and nine roommates each chip in ten buck each month to cover group expenses. Out of that 100, by the time you've paid out rent and utilities you have $20 left in the pot. But instead of each getting back two dollars, you have a system in place to ensure that a person who needs more this month gets more. Maybe based on how much income you were able to generate that month. you've done this because, as students, you've all been through rough patches of part-time work schedules etc, and you want to try and help each other out when you can.

So if I had a great month at work, an extra buck isn't a huge difference to me, but it is to one of my roomies who missed half the month with the flu who can now hardly afford groceries. So the other 9 of us each take back $1 and give him $11 to help him out.

That is the way it is supposed to work to give help where needed as different province's fortunes ebb and flow. A partial wealth distribution out of that small pot. Not a socialist notion of full wealth distribution since we aren't all sticking our whole paychecks into the pot. Just a system to give a helping hand where it's most needed to ensure that we're all fed, clothed, and healthy.


And Federal taxes HAVE been dropping for nearly a decade now, as has the public debt and many provincial taxes as well as the Liberal government has had an unbroken string of Federal surpluses after the last Conservative government who burned through money like the current US administration.

.

Speaking from a french-speaking quebecers who is a stauch defender of the federal system and who don't want to leave:

*snip*

Sixth, If Quebec do separate, I'm leaving. I'm living in Montreal right now but I'd say goodbye to the city I love in a heartbeat. The instability and economic recession would be too much of a hassle for me. I'd take my stuff and join my fellow Canadians, probably in Ontario.

I wish Montreal could be like a city-state that belonged to Canada when Quebec separates. I've been there, and I loved it. If I recall correctly, Montreal was what kept Quebec as a part of Canada. So, if the Oui side wins this time, I propose Montreal breaks from Quebec and joins us! :P

I am not a Canadian.

If it facilitated the breakup of Canada, I'd be all for it.

Sask. and Alberta could become the 51st and 52nd US States?
Maybe, just maybe, B.C. might decide to leave also. I don't like to see Alaska up there all alone. Poor Alaska.

<snip>
Thanks for the lesson. That system seems to make sense, although I can see how people in the provinces which don't get back as much as they pay could be upset. We have the same problem here in the US, only it seems to be the rural areas which complain. I'm from western Kansas, and about 10 years ago now we had a group of counties come together and try to form their own state because of an issue like this. Nothing ever came of it, but it still is an issue. I know that many people in the Oklahoma panhandle feel the same way. Good to hear that your tax rates have been declining.

I think the economic situation without Quebec is more complicated than it appears. Without Quebec Canada would have to reorder its shipping lanes through places that are stuck in permafrost for extensive periods of the year, namely Nunavut and Baffin Island, just to get access to the Maritimes so that they can remain connected to Canada. This means that on some level at least Quebec and Canada would need to arrange a shipping deal so the Canadian economy doesn't go under, but Quebec is in no need to arrange a favourable deal. Since it has access to the coast and warm water, Quebec holds the upper hand in this matter and can effectively "cut off" the Maritimes from Canada. So, whatever economic shortcomings Quebec has could be made up with in favourable tariffs. How much Quebec can make up I don't know because I don't know Quebec's economy all that well, but it does have a few cards it can play with Canada to work out a favourable (for them) trade deal.

Agreed! But only if they allow the populations within Quebec to also become Independent if they so choose. See, you've mentioned mostly ethnic groups, but the Quebecois are not ethnically homogenous. Native groups would also want the right to self-determination, and anglophones could perhaps want a shot at it too...

...I would support Quebec in its bid for Independence if that is really what they ALL want. So far, that is not the case.

AGREED! Quebec needs to recognize native rights for self-governance and a raft-load of other native issues such as treaties and federal funding before they could choose to secede.

Furthermore, it's widely known that the last referendum vote was questionable - the vote was suppressed in non-Francophone areas and some non ballots discarded for not meeting an arbitrary standard - I would request UN or foreign vote observers to ensure that the next referendum proceeded fairly. It's too touchy an issue to be handle by only Quebec and the ROC - there needs to be an impartial group onsite.

I think the economic situation without Quebec is more complicated than it appears. Without Quebec Canada would have to reorder its shipping lanes through places that are stuck in permafrost for extensive periods of the year, namely Nunavut and Baffin Island, just to get access to the Maritimes so that they can remain connected to Canada. This means that on some level at least Quebec and Canada would need to arrange a shipping deal so the Canadian economy doesn't go under, but Quebec is in no need to arrange a favourable deal. Since it has access to the coast and warm water, Quebec holds the upper hand in this matter and can effectively "cut off" the Maritimes from Canada. So, whatever economic shortcomings Quebec has could be made up with in favourable tariffs. How much Quebec can make up I don't know because I don't know Quebec's economy all that well, but it does have a few cards it can play with Canada to work out a favourable (for them) trade deal.


Actually, no. The St. Laurence seaway is already legislated under treaty as a free-passage international laneway as it services not just Canadian but also American ports in the Great Lakes. If Quebec were to reneg on that deal - Canada would not be the main country it had to worry about pissing off....

And with the International laws regarding open waters, Quebec would be shooting itself in the head at the very moment when they need to strive hardest to get their own economic house in order. You suggestion would have them attempt to play power politics with it's two biggest trading partners. Canada and the US. Frankly, Quebec would NOT be operating from a position of strength at that moment.


Besides, two can play that game. The mouth of the St Laurence effectively runs between Newfoundland and Novia Scotia. It could just as easily be blockaded there.... leaving Quebec with the Seaway but no access to the ocean. Free to run as much product between Montreal and Quebec City as they want.....

But this is a silly thing to be considering. Neither party would be stupid enough to be the one to go down that route first.

Agreed! But only if they allow the populations within Quebec to also become Independent if they so choose. See, you've mentioned mostly ethnic groups, but the Quebecois are not ethnically homogenous. Native groups would also want the right to self-determination, and anglophones could perhaps want a shot at it too...

...I would support Quebec in its bid for Independence if that is really what they ALL want. So far, that is not the case.Well said.
A majority vote would not be enough to warrant seperation; a huge percentage of the Quebec population would have to want independence. Quebec cannot be compared to the Kurdish state or to Tibet. Whereas Quebec is divided over the issue of gaining independence, I think that one might be hard-pressed to find a Tibetan or Kurd who didn't want independence.
I support the rights of First Nations here in North America to self-govern, because they actually are oppressed, and (though there aren't exactly statistics on it) I would think that there are more natives unhappy with their current situation than there are Quebecois who voted to seperate.
As far as I'm concerned, if people in Quebec don't want to be Canadians, then they should move.

Actually, no. The St. Laurence seaway is already legislated under treaty as a free-passage international laneway as it services not just Canadian but also American ports in the Great Lakes. If Quebec were to reneg on that deal - Canada would not be the main country it had to worry about pissing off....

And with the International laws regarding open waters, Quebec would be shooting itself in the head at the very moment when they need to strive hardest to get their own economic house in order. You suggestion would have them attempt to play power politics with it's two biggest trading partners. Canada and the US. Frankly, Quebec would NOT be operating from a position of strength at that moment.

Besides, two can play that game. The mouth of the St Laurence effectively runs between Newfoundland and Novia Scotia. It could just as easily be blockaded there.... leaving Quebec with the Seaway but no access to the ocean. Free to run as much product between Montreal and Quebec City as they want.....

But this is a silly thing to be considering. Neither party would be stupid enough to be the one to go down that route first.

Quebec owns Bonaventure Island, which is in the middle of the Cabot Strait (the strait that separates Newfoundland and Nova Scotia) so it's not effectively landlocked, and while it may not be able to completely close the St. Laurence, they can certainly make passageway through it extremely difficult. Besides, it may be able to argue- justifiably so- that the St. Laurence IS their own river since they own most of it. Plus, if they can find enough trading partners (which, granted, may not be easy to do), they just might be able to play hardball with the US even if it's not right off the bat. Besides, the US isn't invincible- if Quebec gets a strong leader they just might be able to pull it off.

Quebec owns Anticosti Island, which is in the middle of the Cabot Strait (the strait that separates Newfoundland and Nova Scotia) so it's not effectively landlocked, and while it may not be able to completely close the St. Laurence, they can certainly make passageway through it extremely difficult. Besides, it may be able to argue- justifiably so- that the St. Laurence IS their own river since they own most of it. Plus, if they can find enough trading partners (which, granted, may not be easy to do), they just might be able to play hardball with the US even if it's not right off the bat. Besides, the US isn't invincible- if Quebec gets a strong leader they just might be able to pull it off.

If Quebec refuses to trade with the US, all those US car manufacturing plants in Quebec that employ so many people will be automatically shut down. I doubt that a province that competes fiercely for US businesses to come north and settle there will suddenly cut off trade with the US. That would only serve to shoot the fledgling nation in a major economic artery.

Quebec owns Anticosti Island, which is in the middle of the Cabot Strait (the strait that separates Newfoundland and Nova Scotia) so it's not effectively landlocked, and while it may not be able to completely close the St. Laurence, they can certainly make passageway through it extremely difficult. Besides, it may be able to argue- justifiably so- that the St. Laurence IS their own river since they own most of it. Plus, if they can find enough trading partners (which, granted, may not be easy to do), they just might be able to play hardball with the US even if it's not right off the bat. Besides, the US isn't invincible- if Quebec gets a strong leader they just might be able to pull it off.


To reiterate: You are suggesting that the best way for a newly independant Quebec to get it's financial house in order is to effectively start a trade war with the two entities (Canada and the US) that currently purchase a combined 55% of Quebec's GDP, and that supply raw material for another good chunk of it, that are heavilly invested in Quebec, and who surround it.


And you think that they'll win.....


Well, it would be fun to watch them try that's for sure!

I edited my previous post. I confused Bonaventure Island with Anticosti Island by accident.

If Quebec refuses to trade with the US, all those US car manufacturing plants in Quebec that employ so many people will be automatically shut down. I doubt that a province that competes fiercely for US businesses to come north and settle there will suddenly cut off trade with the US. That would only serve to shoot the fledgling nation in a major economic artery.

I'm not saying that Quebec would stop trading with the US- I'm saying that it can, if it wants to, arrange an extremely favourable deal.

Besides, if you really want to get extreme, what's to stop the Quebecois government from developing its own industries and companies? Longer-term Quebec may just be able to shake off US dependency (if it has the patience and leadership to undertake such a project), because their current situation won't be static.

To reiterate: You are suggesting that the best way for a newly independant Quebec to get it's financial house in order is to effectively start a trade war with the two entities (Canada and the US) that currently purchase a combined 55% of Quebec's GDP, and that supply raw material for another good chunk of it, that are heavilly invested in Quebec, and who surround it.


And you think that they'll win.....


Well, it would be fun to watch them try that's for sure!

It's an option, and I wouldn't put it past the Quebecois for trying. Besides, longer-term it may be able to do it, even if that means trading with the US and Canada in the short term. Remember, Quebec's sitaution won't last forever (though granted it can also get worse).

"I would support an Independent Quebec, and I am not Canadian". I voted for it (I would, as in: "I would not oppose it" rater than: "I'm dreaming of the day").
"Not European" - I cannot help but wonder if most of my European co-voters aren't French or strictly Francophone (stictly, as in: "not 'Francophone' Vietnam, not 'Francophone' Senegal, not 'Francophone' Romania etc., but Francophone Belgium, Switzerland, perhaps Andorra and Luxemburg - and Haiti, Saint-Pierre and Miquelon etc.").
Am I right?

I'm not saying that Quebec would stop trading with the US- I'm saying that it can, if it wants to, arrange an extremely favourable deal.



Except that they can't really. you need a certain amount of power to get the upper hand in a trade deal. A newly minted Country of Quebec wouldn't have that much clout.


Besides, if you really want to get extreme, what's to stop the Quebecois government from developing its own industries and companies? Longer-term Quebec may just be able to shake off US dependency (if it has the patience and leadership to undertake such a project), because their current situation won't be static.

If industries and companies could be pulled out of sphincters just like that, Quebec would have done it already. The thing about industry is that you need inputs and outputs. Suppliers and customers. Pissing off the very buyers who you probably also need as suppliers is a poor way to do business, and the domestic economy of Quebec just isn;t large enough to support economies of scale that can counterbalance that for many things currently imported.

Yes, long-term Quebec should expand their trade base. That is true for Canada too. The thing right now is that the US keeps buying our stuff and shipping is so darn easy. Getting those toe-holds in other continents is tougher due to high shipping costs and tariff impediments. Canada can't as easily compete for market share inside the EU as other European Nations for example. We lack membership and proximity.

And yes, long term Quebec should diversify it's industry. But those things are givens that are just part of keeping up in the marketplace and won't happen any easier in an independant Quebec than they will within Canada. If the province wants to subsidize startups it can. And maybe it should. It just has to be carefull that it doesn;t do so to an extent that violates NAFTA, or any other current trade agreements in the process.

And frankly if you think that they're NOT trying to create wealth and jobs now, then you're being silly.

"I would support an Independent Quebec, and I am not Canadian". I voted for it (I would, as in: "I would not oppose it" rater than: "I'm dreaming of the day").

I think that the choice of verbiage is an issue with this poll. Certainly as a Canadian it is for me.

I had to vote "I would not support an Independent Quebec, and I am Canadian " because the word support is an active word. It implies giving active material aid to achieve that end.

If it came to pass I would not work against it's interests - except insofar as I would want fairness for the interests of the rest of Canada - and I would accept it. But I sure as hell wouldn't be going out of my way to make things easier for the people who had shredded my country either - which is what "support" means to me.


I assume that the "support" indicated by others is in line with your own. A general acceptance of a group's desire for self-determination rather than an explicit call to help them achieve that by working against Canadian ferdal unity in this instance.

-snip-
I see your point.

I support most self-determination movements as a general principle, so I'd support an independent Quebec.
Pretty much.

Except that they can't really. you need a certain amount of power to get the upper hand in a trade deal. A newly minted Country of Quebec wouldn't have that much clout.



If industries and companies could be pulled out of sphincters just like that, Quebec would have done it already. The thing about industry is that you need inputs and outputs. Suppliers and customers. Pissing off the very buyers who you probably also need as suppliers is a poor way to do business, and the domestic economy of Quebec just isn;t large enough to support economies of scale that can counterbalance that for many things currently imported.

Yes, long-term Quebec should expand their trade base. That is true for Canada too. The thing right now is that the US keeps buying our stuff and shipping is so darn easy. Getting those toe-holds in other continents is tougher due to high shipping costs and tariff impediments. Canada can't as easily compete for market share inside the EU as other European Nations for example. We lack membership and proximity.

And yes, long term Quebec should diversify it's industry. But those things are givens that are just part of keeping up in the marketplace and won't happen any easier in an independant Quebec than they will within Canada. If the province wants to subsidize startups it can. And maybe it should. It just has to be carefull that it doesn;t do so to an extent that violates NAFTA, or any other current trade agreements in the process.

And frankly if you think that they're NOT trying to create wealth and jobs now, then you're being silly.

Well, my argument wasn't that it can or should do that now- my argument was that if things change (i.e., Quebec diversifies its industry and becomes economically independent- and it could in the future), it does have an advantage because of the St. Laurence Seaway. Things are not favourable now, but who's saying they won't be in the future?

I will admit, though, Quebec would have a tougher time in Europe than Canada does, unless attitudes change. Although the Quebecois are French speakers, the French don't like them because they're too ideologically distant- Quebec is well to the left and France is centre-right (odd how that works); and, if Quebec proves to be unruly with Canada and the US, the British might not respond to them either.

I will agree that Quebec needs a lot of work, and in the short term anyway things don't look so rosy; but hey, the Parti Quebecois has confidence in its newer, younger leadership candidates, and any one of them could lead Quebec to prosperity.

If the people of Quebec wanted to be independent, then I would support their independence. I would say the same for California and the US, or any other state/province and country.

If the people of Quebec wanted to be independent, then I would support their independence. I would say the same for California and the US, or any other state/province and country.

California I think probably will at some point, especially if the US drifts even further to the right.

"
"Not European" - I cannot help but wonder if most of my European co-voters aren't French or strictly Francophone (stictly, as in: "not 'Francophone' Vietnam, not 'Francophone' Senegal, not 'Francophone' Romania etc., but Francophone Belgium, Switzerland, perhaps Andorra and Luxemburg - and Haiti, Saint-Pierre and Miquelon etc.").
Am I right?
Nope.

Edit: I'm Irish and having studied the case for Quebec's seperate existence in university- my opinion is that is has very slim grounds to qualify for such an inependent state. Juuuust about qualifies. ;)

"I would support an Independent Quebec, and I am not Canadian". I voted for it (I would, as in: "I would not oppose it" rater than: "I'm dreaming of the day").
"Not European" - I cannot help but wonder if most of my European co-voters aren't French or strictly Francophone (stictly, as in: "not 'Francophone' Vietnam, not 'Francophone' Senegal, not 'Francophone' Romania etc., but Francophone Belgium, Switzerland, perhaps Andorra and Luxemburg - and Haiti, Saint-Pierre and Miquelon etc.").
Am I right?
No, I am a Swede and I voted this option also... on the grounds that I support self-determination. If the people of Quebec wish to be independent, then I would support them in that (not that my support will matter... but in principle!).

Also, I am very surprised to see a very respected poster degenerate into mindless words in the early pages of this discussion. It's sad.

I believe that Quebec would be a viable economic entity on its own. It would not be in a worse situation than the Nordic countries, and we are doing quite fine!

Also, I have read the debate regarding currency in an independent Quebec. It's absolutely right from an economic argument that the rest of Canada would be crazy to refuse to allow Quebec to use the Canadian Dollar. But, equally, it would make the most economic sense for Quebec to change to use the American Dollar. There are precedents of nations 'dollarising' or 'euroising' without the permission of the US or European central banks, e.g. Montenegro in Europe (€), and I believe (could be wrong) Ecuador in Latin America ($).

e.g. Montenegro in Europe (€)

Really?! Didn't know that...

Is it just Montenegro or Serbia too? (After all, the country is technically Serbia-Montenegro.)

Really?! Didn't know that...

Is it just Montenegro or Serbia too? (After all, the country is technically Serbia-Montenegro.)
Just Montenegro, despite their union, as strange as that may sound... I think they had already de facto adopted the Deutsche Mark before the euro arrived.

So when are they going to just leave. If it were my country I would be annoyed as hell if a state was always talking about leaving. What is your thoughts up there in Canada?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/11/01/canada.scandal.reut/index.html

Sort of like Puerto Rico, in a way.

So when are they going to just leave. If it were my country I would be annoyed as hell if a state was always talking about leaving. What is your thoughts up there in Canada?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/11/01/canada.scandal.reut/index.html
I'm not sure they have the balls to leave, but it would be preferable by far to the extreme imbalance of money flow we are now experiencing. We are paying them exorbitant sums of money to keep them Canadian, in effect a bribe, which is ludicrous. It would be better for everyone if they just left.

So when are they going to just leave. If it were my country I would be annoyed as hell if a state was always talking about leaving. What is your thoughts up there in Canada?

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/11/01/canada.scandal.reut/index.html
Its like a Liberal Party scandel. You hear it in the news so much you stop caring.

I say just let the whiners go. Then we'll see how they like it to be all isolated and unable to throw their political weight around on other people.

I find the whole Quebec thing to be hilarious. Are the French really so full of themselves that after generations away from their homeland they still think of themselves as above everyone else?

Pshaw. Quebec has been getting a lot of goodies to keep them from seceeding. Now all the other provinces want in on that action. Especially Alberta.

At the moment, Quebec is like the favourite child who gets a lot of attention.

Alberta is like the oldest child who remembers what it was like being an only child and resents getting less attention than she would like.

And the Atlantic provinces are like forgotten middle children who have never actually been made to feel special and don't tend to think that they deserve their parents love -- and even if they do complain or try to draw attention to themselves, nobody listens anyway.

Well, yes, it is a crappy analogy. But whiny Alberta separatists who don't really have any reason to complain annoy the heck out of me. More so than the Quebec variety of separatists. I'm not entirely sure why -- perhaps its because they tend to arrogantly assume the rest of the West will join Alberta if it does separate (even though separation isn't the majority opinion in Alberta, let alone the other Western provinces).

Sask. and Alberta could become the 51st and 52nd US States?
I Sincerely hope not. That would be absolutely the worst thing I can imagine - to become just another American state.

Pshaw. Quebec has been getting a lot of goodies to keep them from seceeding. Now all the other provinces want in on that action. Especially Alberta.

At the moment, Quebec is like the favourite child who gets a lot of attention.

Alberta is like the oldest child who remembers what it was like being an only child and resents getting less attention than she would like.

And the Atlantic provinces are like forgotten middle children who have never actually been made to feel special and don't tend to think that they deserve their parents love -- and even if they do complain or try to draw attention to themselves, nobody listens anyway.

Well, yes, it is a crappy analogy. But whiny Alberta separatists who don't really have any reason to complain annoy the heck out of me. More so than the Quebec variety of separatists. I'm not entirely sure why -- perhaps its because they tend to arrogantly assume the rest of the West will join Alberta if it does separate (even though separation isn't the majority opinion in Alberta, let alone the other Western provinces).
Well, you have to admit, we do get a bit of a raw deal from the federal government. And the more prosperous we get from oil, the bigger of an issue this will become. According to the Alberta Separatists website (not an ideal source, I know, but I'm in a hurry and have to leave soon.), In 2003, Alberta paid Ottawa $11.1 billion more than Alberta received, with no return on investment.

They also claim that, "JMCK Communications Ltd. conducted a poll in November, 2002, in response to the pending ratification of the Kyoto Accord. They asked Albertans: "If the federal government ratifies Kyoto against the wishes of the Alberta government, what do you think Alberta should do?" Almost half (46.8%) agreed "Alberta should explore other options such as independence" while another 9.4% felt Alberta should choose to join the United States."
I have to go now, I'll reply to any comments tomorrow.

In fact, I'm a Québécois, and I support independance.

I do not hate canadians in any way, but I think our separation would benefit both countries.

Well, you have to admit, we do get a bit of a raw deal from the federal government. And the more prosperous we get from oil, the bigger of an issue this will become. According to the Alberta Separatists website (not an ideal source, I know, but I'm in a hurry and have to leave soon.), In 2003, Alberta paid Ottawa $11.1 billion more than Alberta received, with no return on investment.

They also claim that, "JMCK Communications Ltd. conducted a poll in November, 2002, in response to the pending ratification of the Kyoto Accord. They asked Albertans: "If the federal government ratifies Kyoto against the wishes of the Alberta government, what do you think Alberta should do?" Almost half (46.8%) agreed "Alberta should explore other options such as independence" while another 9.4% felt Alberta should choose to join the United States."
I have to go now, I'll reply to any comments tomorrow.

Oh please. It's not like Alberta has never received transfer payments from the feds. How do you think the oil business got off the ground in the first place?

Ontario is the province that deserves to complain, if any province does - they have always been the province that pays out and never collects.

As for almost half "agreeing to explore other options such as independence" well:

a) 46% is not a majority
b) "explore other options such as independence" implies that there are any number of alternative choices that all get lumped together by selecting this option.

Besides, once one province decides to separate, where does it end? Do the Edmontonions that want to stay with Canada get to form their own fiefdom in the nation of Alberta? Do the First Nations in Quebec get to subdivide Labrador and Northern Quebec if the Francophones secede? Can the Peace regions of northeastern BC bail on British Columbia and join the Republic of Alberta? Can Peter Griffin declare his home an independent state?

On another note:

BCers voted in a referendum this spring wanting electoral reform. More people voted for electoral reform than the winning party (981,419 of 1,701,135 voters or 57.69% voted yes in 77 out of 79 or 97.47% of the ridings), yet the Liberals won a majority government and the Yes side lost because they didn't meet an arbitrary threshold of 60% of the population and 60% of the ridings.

An electoral reform referendum was considered "too important" for a "simple majority" vote. Yet breaking up the country on a simple majority from one province would be okay?

In fact, I'm a Québécois, and I support independance.

I do not hate canadians in any way, but I think our separation would benefit both countries.

How so? I frankly do not see any benefits for Canada if Quebec leaves.

I should add: my first post with the crappy children analogy is actually pretty tongue in cheek. As equalization payments go, it's not actually Quebec that sucks back the most. Sure, it looks like a lot, but per capita, it's a lot less than the Atlantic provinces get.

As for the Atlantic provinces, there is a reason that they are fighting to get equalization payments on top of off-shore royalties this year instead of having the money clawed back - that's the same deal that Alberta got in the 60's while they were developing their oilfields. The Atlantic provinces know that once they get production up and going, with returns going back into the industry they can be self sufficient again. Which drags up the average income for everyone. Which means less wealth distribution from the rich provinces to the poor provinces, because the poor provinces aren't poor anymore.

If Albertans were thinking ahead, they would back this scheme for the future. It's the best way for them to reduce or end the money they send to Ottawa for redistribution through equalization payments. And it keeps the equalization structure in place, so that if another province hits hard times, we're all there to support each other again.

Cause you never know who might need equalization payments next. Do you think the Atlantic provinces expected all the fish stocks to disappear? What if the alarmists are right about peak oil? What if natural gas becomes too expensive to use to extract oil out of the oil sands?

Nope.

Edit: I'm Irish and having studied the case for Quebec's seperate existence in university- my opinion is that is has very slim grounds to qualify for such an inependent state. Juuuust about qualifies. ;)And Ireland Qualified?

And Ireland Qualified?
For about 800 or so years, yes.

If Quebec refuses to trade with the US, all those US car manufacturing plants in Quebec that employ so many people will be automatically shut down. I doubt that a province that competes fiercely for US businesses to come north and settle there will suddenly cut off trade with the US. That would only serve to shoot the fledgling nation in a major economic artery.Quebec knows very well the value of US trade...they are not going to shoot themselves on the foot.

Quebec knows very well the value of US trade...they are not going to shoot themselves on the foot.

I didn't think they would. I was attempting to point out the folly of that course to someone who appeared to be recommending it.

Nope.

Edit: I'm Irish and having studied the case for Quebec's seperate existence in university- my opinion is that is has very slim grounds to qualify for such an inependent state. Juuuust about qualifies. ;)my opinion is that.....comparing Quebec and Ireland...their Industries...democratic institutions...and skill levels.... they have about equal ground to qualify.

NOOOOONNNN!!!! Gang de tarlas, séparez-vous pas!! Vous savez très bien que vous n'aurez ni argent, ni armée, ni économie, ni rien!!! NOOOONNN!:mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5:
Et le comble, pas de Roi/Reine.

If Québec gains independance, I move to Ontario.

If they want to break away, let them. I sure as hell don't care.

my opinion is that.....comparing Quebec and Ireland...their Industries...democratic institutions...and skill levels.... they have about equal ground to qualify.

NORTHERN Ireland, yeah- you'd have a case... see my post earlier on likening Quebec to the Basque Lands (Euskadi) or Northern Ireland.

The Republic of Ireland... no. Not comparible. ;)

NORTHERN Ireland, yeah- you'd have a case... see my post earlier on likening Quebec to the Basque Lands (Euskadi) or Northern Ireland.

The Republic of Ireland... no. Not comparible. ;)
The Irish quit the UK because of religions.
Don't let Québec do the same because of languages!!!

No Canadian Prime Minister would ever let Quebec separate from Canada, even if the majority in Quebec supported independence. If Quebec leaves, whos next? Alberta? The Maritimes? The Prairies? Even if meant using the military, Quebec must remain in Canada for the good of the nation.

The Irish quit the UK because of religions.
Don't let Québec do the same because of languages!!!

*sigh*

I don't know where to begin pointing out what wrong with that.....

*sigh*

Needless to say, it was a tad more complicated then that.

No Canadian Prime Minister would ever let Quebec separate from Canada, even if the majority in Quebec supported independence. If Quebec leaves, whos next? Alberta? The Maritimes? The Prairies? Even if meant using the military, Quebec must remain in Canada for the good of the nation.
At least someone understands!!!

*hugs Novoga*

No Canadian Prime Minister would ever let Quebec separate from Canada, even if the majority in Quebec supported independence. If Quebec leaves, whos next? Alberta? The Maritimes? The Prairies? Even if meant using the military, Quebec must remain in Canada for the good of the nation.

No, no, no, no, no. I don't want Quebec to separate either, but let's not start a frelling war over it.

*sigh*

I don't know where to begin pointing out what wrong with that.....

*sigh*

Needless to say, it was a tad more complicated then that.

They're BOTH more complicated than that.

The Republic of Ireland... no. Not comparible. ;)Ireland is better than Quebec?

In what way?

They're BOTH more complicated than that.
They indeed are. But I'm sure it all started because of religion and languages. Yes. I'm sure.

Wow... 50.00% (9.62% Canadians) of you guys wanted to see a "broken" Canada?:rolleyes:

Ireland is better than Quebec?

In what way?
Whoa. NEVER said one was better then the other. :cool:

I said their cases for independence are different. Northern Ireland is comparible to Quebec, not the Republic.

Ireland is better than Quebec?

In what way?
It’s prettier.
Also, my ancestors stopped there for a short time, so it must be better than any part of Canada.

personally, id say yes, i think Quebec is not having its rights in the canadian dominion, it is the most populated are in quebec, and has a different language, also the quebeciam identity im guessing is strong???

i have met lots of quebecians answering that they are quebecians rather then canadians

Agreed! But only if they allow the populations within Quebec to also become Independent if they so choose. See, you've mentioned mostly ethnic groups, but the Quebecois are not ethnically homogenous. Native groups would also want the right to self-determination, and anglophones could perhaps want a shot at it too...

...I would support Quebec in its bid for Independence if that is really what they ALL want. So far, that is not the case.

indeed. it's much more tricky than non-canadians think it is because quebec itself is actually divided roughly geographically into yes/no camps. i live right in ottawa, which is a ten minute bicycle ride from gatineau, which is one of the largest and most important cities in the province. it has consistently and overwhelmingly voted to stay in the country.......and so has montreal.

the problem is not merely one of division between anglophones and francophones, although the high degree of integration in both gatineau and montreal is almost certainly a big factor in keeping these cities devoted to staying canadians. it is primarily a division between the urban and the rural and between the rich and the poor.

how can quebec declare independance when it's largest and most important city (montreal) is deadset against it, and it's only economic resource (the far north) has absolutely no interest in being a part of quebec? you look at quebec now and it's huge and full of resources, but if it actually went independant it would very quickly exist of little more than the area along the st. lawerence and north of montreal........it would have no economic future and would very quickly sink to third world status amidst american-led un sanctions [clinton's plan was to actually INVADE. seriously.] and canadian embargoes. it's an incredibly dense idea.

however, i agree that if they vote for it they should certainly be allowed to go ahead and do it.....so long as they allow the districts that voted against it to actually stay in canada.

They indeed are. But I'm sure it all started because of religion and languages. Yes. I'm sure.

It started in both the UK and Canada because in the past the Irish and the Quebecois were both treated as an underclass. Yes, language and religion both played a role, but so did economic policies and racism. I daresay that if it wasn't for poverty and the lack of political voice for the Quebecois in Canada in the first 3/4's of the twentieth century, there never would have been a quiet revolution, an FLQ crisis, or a sovereignty movement today.

sigh. We reap what we sow.

But I hold out hope that we can fix this problem somehow and let Canada stay Canada - with all it's provinces and territories.

What is the situation in Quebec? Normally, these regions go for independence becuause they feel their wealth is being sucked out by the Centre.

that's just exactly the problem. quebec is one of the richer provinces in the country but it does not distribute it's wealth very well. gatineau, montreal, etc are gorgeous cities with huge amounts of industry. montreal is one of the largest industrial centres in north america.

however, most of the rest of the province is dirt poor, surviving on less glamorous industrial processing or even a lot of fishing along the coast. the north has, essentially, no economy outside of a resource economy (which is growing).

so, we have millions of poor quebeckers on the fringes that have been brainwashed into believing that the federal government is stealing all of their money and sending it to the anglos when what's actually happening is that the province itself has concentrated all of it's capital into a very small area with a very dense population, immediately adjacent to the ontario, new york and vermont borders.....and the trickle down economics put into place by levesque simply failed horribly. then we have a seperatist movement that doesn't understand (it's leaders certainly understand) what's going wrong and blames the anglos instead.

that being said, it should not be surprising to you that the wealthy centres have no desire to leave confederation.

i admit that there is an equalization problem in quebec, but independance is not the way to solve it.....reforming their failed economic policies is the way to do it.

however, i agree that if they vote for it they should certainly be allowed to go ahead and do it.....so long as they allow the districts that voted against it to actually stay in canada....

Do you actually think the Slovakian neighborhoods that voted to stay with the Czechs...automatically became indepandent political islands?

and what about the Estonian, Lithuanian, Latvian. Georgian, Armenian neighborhoods that voted to stay Soviet? Did they ever become inland Pieces of Russia?

...and what about the Bosnian neighborhoods that voted to stay Yugoslavian?

...

Do you actually think the Slovakian neighborhoods that voted to stay with the Czechs...automatically became indepandent political islands?

and what about the Estonian, Lithuanian, Latvian. Georgian, Armenian neighborhoods that voted to stay Soviet? Did they ever become inland Pieces of Russia?

...and what about the Bosnian neighborhoods that voted to stay Yugoslavian?

ehhhh.... again, hate to point this out to you Ocean, but that type of voting does work, it was tried in Ireland in 1921 during the discussion over partition. Unionist villages would vote to stay put or join the Free State... likewise Nationalist villages and towns.

Its not an unlikely nor unworkable solution.

Hahaha, I don't thik so dude. ;)

(that was in response to the yanks taking over the great north)

i do.

i'll say it again: within 24 hours of a quebec declaration, clinton would have sent in the marines. it is the official policy of the united states government to invade quebec immediately once it seperates.

alberta also has a substantial minority that desires admittance to the union.

i agree whole-heartedly that if quebec goes, the country is going to fall into an american coontrolled south with an american "protectorate" over an autonomous north.

Alberta seperatists? I have half my family in Edmonton, but this is the first I've heard of them. Is this because I'm sitting here in Oz, or that they are just a wacko fringe? Or both. Probably.

If Alberta does go it's own way, they had better have a bloody good defence force to keep Haliburton... I mean the Dubya... I mean the US from grabbing all that oil for themselves :p
An aircraft carrier might help - ABNV Peyto Lake

I would absolutley support any democratic motion, so long as it was a clear answer and clear question. This is the federal government line, and it's true, 51% really does'nt cut it for this kind of decision.
Out here in BC, we are supposed to hate Quebecois, but the general sentiment is that bilingualism makes Canada stronger. As for the question of Quebec being finacially viable? Bien sur, of course they are; Quebec has large timber, natural gas, and hydroelectric resources. In fact, Canada in general should be much stronger economically.
We are probably the only developed nation that relies almost entirely on raw resources.:headbang: If Canada, increased it's processing and manufacturing sectors to the levels of other countries it would have a very strong economy indeed. NAFTA and US Trade terrorism insure that this does not happen though. In all likelihood, if Quebec seperated foreign companies would have a field dayin a resource gobble the likes of Iraq.

Olara']Thanks for the lesson. That system seems to make sense, although I can see how people in the provinces which don't get back as much as they pay could be upset. We have the same problem here in the US, only it seems to be the rural areas which complain.

exactly :)

...

Do you actually think the Slovakian neighborhoods that voted to stay with the Czechs...automatically became indepandent political islands?

and what about the Estonian, Lithuanian, Latvian. Georgian, Armenian neighborhoods that voted to stay Soviet? Did they ever become inland Pieces of Russia?

...and what about the Bosnian neighborhoods that voted to stay Yugoslavian?

once again, you don't understand the split. it's very much geographical. we're not talking a bunch of neighbourhoods scatterred all over the place - we're talking only a small strip of land along the st. lawerence that has any interest in seperation.

a better question to ask is did the neighbourhoods of russia that voted to stay in russia become a part of estonia?

ehhhh.... again, hate to point this out to you Ocean, but that type of voting does work, it was tried in Ireland in 1921 during the discussion over partition. Unionist villages would vote to stay put or join the Free State... likewise Nationalist villages and towns.

Its not an unlikely nor unworkable solution.Let me guess...Ireland is today a political patchwork of orange and green...some neighborhoods pay taxes to London others to Dublin :rolleyes:

I would absolutley support any democratic motion, so long as it was a clear answer and clear question. This is the federal government line, and it's true, 51% really does'nt cut it for this kind of decision.
Out here in BC, we are supposed to hate Quebecois, but the general sentiment is that bilingualism makes Canada stronger. As for the question of Quebec being finacially viable? Bien sur, of course they are; Quebec has large timber, natural gas, and hydroelectric resources. In fact, Canada in general should be much stronger economically.

ah.....but it's all up north. there are very few francophones up there....there are very few anglophones up there. what would eventually happen in such a situation is that the north would either be appended to nunavut or reworked into a seperate cree territory.

quebec has no legal, linguistic, cultural, historical or otherwise claim to it's resource heavy north. this area entered canada under a british grant and has nothing to do with the british defeating the french in southern quebec....it has never been controlled by francophones and has consistently voted overwhelmingly to stay in canada.

if there would be anyone to compare to the kurds, etc it would be what would happen to the cree if they were forcibly repatriated. HERE we have an identifiable nation losing it's right to self-determination.

if Quebec seperated foreign companies would have a field dayin a resource gobble the likes of Iraq.

that's exactly why clinton would have sent in the marines......that and a fear of possible instability way too close to it's own borders.

once again, you don't understand the split.whatever
we're not talking a bunch of neighborhoods I suggest you take a second lookwe're talking only a small strip of land along the st. lawerence that has any interest in seperation.like I said...take a...hmm
...
...
ahh Fuck it...believe what you want to believe a better question to ask is did the neighborhoods of russia that voted to stay in Russia become a part of estonia?
Fine :rolleyes: :

Did the neighborhoods of Russia that voted to stay in Russia become a part of Estonia?

within 24 hours of a quebec declaration, clinton would have sent in the marines. it is the official policy of the united states government to invade quebec immediately once it seperates.my name is enrique Iglesias

whatever
I suggest you take a second looklike I said...take a...hmm
...
...
ahh Fuck it...believe what you want to believe
Fine :rolleyes: :



i'll draw you a picture.

http://chat.carleton.ca/~jparent2/untitled.JPG

the blue part is the indigenous part that's not at all french. they have voted to stay in canada.
the red part is the french/english part that has voted to stay in canada.
the yellow part is the french part that wants to seperate, including parts of western new brunswick.

yes, that was very quickly and crudely done and does not take into consideration a handful of districts on either side of the divide that do not fall into the nice oversimplification....but despite it's oversimplification, this map is largely an accurate image of why quebec sovereignty is not a simple issue of a single ethnic group seeking greater political control of it's own fate. quebec is simply not a homogenously populated area with a single dominant ethnic group....there are three major ethnic groups split roughly along geographical barriers.


Did the neighborhoods of Russia that voted to stay in Russia become a part of Estonia?

Did they?

of course not.

so, why should the neighbourhoods of canada that choose to stay a part of canada become a part of quebec?

As much as I may object to the nutty whining French minority who demand a sovereign nation AND perks of being in Canada (cuz we spoil them rotten), I would object even more to Americans invading a separated Quebec. At least let Canada invade it first so we can make our country whole again. :P
Bad enough having Bush running everything south of us... we REALLY don't want him taking over parts of the north, too.

my name is enrique Iglesias

you lost me with that one.

?

you lost me with that one.

?you were lost before I even talked to you...not my fault.

Nice drawn pic BTW ;)

you were lost before I even talked to you...not my fault.

Nice drawn pic BTW ;)

well, i can't truly argue with that assessment but i'm a little unclear on the relevancy of...

bah, i should get back to galois theory, anyways....

i'll draw you a picture.

http://chat.carleton.ca/~jparent2/untitled.JPG

the blue part is the indigenous part that's not at all french. they have voted to stay in canada.
the red part is the french/english part that has voted to stay in canada.
the yellow part is the french part that wants to seperate, including parts of western new brunswick.

Nice map. Does a good job of explaining how Quebec is split geographically as well as idealistically.

ehhhh.... again, hate to point this out to you Ocean, but that type of voting does work, it was tried in Ireland in 1921 during the discussion over partition. Unionist villages would vote to stay put or join the Free State... likewise Nationalist villages and towns.

Its not an unlikely nor unworkable solution.Let me guess...Ireland is today a political patchwork of orange and green...some neighborhoods pay taxes to London others to Dublin :rolleyes:and lets bring that Irish fantasy vision to an Independent Quebec....

In the cities of Montreal and Quebec...a lot of Bus Drivers would have to clear Canada and Quebec Customs several times a day...If they buy "duty-free" cigarettes on the wrong Bus stop...they better smoke it all before they cross the border again....

I would never support an independent Quebec unless those regions, specifically the Cree and western Quebec, that would likely vote overwhelmingly in favour of unity were allowed to stay. The natives, by all accounts I've read, have no interest in Quebec City's quarrel with Ottawa, while Montreal would likely vote with their pocketbooks, and for the short term, that would likely mean staying in Canada (remember, short term losses can kill companies).

I would never support an independent Quebec unless those regions, specifically the Cree and western Quebec, that would likely vote overwhelmingly in favour of unity were allowed to stay. The natives, by all accounts I've read,.....And what of the Native American people living in Quebecinteresting...

actually There is a way Ottawa can cut the grass under the upcoming new Brand New Quebec country...

Canada can inmediately give the Natives what they have been asking forever...Give them self-determination ...Give them their sovereign countries.

Native groups would also want the right to self-determination...

Let me guess...Ireland is today a political patchwork of orange and green...some neighborhoods pay taxes to London others to Dublin :rolleyes:

No you muppet.

This was around the northern border area. On a county by county basis 26 counties voted to become part of the Free State. 6 voted to stay as as part of the UK.

The village voting system came into play near these new border areas- to accurately gauge the seperation- the border was going to be tweaked to let those towns with large Unionist populations to remain in the North, and those with largre Nationalist pops to become part of the 'South'. The entity set up to over see this was the Border Commission.

So STFU about stuff you obviously know nothing about ok?

No you muppet.

This was around the northern border area. On a county by county basis 26 counties voted to become part of the Free State. 6 voted to stay as as part of the UK.

The village voting system came into play near these new border areas- to accurately gauge the seperation- the border was going to be tweaked to let those towns with large Unionist populations to remain in the North, and those with largre Nationalist pops to become part of the 'South'.and I can see from here...they are all happy now...

Whoa.... and here's me thinking Canadians are all cuddly...:eek: :eek:

We are, until you mention Québec. ;)

If Quebec votes for independance, I would support them.

I am a strong believer in self-determination.

I've heard that Quebec, assuming it were to join NAFTA and such, would be viable, but I don't have any figures to support that. However, I doubt that Quebec could maintain the levels of funding they have for social services if they were to attempt to create an expeditionary military or any other such nonsense. They would have to be realistic with what they did with their money and be prepared to do more with less.

That is a good point, though. Here in Michigan there are infrequent and half-hearted calls for the Upper Peninsula to leave Michigan and become its own state. It wouldn't be viable because we pump a great deal of money from the state coffers into the UP and get rather little in return.

It is not possible. There is a clause in the Constitution stating that new states cannot be made out of existing states. I'll try to go and find it.

Ontario is the province that deserves to complain, if any province does - they have always been the province that pays out and never collects.

Ontario gets to elect the federal government each year to govern over every other province - I'd say that's collecting, wouldn't you? not to mention the Liberals are very friendly towards Ontario - it's where all their support is. The Liberals are about to be elected again - what the fuck would they have to DO to get Ontario to stop voting for them??

Alberta seperatists? I have half my family in Edmonton, but this is the first I've heard of them. Is this because I'm sitting here in Oz, or that they are just a wacko fringe? Or both. Probably.

If Alberta does go it's own way, they had better have a bloody good defence force to keep Haliburton... I mean the Dubya... I mean the US from grabbing all that oil for themselves :p
An aircraft carrier might help - ABNV Peyto Lake
The separatist sentiment is pretty strong here, Due to factors such as alienation. In the 2000-2001 period, Quebec received 5.38 Billion dollars (out of a total 10 Billion distributed throughout all 8 receiving provinces and territories) in equalisation payments - that's not including other payments - equalisation payments can be spent on anything. That's a bit much for the fifth largest economy in Canada, with the sixth largest aerospace economy in the world, don't you think? I've been to the maritimes - they're in serious trouble. If anyone should be getting that much money, it should be them.

Other factors are Liberal corruption such as the sponsorship scandal, and the enforcement of same-sex marriage, which was really unpopular over here.

I find the whole Quebec thing to be hilarious. Are the French really so full of themselves that after generations away from their homeland they still think of themselves as above everyone else?
In a word - Yes.

I find the whole Quebec thing to be hilarious. Are the French really so full of themselves that after generations away from their homeland they still think of themselves as above everyone else?
The Quebecois do not think of themselves as French from France...no more than people from Mozambique do. They are a distinct culture. This has nothing to do with France, other than the historical connections...they certainly aren't going to run off and ask to join France.

What they want is what many native groups want...self-determination. Right now, they have more of it than most provinces, but some feel that in order to protect their culture, and their interests, they need more. I think it's a valid sentiment, and I believe that they could work within a semi-sovereign framework without completely leaving Canada. If this were to be the case, Quebec would have to be economically viable and self-sufficient on its own, and build on trade arrangments with the rest of Canada. Giving them semi-sovereignty AND continuing transfer payments is just not going to happen, no matter how much they might wish it to:) So, I say if they get enough consensus...to go for it. But they also need to expect that some native groups will not go with them.

Ontario gets to elect the federal government each year to govern over every other province - I'd say that's collecting, wouldn't you? not to mention the Liberals are very friendly towards Ontario - it's where all their support is. The Liberals are about to be elected again - what the fuck would they have to DO to get Ontario to stop voting for them??

Oh for God's sake, in case you hadn't noticed, all the other provinces were involved in the election as well. Hell, even BC's votes counted this time around - if BC had voted as Conservative as Alberta did, Same Sex Marriage, and the "NDP budget" would not have passed and the Liberals wouldn't be in power now.

The fact of the matter is, except in Calgary, the Conservatives aren't winning the major cities. They are winning the rural ridings. This isn't the "West versus Ontario" this is rural vs urban - just like in the US, just like in Australia. Until the Conservatives can capture votes in the cities, they will remain in opposition, because the cities have the ridings.

And just for starters, that means they have to drop the stupid social conservatism. Do you think people want to support a corrupt party? Of course not. But Grewal and Pallister have proved that the Conservatives are capable of being just as slimy as the Liberals, and at least the Liberals don't want to send Canadian civil rights backwards.

As long as the Conservatives keep ignoring the Chuck Cadmans and keeping the Randy Whites, they will not go forward.

And just so you know, I have never voted Liberal. But I will never vote for the Reform party in any guise either.

Ontario gets to elect the federal government each year to govern over every other province - I'd say that's collecting, wouldn't you? not to mention the Liberals are very friendly towards Ontario - it's where all their support is. The Liberals are about to be elected again - what the fuck would they have to DO to get Ontario to stop voting for them??


There are 308 electoral districts in Canada, roughly divided into equally populous districts. 106 of these are in Ontario.

So no, Ontario can't possibly "elect the government".

You want someone else on power? Ask yourself what it is about the current Alliance that fails to live up to our expectations. Why they fail when Harris' conservatives got voted in twice in the last decade, and why Mulrooney got elected twice too.

Ontario wants fiscal soundness with relatively progressive social policies. We aren't thrilled with the Liberals, but they HAVE restored balanced budgets to the country for a decade, and they do come closer to our desired social policies.

What has the right offered in the past two elections?

Stockwell Day? Mr. Wetsuit-wearing born-again who declared that he would only run the country six days out of seven because the Lord's day was sacrosanct?

The current heap of dullness who first hitched his wagon to screaming that Canada needed to follow the US into Iraq, but when we talked about helping out the Sudan screamed that the troops were "too tired for another mission"?

Even at that he managed to chip the liberals down to a minority.


So instead of thinking that Ontarion looooooves the Liberal Party why don't you instead realize that we voted in what we perceived to be the lesser of a bunch of evils, and look to actually put out a noticably better product for us to buy.

Because so far what is being offered to us as alternatives frankly stinks.... and we aren't going to vote for something worse to cut off our noses to spite our faces.

and I can see from here...they are all happy now...

Niiiiiice. Edit your previous post to make you seem less of a dolt.

Classy.

and lets bring that Irish fantasy vision to an Independent Quebec....

What fantasy vision?! Thats Irish history! The Boundary Commission was ignored when it was discovered that the 'South' would lose land in Donegal to Northern Ireland. So the plan was dropped and the border remain at the county line. Again, stop speaking about stuff you clearly know nothing about.

I've said repeatedly that the Irish situation has nothing to do with Quebec. The Basques are a much more comparable group. Compare THOSE!

The Quebecois do not think of themselves as French from France...no more than people from Mozambique do. They are a distinct culture. This has nothing to do with France, other than the historical connections...they certainly aren't going to run off and ask to join France.

What they want is what many native groups want...self-determination. Right now, they have more of it than most provinces, but some feel that in order to protect their culture, and their interests, they need more. I think it's a valid sentiment, and I believe that they could work within a semi-sovereign framework without completely leaving Canada. If this were to be the case, Quebec would have to be economically viable and self-sufficient on its own, and build on trade arrangments with the rest of Canada. Giving them semi-sovereignty AND continuing transfer payments is just not going to happen, no matter how much they might wish it to:) So, I say if they get enough consensus...to go for it. But they also need to expect that some native groups will not go with them.Here I don't think self-determination is appropriate. The Quebecois did not have their ancestral territory taken from them. They are an immigrant class - just like every other non-native Canuck. It would be like the US actually allowing the "Aryan Nations" to have rights of self determination equivilent to the Souix Nation.

Really, if IMEx if there is anyone more snobbish and arrogant than a Frenchman or USian it's got to be a Quebecois. Hell, not even our Cajuns (our version of Weird French Speaking Folk) want "self determination".

Let 'em defect. When their little local economy grinds to a halt they will have no one to blame but themselves.

It is not possible. There is a clause in the Constitution stating that new states cannot be made out of existing states. I'll try to go and find it.

It's only possible with the permission of the state being divided up. Oregon and California had given up some territory in the 1930's to be made into the state of Jefferson, but when WWII started the idea was scrapped.

Article IV Section 3

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

However, I certainly wouldn't see Lansing signing off on any such thing.

Just Montenegro, despite their union, as strange as that may sound... I think they had already de facto adopted the Deutsche Mark before the euro arrived.
I think they technically tied their currency to the euro, to be precise. Like Bulgaria.

Also, I am very surprised to see a very respected poster degenerate into mindless words in the early pages of this discussion. It's sad.
Who? Me?

Oh, ok. I missed that last part.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind if the youppers broke away. We wouldn't have 2 Girls Tennis Champions (http://www.mhsaa.com/tournaments/index.htm).

I have learned more about the arguments pro and con separation form this thread than I ever learned from reading Time, Newsweek, or Macleans.

Hell, I didn't even know we were close to having a 49th state called Jefferson.

Thank you all. I learned something today.

I've said repeatedly that the Irish situation has nothing to do with Quebec. The Basques are a much more comparable group. Compare THOSE!

we've never oppressed the french the way that the basques have been oppressed for millenia.

how many leaders of spain or france have been basque? nearly every canadian prime minister for a long time has been french canadian. reading canadian history is essentially reading a list of compromises to make both french and english factions happy.

somebody here talked about power sharing and partnership. that's an accurate way to sum up our common history.

there is a large fear that quebec will lose it's culture, but it's not being forcibly taken away and never has been.....the quebecois are to a large degree willingly anglifying or even americanizing.

so i will repeat, again.....quebec is not oppressed. quebec has never been oppressed. they do not want their own state becuase they feel they're being oppressed or have ever felt that they're being oppressed. oppression has never been an issue here. they want their own state because of a high degree of quebecois patriotism.....because they and their ancestors have never really wanted to be a part of canada, because they'd rather pay taxes to quebec city than to ottawa, because they want their own hockey team, they want their own un seat, etc.

a good comparison to quebec is california, not the basques. here we have a culture that is considerably different from most of the country around it and that may seek independance for these reasons - not because they have ever been oppressed.

snip.
Fine.. jeez.

Taking the Basques from a linguistic, cultural and historical perspective they are a much more comparable groups then say, the Irish. Obviously, each group is unique so comparisons are going to be difficult to make.

we've never oppressed the french the way that the basques have been oppressed for millenia.

how many leaders of spain or france have been basque? nearly every canadian prime minister for a long time has been french canadian. reading canadian history is essentially reading a list of compromises to make both french and english factions happy.

somebody here talked about power sharing and partnership. that's an accurate way to sum up our common history.

there is a large fear that quebec will lose it's culture, but it's not being forcibly taken away and never has been.....the quebecois are to a large degree willingly anglifying or even americanizing.

so i will repeat, again.....quebec is not oppressed. quebec has never been oppressed. they do not want their own state becuase they feel they're being oppressed or have ever felt that they're being oppressed. oppression has never been an issue here. they want their own state because of a high degree of quebecois patriotism.....because they and their ancestors have never really wanted to be a part of canada, because they'd rather pay taxes to quebec city than to ottawa, because they want their own hockey team, they want their own un seat, etc.

a good comparison to quebec is california, not the basques. here we have a culture that is considerably different from most of the country around it and that may seek independance for these reasons - not because they have ever been oppressed.
I'm sorry but the french part of Quebec has been oppressed financially for a good long while. Up until the '60s, I'd say. Maybe even later. They were also denied top-level position in the government for a good long while. That has changed throughout the years. We are no longer oppressed but we used to be.

Oppression is no longer a valid justification but memories run deep and it was valid when the first referendum came along.

It's really hard to debate separatists when they keep separating from the thread. :(

Maybe this thread should be combined with the other Quebec separatist thread?

we've never oppressed the french the way that the basques have been oppressed for millenia.you've never oppressed them? English Canadians have never opressed French Canadians?

never say never.

...You may meet an Acadian one day...I know there is one in NS, I do not rmrmber his nation name.

you've never oppressed them? English Canadians have never opressed French Canadians?

well, i'm sure the odd english person has been an asshole to a french person. i'm sure the odd french person has been an asshole to an english person.

however, we've never undergone a systematic attempt to attack our french in this country. our natives....yes. our approach was to trick them into signing things that they hadn't read.....we'd present a document to them in english and tell them it was a trade treaty when their signature really meant handing over their entire territory....forcibly move them into reserves.....that kind of thing.....but the french did it as much as the english did. well, maybe not _as_ much.

we've actually been extremely accomodating, considering that they lost the war and all. we've always given them as many roman catholic french schools as they needed (although they had to petition heavily for them, of course), we've never made any attempt to force anyone into learning english although our english-raised government employees must now be fully bilingual to be employed, they have always been fully represented (and actually today rather over-represented) in parliament, etc.

as far as economic repression....i don't think so. we've never over-taxed them, we've never denied them employment or discriminated against them in an institutional systematic manner although there have of course been a handful of bigots here and there and continue to be on both sides of the language divide, we've never set up any embargoes or prevented french goods from being sold in english canada, we actually let them live under french civil law even though the british owned the area, we've let them run their own courts, etc

yes, i know all about papineau but ontario revolted simultaneously; this had nothing to do with oppressing french people and everything to do with building a more useful legislative system to better represent all people.

there have been hardships in quebec, yes, but this has really mostly been due to centuries of bad semi-autonomous governance and not english repression. all the federal government takes from quebec are taxes, which are of course reinvested under or pseudo-socialist system. besides that, they've been pretty much independant since 1867.


...You may meet an Acadian one day...I know there is one in NS, I do not rmrmber his nation name.

yeah, well, that's an issue unrelated to a mythical oppression of quebeckers and furthermore one that the british government takes the blame for, not the government of canada. furthermore, one crazy king does not oppression make.

they could have just said the damn pledge. no, i do not condone mass deportations.

....and you may want to note that the place most of them went was quebec, where they knew they could live freely.

there are hundreds of thousands of acadians in new brunswick and nova scotia.

It's really hard to debate separatists when they keep separating from the thread. :(

Maybe this thread should be combined with the other Quebec separatist thread?

Or maybe they should be combined with mine?

I find the possible addition of new US states appealing. Yes Canada, break up. Jesusland will comsume you piece by piece. :D

my last comment:

there was a census done recently that asked people their ethnic origins. two of the answers were "canadian" and "quebecois". for the entire province of quebec, they received 7,125,580 responses.......here are some results:

British Isles origins 547,790
French origins 2,123,185
Aboriginal origins 159,900
Canadian 4,897,475
Québécois 94,940

results are broken down more explicitly by region over here:

http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/standard/themes/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?Temporal=2001&PID=62911&METH=1&APATH=3&PTYPE=55440&THEME=44&FREE=0&AID=0&FOCUS=0&VID=0&GC=0&GK=0&SC=1&CPP=99&SR=1&RL=0&RPP=9999&D1=0&D2=0&D3=0&D4=0&D5=0&D6=0&GID=431540

even in quebec city, the results are as follows:

Total - Ethnic origin 673,105
British Isles origins 35,210
French origins 233,950
Aboriginal origins 10,040
Canadian 527,890
Québécois 13,300

i believe that the person who called for a team of international observers may be onto something.

my last comment:

there was a census done recently that asked people their ethnic origins. two of the answers were "canadian" and "quebecois". for the entire province of quebec, they received 7,125,580 responses.......here are some results:

Canadian 4,897,475
Québécois 94,940



http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/products/standard/themes/RetrieveProductTable.cfm?Temporal=2001&PID=62911&METH=1&APATH=3&PTYPE=55440&THEME=44&FREE=0&AID=0&FOCUS=0&VID=0&GC=0&GK=0&SC=1&CPP=99&SR=1&RL=0&RPP=9999&D1=0&D2=0&D3=0&D4=0&D5=0&D6=0&GID=431540

i believe that the person who called for a team of international observers may be onto something.
yes.....

either the people in charge of the Referendum...or the people in charge of StatsCanada are totally corrupted...

one of them needs international observers...

Lets play safe...lets send them both international auditors to check their procedures...

Or maybe they should be combined with mine?

Well, their's was first. Does it matter which is combined with the other? The mix would be the same, wouldn't it?

wouldn't it?No it would not.

i believe that the person who called for a team of international observers may be onto something.

Why thank you.

There were too many discrepencies with the last referendum. It is shameful that Canadians couldn't run an honest vote on this issue. We have little right to point fingers at the US 2000 election after the last separatist referendum.

Unclear question, accusations of votes not being counted, accusations of suppressing non-francophone votes...

Any future referendum on separatism should have international observers to ensure fairness. It's a shame we can't do it ourselves, but we have already proven that we can't, and this is too important a vote to give anyone a second chance at tampering.

Voilà ce que je suis venu vous dire ce soir en ajoutant que j'emporte de cette réunion inouïe de Montréal un souvenir inoubliable! La France entière sait, voit, entend, ce qui se passe ici, et je puis vous dire qu'elle en vaudra mieux!

Vive Montréal!
Vive le Québec!...
Vive le Québec... libre!!!

Vive le Canada français!
Et vive la France!!!

Ah, de Gaulle, you knew how to say it.

If the Timorese democratically vote to be independent,
They will absolutely get my support...They allready are independent.

I believe in Canadian Federalism, and I honestly hope that Quebec continues to reject the Bloc's separatist agenda. If they do vote favourably in a referendum, I say let them go. It's what they want.

I find the possible addition of new US states appealing. Yes Canada, break up. Jesusland will comsume you piece by piece. :D
The only luck Jesus land could possibly have would be with Alberta. Even then I wouldn't be too sure.

Voilà ce que je suis venu vous dire ce soir en ajoutant que j'emporte de cette réunion inouïe de Montréal un souvenir inoubliable! La France entière sait, voit, entend, ce qui se passe ici, et je puis vous dire qu'elle en vaudra mieux!

Vive Montréal!
Vive le Québec!...
Vive le Québec... libre!!!

Vive le Canada français!
Et vive la France!!!

Ah, de Gaulle, you knew how to say it.
Yeah and the allmighty LESTER B. PEARSON knew exactly how to tell de Gaulle where he should shove it.

Yeah and the allmighty LESTER B. PEARSON knew exactly how to tell de Gaulle where he should shove it.

De Gaulle accomplished what he was there for. It was time for him to leave anyway. Ah, if he were still here with us...

I'd ask him what he had to say about Basque seperatism, and proclaim long live the free basque nation, while on a diplomatic visit to France.

I'd ask him what he had to say about Basque seperatism, and proclaim long live the free basque nation, while on a diplomatic visit to France.

You actually compare Québec to the Basque Country? Bwahahahahahaha! That's just so loopy, it's funny.

I'm not comparing Quebec to the Basque region at all. As a matter of fact that is precisely what De Gaulle did on his visit to Canada, and precisely what I am trying to criticise. Reading your reaction I appear to be failing. :rolleyes:

I'm not comparing Quebec to the Basque region at all. As a matter of fact that is precisely what De Gaulle did on his visit to Canada, and precisely what I am trying to criticise. Reading your reaction I appear to be failing. :rolleyes:

I guess so.

I consider De Gaulle's statements as an unqualified breach of diplomatic protocol and common sense. Stirring rebellion in another country while on diplomatic visit.

Interesting...

I consider De Gaulle's statements as an unqualified breach of diplomatic protocol and common sense. Stirring rebellion in another country while on diplomatic visit.

Interesting...

Yeah, he was great.

Pearson was great.

Pearson was great.

De Gaulle better. He was always interesting.

Where would Canada get its Liberal Prime Ministers if Quebec separated?

Yhag!

What happened to my Beautiful poll!

Yhag!

What happened to my Beautiful poll!
ARGGG!!! It was sooo marvelous... but I'm already beginning to forget its wonderful colours...:rolleyes:

Where would Canada get its Liberal Prime Ministers if Quebec separated?


I wouldn't worry about it, Quebec is going no where. :cool:

ARGGG!!! It was sooo marvelous... but I'm already beginning to forget its wonderful colours...:rolleyes:

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

People are already forgetting its glory!

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

People are already forgetting its glory!
I... can't... no... my head...

*faints*

The Assembly of First Nations' call for a united voice going into the upcoming First Ministers' Meeting began to unravel Wednesday as the Quebec chiefs pulled out of the process...

The Quebec chiefs maintained they want to protect and preserve their treaty rights and will not come to the table with the provinces to negotiate with a province, Quebec, that is continually challenging those inherent and treaty rights in the courts.

http://www.canada.com/regina/leaderpost/news/story.html?id=130e9c34-9a21-45ed-a066-f2fdcf47be22

The province of Quebec maintains the right of Francophones to their distinct society - but doesn't recognize the treaty rights of the natives?

Mwhahahahha the breakup of Canada is upon us!

Where would Canada get its Liberal Prime Ministers if Quebec separated?

Dunno. Ask Paul Martin how he got the job....being an Ontario lad as he is...but you are indeed correct that the Liberal party has indeed had a grand total of TWO quebec-born PM's

Wow.


TWO!

What a trend....

And clearly that is a massive discrepancy of..... one .... from the Conservative party's adventure with Lyin' Brian.

Where would Canada get its Liberal Prime Ministers if Quebec separated?

As if Paul Martin was really Québécois :rolleyes:

http://www.canada.com/regina/leaderpost/news/story.html?id=130e9c34-9a21-45ed-a066-f2fdcf47be22

The province of Quebec maintains the right of Francophones to their distinct society - but doesn't recognize the treaty rights of the natives?

Yeah, but that's our "John James Charest"'s government you're speaking about. I'd be hard-pressed to find a single person, francophone or not, who's satisfied by that guy's work.

You can bet your ass he's not getting reelected.

The first nations were quite agreeable with us when Bernard Landry had the negociations in hand. ("Peace of the braves" treaty)

Dunno. Ask Paul Martin how he got the job....being an Ontario lad as he is...but you are indeed correct that the Liberal party has indeed had a grand total of TWO quebec-born PM's

Wow.


TWO!

What a trend....

And clearly that is a massive discrepancy of..... one .... from the Conservative party's adventure with Lyin' Brian.

Seconded.

The NDP is next, I guess. Maybe that would let em elect at least one or two MPs in Québec.

Why thank you.

There were too many discrepencies with the last referendum. It is shameful that Canadians couldn't run an honest vote on this issue. We have little right to point fingers at the US 2000 election after the last separatist referendum.

Unclear question, accusations of votes not being counted, accusations of suppressing non-francophone votes...

Any future referendum on separatism should have international observers to ensure fairness. It's a shame we can't do it ourselves, but we have already proven that we can't, and this is too important a vote to give anyone a second chance at tampering.
I was 18 years old when the last referendum happened. I read the question. It was perfectly clear to me. I wonder who said it wasn't clear.

That is a red herring that was used to try to justify not agreeing with the results of the referendum. Same as when Chretien wondered was was exactly a "clear majority". In democracy, it is 50%+1. It's as simple as that. I was ashamed of my team when they hinted that a majority would not be sufficient for separation.

Oh, and one other thing.

At the end, when the bald dude (I can't remember his name) was giving his consession speech, I nearly fell out of my chair when he said they lost because of the "Ethnic Vote". Wow. He must have really cracked at the end.

Dunno. Ask Paul Martin how he got the job.....he got his PM job in Quebec...Quebec (LaSalle) elected him.

Hey! I was promised a poll!!!

Hey! I was promised a poll!!!yeah...!!!!

I had a pretty poll, but then the mods merged 2 threads, and my nice poll went buhbye.

Thanks OceanDrive...:rolleyes:

The major reason for the seperatist loss was that analysis by economic/political experts showed with NO room for debate that quebec could not stand alone for in excess of 2 years. Though most analysis showed results as low as 6 months. Canadians would have forced the reinstatment of New Foundlands claims through out Northern quebec and the First Nation reserves in the northern 2/3rds would not have supported the transfer of their reserves to an independant quebec. This would have meant the loss of almost all of the natural resources, the majority of the hydro power generating stations and the Bay harbours inside the present borders of quebec. The mouth of the St. Lawrence would still be under largely under Canadian control and in VERY SHORT order the economic "health" of quebec would be destroyed. As it sits right now quebec's economic health depends on large amounts of money transfered in from the rest, read Western Canada, of the country. The US had already stated outright in '90-2 that they would not accept quebec as part of their country if their atempt at a seperate country failed while the rest of the country was making it clear it was a one way trip.

The real concern to the furtherence of Canada's future is the very real threat of Western Canada seperating since they have the resources and the financial background to support themselves. The First Nations in the West are in full support of seperation as they have themselves tried to seperate in the past and may have won if not for the interference of the American forces in the second Riel rebellion.

I had a pretty poll, but then the mods merged 2 threads, and my nice poll went buhbye.

Thanks OceanDrive...:rolleyes:
Yeah I have noticed the mods are getting rather heavy handed and power-happy!

I had a pretty poll, but then the mods merged 2 threads, and my nice poll went buhbye.

Thanks OceanDrive...:rolleyes:I wonder why the mods did that?

I was 18 years old when the last referendum happened. I read the question. It was perfectly clear to me. I wonder who said it wasn't clear.

That is a red herring that was used to try to justify not agreeing with the results of the referendum. Same as when Chretien wondered was was exactly a "clear majority". In democracy, it is 50%+1. It's as simple as that. I was ashamed of my team when they hinted that a majority would not be sufficient for separation.

Clear?

The question posed on the ballots was: "Acceptez-vous que le Québec devienne souverain, après avoir offert formellement au Canada un nouveau partenariat économique et politique, dans le cadre du projet de loi sur l'avenir du Québec et de l'entente signée le 12 juin 1995?"

The English translation on the ballot: "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"

So you were being asked to vote for an agreement to become sovereign based upon an offered agreement not yet made, fully discussed, or without knowing for sure the Federal response. The bill mentioned, after all, was only a bill tabled in the Quebec Assembly and passed by the PQ within that institution - not any sort of federal document.

This is NOT a clear question as people were being asked to buy into uncertainty. It implies sovereignty could be declared regardless of the results of negotiations which had been yet to be undertaken, but would have given the Seperatists the ability to force the issue even if the negotiated settlement crippled Quebec and the resulting deal with Canada was NOT one that would pass a referendum.



It would be akin to asking someone to definitively agree to purchase a car on the lot before finding out the price, condition, mechanical history, or finance rates that the final purchase would cost them.

The Seperatists tried to downplay it and convince people that it was just a mandate to negotiate, but it would have left them the option to declare soveregnty no matter how those negotiations played out.

Clear?

The question posed on the ballots was: "Acceptez-vous que le Québec devienne souverain, après avoir offert formellement au Canada un nouveau partenariat économique et politique, dans le cadre du projet de loi sur l'avenir du Québec et de l'entente signée le 12 juin 1995?"

The English translation on the ballot: "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?"

So you were being asked to vote for an agreement to become sovereign based upon an offered agreement not yet made, fully discussed, or without knowing for sure the Federal response. The bill mentioned, after all, was only a bill tabled in the Quebec Assembly and passed by the PQ within that institution - not any sort of federal document.

This is NOT a clear question as people were being asked to buy into uncertainty. It implies sovereignty could be declared regardless of the results of negotiations which had been yet to be undertaken, but would have given the Seperatists the ability to force the issue even if the negotiated settlement crippled Quebec and the resulting deal with Canada was NOT one that would pass a referendum.



It would be akin to asking someone to definitively agree to purchase a car on the lot before finding out the price, condition, mechanical history, or finance rates that the final purchase would cost them.

The Seperatists tried to downplay it and convince people that it was just a mandate to negotiate, but it would have left them the option to declare soveregnty no matter how those negotiations played out.
ah but the problem was that they could not legally ask a question separating Quebec. The supreme court ruled that any question could not lead directly to a breakup of the country. They HAD to offer a last chance to the federal.

Besides, the question was crystal clear. You made a pretty concise analysis of it without any kind of background. The consequences were murky, I'll grant you, but the question wasn't.

The real concern to the furtherence of Canada's future is the very real threat of Western Canada seperating since they have the resources and the financial background to support themselves. The First Nations in the West are in full support of seperation as they have themselves tried to seperate in the past and may have won if not for the interference of the American forces in the second Riel rebellion.

Look, the only western province with a separatist party is Alberta. In the last election, they got a mere .4% of the vote. Real Alberta separatists are loud, but not really all that common.

Yes, in one poll, 46% of Albertans said "They would be interested in exploring alternative options, such as separation if Canada ratified the Kyoto treaty" but "interested in exploring" does not mean "let's go" and "alternative options" includes options other than "separation".

And the rest of the western provinces - BC, Sask, Manitoba - get really tired of Alberta separatists assuming that we would be interested in separating as well.

I had a pretty poll, but then the mods merged 2 threads, and my nice poll went buhbye.

Thanks OceanDrive...:rolleyes:

It's not OceanDrive's fault, it's mine. I was participating in both threads and constantly making the same arguments. So I suggested they be merged as they dealt with exactly the same topic.

I'm sorry - I didn't know it would make the poll go away.

ah but the problem was that they could not legally ask a question separating Quebec. The supreme court ruled that any question could not lead directly to a breakup of the country. They HAD to offer a last chance to the federal.


Actually, the Supreme Court ruling on the referendum came after the fact, in 1998 in fact, and it indeed affirmed the requirement for a clearer question on the matter.

The actual text of the ruling was: "A clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear question in favor of secession would confer democratic legitimacy on the secession initiative which all of the other participants in Confederation would have to recognize,"

The 1995 question was deemed to have been too vague.

Besides, the question was crystal clear. You made a pretty concise analysis of it without any kind of background. The consequences were murky, I'll grant you, but the question wasn't.


The way the question was being advertized by the PQ/BQ, however - was not. They kept telling people that it was just a mandate to negotiate with possible sovereignty to follow, however the actual text clearly gave them the mandate to separate regardless of the results of negotiations.

Therin lay the difficulty that many people had with the way it was worded compared with the way the PQ was representing its meaning to the people. A lot of less-educated people would be inclined to check the Oui box without really understanding the ramifications based on what their politicians were telling them.

Actually, the Supreme Court ruling on the referendum came after the fact, in 1998 in fact, and it indeed affirmed the requirement for a clearer question on the matter.

The actual text of the ruling was: "A clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear question in favor of secession would confer democratic legitimacy on the secession initiative which all of the other participants in Confederation would have to recognize,"

The 1995 question was deemed to have been too vague.
Yes but there was a temporary injunction that came a few weeks before the question was shown.

Gotta love the sentiment of dividing up the country. This whole "multicultural" thing with tolerance and all that was stupid anyways, division is the key! After all, if Quebec seperates, they lose the wonderful income from the national government (until the inevitable pleas for foreign aid roll in), and have to try and sustain themselves completely by their own funds. Although I can image the tax rates on those poor Quebecois to jump into astronomical figures. Huzzah for seperation, it'll make paupers of them all yet. :rolleyes:

Therin lay the difficulty that many people had with the way it was worded compared with the way the PQ was representing its meaning to the people. A lot of less-educated people would be inclined to check the Oui box without really understanding the ramifications based on what their politicians were telling them.Look the people of Quebec is not stupid...the people of Canada is not stupid....They All know very well what is at stake...

Its whether Quebec becomes independent or not.

negotiations are just going to be about trade, sharing the federal deficit, tariffs, access to the maritimes...and stuff like that.

Look the people of Quebec is not stupid...the people of Canada is not stupid....They All know very well what is at stake...

Its whether Quebec becomes independent or not.

negotiations are just going to be about trade, sharing the federal deficit, tariffs, access to the maritimes...and stuff like that.Allthough I too believe that Canadian voters are among the most inteligent voters of any nation I know, I still acknowledge the fact that many times people may defend and believe in causes that they don't fully understand. Even in Quebec and Canada.