The Real Big Election... Canada!

[Segnosaur]

...The democratic will of Quebec, expressed as a clear vote on a clear question, requires all parties (aka Feds/Provinces/Quebec) to come to the negotiating table in good faith. This is how the law currently stands; the Clarity Act merely sets out the basics in statutory form.
...
Either Quebec respects the rule of law, or it secedes unilaterally. If it secedes unilaterally, all bets are off.

And do you really think the separatists wouldn't be willing to secede unilaterally? Recall in the last referendum, the separatist leaders bascially said Quebec would control their own 'future'. (I remember one quote, can't remember the exact wording, where they said "Canada will either be the first to recognizne our independence, or the last", meaning even if Canada didn't allow/want/recognize separation, eventually the'd be forced to.)

I stand by my assertion that Quebeckers are not interested in violent revolution.

I'm pretty sure the average Quebeccer isn't interested in violence. However, if they are under the assumption that the can automatically separate whenever they want without violence, they may attempt it. Even if Quebec wasn't willing to fight for its independce, a 'yes' vote in a referendum would be enough to cause major economic and social problems for years to come, even if the rest of Canada used the military to keep them in.

Why would I do that? So voters know exactly what the ground rules are ahead of time...

The Supreme Court and the Canadian Parliament are way ahead of you. The ground rules are set.

Really? When did that happen? Certainly isn't part of the Clarity act.

Did you ever actually READ the clarity act? Those 'ground rules' are basically worthless.

Is a referendum question clear? Well, the clarity act basically defers to parliment to made that determination. Is the size of majority that is required for separation specified? Again, the clarity act defers to parliment to make that determination. (Not to mention the fact that there is little mention about what would happen post-separation.)

So, the clarity act is a bunch of hot air. Since parliment was ALWAYS going to have the task of determining whether a question was clear/a majorty was great enough, it doesn't add anything of use.

It will always be an election issue as long as you keep sending separatists to Ottawa.

Still...a really, really big thank you for blocking the Conservative majority! We owe you one.

Once again, I stand by my utter disgust at people who think that risking breakup of the country is worth the 'risk' of having a conservative majority for even a single term. Sorry, I happen to think a little better of Canada than you do.

 

[Pardalis]

This actually has happened; my father visited northern Quebec on business right after the last referendum, and heard people make statements along the line of "we should have voted Yes... then we'd get more from Canada".)

(I remember one quote, can't remember the exact wording, where they said "Canada will either be the first to recognizne our independence, or the last", meaning even if Canada didn't allow/want/recognize separation, eventually the'd be forced to.)

You're making things up, methinks.

I'm pretty sure the average Quebeccer isn't interested in violence. However, if they are under the assumption that the can automatically separate whenever they want without violence, they may attempt it.

It's been 30 years, nothing violent happened. Two referenda and we've accepted peacefully the results, even though the last one we got 49%, which isn't really a loss, and not to mention the other side cheated.

Stop it with your stupid fear mongering, you're making a fool of yourself.

Even if Quebec wasn't willing to fight for its independce, a 'yes' vote in a referendum would be enough to cause major economic and social problems for years to come, even if the rest of Canada used the military to keep them in.

BS

Québec's independance will be gradual.

 

[SDC]

There are rumo(u)rs that Harper is leading a massive force of Canadian armo(u)red vehicles towards the Peace Bridge. He has sworn to liberate Detroit. Actually, it may be one of those "wag the dog" schemes, whereby he plans to bring all Canadians together by starting a foreign war.

Yes, I know this means he is heading in the wrong direction. Like that's our fault, here in the States?

 

[Madalch]

Harper doesn't consider the USA to be foreign.

 

[Segnosaur]

Originally Posted by Segnosaur
This actually has happened; my father visited northern Quebec on business right after the last referendum, and heard people make statements along the line of "we should have voted Yes... then we'd get more from Canada".)
Originally Posted by Segnosaur
(I remember one quote, can't remember the exact wording, where they said "Canada will either be the first to recognizne our independence, or the last", meaning even if Canada didn't allow/want/recognize separation, eventually the'd be forced to.)

You're making things up, methinks.

Then you'd be thinking wrongly.

Regarding the first quote: Admittedly, it is an anecdote, which I do realize is not necessarily proof (and even if it did happen as described, does not mean that such sentiment was widespread). However, keep in mind that there were some rather bizarre rumours floating around (some supported by the separatist leaders, some just floating around)... that Quebec could reenter confederation automatically if they choose, that they could still send MPs to Ottawa, get transfer payments, etc. Is it really so far fetched to believe that some people may not nave assumed a 'separation' vote actually meant 'separation'?

As for Canada being first or last to recognize Quebec's independance... sadly, its been many years and its not easy to dig up the exact quote. But if you have doubts, keep in mind that after a Yes vote, Quebec had arranged for France to recognize Quebec's independence immediately, even if Canada did not.

From: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=888588 ...It has emerged that at the time of the last referendum in 1995, Parti Québécois Premier Jacques Parizeau had arranged for France to recognize Quebec's independence in the event of a Yes victory.

From: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...935A25756C0A961958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2 ...former Premier Jacques Parizeau hinted in a new book that he had arranged to have France recognize Quebec independence within days of a yes vote in the 1995 referendum.

It's been 30 years, nothing violent happened.

Straw man. Go back and read my posts. I never claimed that a yes vote would result in violence.

What I said is that a yes vote would cause economic and social chaos, both in Quebec and the rest of Canada, regardless of whether separatists in Quebec would be willing to use violence to enforce their independence or whether Canada used its military to force them to stay.

Two referenda and we've accepted peacefully the results, even though the last one we got 49%, which isn't really a loss, and not to mention the other side cheated.

Really? I thought it was the ethinics. Can't trust those of a different race you know.

My irony meeter just exploded you know. Given the fact that there was fraud that affected 10s of thousands of votes in Quebec (most affecting the 'no' side), and given the fact that the 'Yes' side was illegally spending money to support its position, and given the fact that the separatists were making promises that they could not justify, I really can't see how you claim that the loss was due to 'cheating'.

From: http://www.canada.com/montrealgazet...?id=47f5c199-b0bb-4392-b0bf-9bcb53cdc5d9&p=2p ...the government of Quebec, led by Jacques Parizeau of the Parti Quebecois, also was pumping money, quite possibly more than Option Canada spent, into supporting the Yes side through various government departments, a series of "studies" and in other ways.

Stop it with your stupid fear mongering, you're making a fool of yourself.

I see...

Quebec regularly receives billions of dollars more from the federal government (in transfer payments, economic subsidies, employment insurance payments, etc.) than it pays to the feds. Do you not think Quebec would be negatively affected by the removal of such payments?

Thousands of workers in border communities (such as Hull/Gatineau) work in Ontario or New Brunswick, many more than the number of Ontario workers who work in Quebec. Do you not think that Quebec would be negatively affected by a net loss of jobs that would result if Quebec separated and those workers were not allowed to cross the border for their daily jobs?

Do you not remember that prior to the first referendum thousands of jobs were lost as many companies moved their headquarters out of Montreal over even the chance of separation?

Do you really think that the rest-of-Canada would not have its interprovincial trade negatively affected by having to cross a foreign country (possibly with its own border crossing and passport requirements)?

And what of the cost of trying to untangle federal assets held in Quebec? Or trying to deal with elements within Quebec (such as the Cree) who wish to stay in Canada?

Why exactly is it fear mongering to point out those problems?

I realize that as a separatist, you like to pretend those issues don't exist. But they do, and they would cause a sh*tload of problems following any separation, regardless of your willingness to sick your head in the sand and pretend those problems don't exist.

 

[Pardalis]

Regarding the first quote: Admittedly, it is an anecdote, which I do realize is not necessarily proof

Actually, it's no proof at all. Your anecdote is even second-hand, so there's no way to tell if the people your father heard were joking or not. Québecers, if you ever bothered to learn about us, have this tendency to inject alot of sarcasm in what we say, we always talk half-jokely. You know, humor is very big here. The English seem to be more literalist.

However, keep in mind that there were some rather bizarre rumours floating around

I don't care about rumours. Only people intent in spreading fear and hatred like them and, more importantly, revel in using them.

(some supported by the separatist leaders, some just floating around)... that Quebec could reenter confederation automatically if they choose, that they could still send MPs to Ottawa, get transfer payments, etc. Is it really so far fetched to believe that some people may not nave assumed a 'separation' vote actually meant 'separation'?

It does mean separation, but not an immediate one. The end goal is separation of course, but it will be gradual autonomy which will eventually, a few decades down the line, result in full independence. Why wouldn't it be? Canada's independance from the British kingdom took 60 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster_Adoption_Act_1942

In this day and age of globalisation and telcommunications, let's hope we can do it faster, but no need to rush. Noone is seeking the destruction of any existing country and wealth. We just want maximum autonomy for ourselves.

If it doesn't lead to full independance, then at least we'll get as much autonomy as we can.

As for Canada being first or last to recognize Quebec's independance... sadly, its been many years and its not easy to dig up the exact quote.

How am I not surprised?

But if you have doubts, keep in mind that after a Yes vote, Quebec had arranged for France to recognize Quebec's independence immediately, even if Canada did not.

So? It's always good to have allies. Kosovo got allies too.

Straw man. Go back and read my posts. I never claimed that a yes vote would result in violence.

Please. You're making alot of noise trying to assume and infer there will be.

What I said is that a yes vote would cause economic and social chaos, both in Quebec and the rest of Canada, regardless of whether separatists in Quebec would be willing to use violence to enforce their independence or whether Canada used its military to force them to stay.

You don't know that. If the process is gradual and peaceful, if all parties are honest and work together, there's no reason for it not to work.

Only the bigots want it to fail.

Really? I thought it was the ethinics. Can't trust those of a different race you know.

Now that's a strawman.

Given the fact that there was fraud that affected 10s of thousands of votes in Quebec (most affecting the 'no' side), and given the fact that the 'Yes' side was illegally spending money to support its position,

BS

Boy, the rest of your post is getting wayyyy off topic isn't it? Looks like you've got an axe to grind, but there's no way I'll let it unanswered.

Thousands of workers in border communities (such as Hull/Gatineau) work in Ontario or New Brunswick, many more than the number of Ontario workers who work in Quebec. Do you not think that Quebec would be negatively affected by a net loss of jobs that would result if Quebec separated and those workers were not allowed to cross the border for their daily jobs?

They'd be allowed to cross over. It would be stupid not to. Some arrangements will have to be made, again, it will not be immediate secession, it's not going to be like Korea, because the two parties are not at war, unlike what you like to pretend they are.

Do you not remember that prior to the first referendum thousands of jobs were lost as many companies moved their headquarters out of Montreal over even the chance of separation?

See what fear mongering does? These people listened to people like you, and overreacted.

Do you really think that the rest-of-Canada would not have its interprovincial trade negatively affected by having to cross a foreign country (possibly with its own border crossing and passport requirements)?

There's no reason why it would be a problem if the process is gradual.

And what of the cost of trying to untangle federal assets held in Quebec? Or trying to deal with elements within Quebec (such as the Cree) who wish to stay in Canada?

Again, no one is proposing a clear and immediate secession.

Why exactly is it fear mongering to point out those problems?

The fear mongering is you characterizing these issues as being of great danger, your use of words like "break up", and the way you constantly refer to "separatists" as if you were talking about the "Taliban".

That is fear mongering. you have every right and perhaps good reasons to be against Québec's sovereignty, I'm a moderate myself, but unless you state your reasons intellligently without resorting to fear rhetoric and demonizing of the other side, you're just proving to be a fool and a bigot, and make me want to separate even more.

I hope there is more people like Dro'k in the rest of Canada, people with whom dialogue and honest debate is possible.

I realize that as a separatist, you like to pretend those issues don't exist.

Strawman again. There will be difficulties no doubt, noone's pretending otherwise, but there's no reason for it not to work, it happenned before elsewhere. We have a unique opportunity to make it work democratically and peacefully.

I suggest you start a thread if you want to continue.

 

[Pardalis]

I'm pretty sure the average Quebeccer isn't interested in violence. However, if they are under the assumption that the can automatically separate whenever they want without violence, they may attempt it.

If that's not fear-mongering, I don't know what is. I don't care if you lie to me, but are you lying to yourself?

What's even more funny, is that you didn't really answer my response:

It's been 30 years, nothing violent happened. Two referenda and we've accepted peacefully the results, even though the last one we got 49%, which isn't really a loss, and not to mention the other side cheated.

 

[D'rok]

And do you really think the separatists wouldn't be willing to secede unilaterally? Recall in the last referendum, the separatist leaders bascially said Quebec would control their own 'future'. (I remember one quote, can't remember the exact wording, where they said "Canada will either be the first to recognizne our independence, or the last", meaning even if Canada didn't allow/want/recognize separation, eventually the'd be forced to.)

Actually, I think the Quebec government would come to the negotiating table after a yes vote, at least initially. There's always the possibility that negotiations would break down and independence would be declared unilaterally. Unfortunately, I think that would be the result if folks like you were across the table from Quebec.

Really? When did that happen? Certainly isn't part of the Clarity act.

Did you ever actually READ the clarity act? Those 'ground rules' are basically worthless.

I linked you to the Supreme Court case. If you don't want to read it, that's not my problem.

Your definition of "ground rules" seems to be a unilateral declaration of the conditions for separation. That will never fly in a free and democratic society. Quebec's self-determination, if expressed as a clear will to independence, places a constitutional (and moral) duty on us (and Quebec) to negotiate. Read the case.

Once again, I stand by my utter disgust at people who think that risking breakup of the country is worth the 'risk' of having a conservative majority for even a single term. Sorry, I happen to think a little better of Canada than you do.

Charming.

Newsflash: The Bloc can't break up the country. It's the PQ you want to be worrying about.

Ironically, it's a separatist party that is protecting the status quo in Parliament. Without them, Harper would be free to experiment with his "reforms". Classical conservatives of the Burke variety (i.e., happy with the political institutions we currently have) are thankful.

 

[Segnosaur]

Regarding the first quote: Admittedly, it is an anecdote, which I do realize is not necessarily proof

Actually, it's no proof at all. Your anecdote is even second-hand, so there's no way to tell if the people your father heard were joking or not.

Fine if you don't believe me... but, A: My father did actually attempt to clarify what they meant, so a joke is less likely, and B: I trust my father.

The fact that you would stick your head in the sand over the other issues suggests that even if every Quebeccor who voted yes personally told you that they were doing it to blackmail canada, you'd still discount them.

I don't care about rumours. Only people intent in spreading fear and hatred like them and, more importantly, revel in using them.

You DO realize that it is the separatists that are the ones who are benefitting from the rumours, don't you? Like, all the stories about how Quebec can re-enter confederation any time it wishes (an actual statement from Parizeau).

It does mean separation, but not an immediate one.

I really have no idea how exactly you are definning 'immediate' separation. Frankly, the separatists in the referrendum were often just as vague. But, the referendum documentation specifically said that within a year the "National Assembly will be empowered to declare the sovereignty of Québec without further delay.". Furthermore, they said they want to be able to "...levy all of its taxes, pass all of its laws, sign all of its treaties. " Sounds to me like rather outright independance, and something that would happen within a year whether Canada agreed to or not.

If it doesn't lead to full independance, then at least we'll get as much autonomy as we can.

You say this, yet earlier you claimed that you disbelieved that some Quebecers would use a yes vot to blackmail Canada....

As for Canada being first or last to recognize Quebec's independance... sadly, its been many years and its not easy to dig up the exact quote.

How am I not surprised?

Its been a decade... how many quotes do you remember in exact detail from 10 years ago?

But if you have doubts, keep in mind that after a Yes vote, Quebec had arranged for France to recognize Quebec's independence immediately, even if Canada did not.

So? It's always good to have allies. Kosovo got allies too.

You missed the point... its not that they had 'allies', its that they had arranged to be recognized as independent immediately after a yes vote. Remember, the issue is whether Quebec would declare independence even if Canada did not recognize it...

Straw man. Go back and read my posts. I never claimed that a yes vote would result in violence.

Please. You're making alot of noise trying to assume and infer there will be.

Uhhh... no. I never have. In fact, I believe the one that first brought up the issue of violence was D'rok. I've taken great pains to avoid suggesting that violence is expected.

What I said is that a yes vote would cause economic and social chaos, both in Quebec and the rest of Canada, regardless of whether separatists in Quebec would be willing to use violence to enforce their independence or whether Canada used its military to force them to stay.

You don't know that. If the process is gradual and peaceful, if all parties are honest and work together, there's no reason for it not to work.

Only the bigots want it to fail.

Sorry, life doesn't work that way.

First of all, even if both parties are honest, its possible for an impasse to happen. (If Canada says the Cree and Pontiac are entitled to say in Canada, and Quebec says no, then we are at an impasse, regardless of how honest people are about their intentions.)

Secondly, its not a case of 'wanting' it to fail... its a case of being realistic, and lookig at the social and political results that would result in a 'yes' vote.

Really? I thought it was the ethinics. Can't trust those of a different race you know.

Now that's a strawman.

Its sarcasm. Hey, if the french are such a funny people you should have picked up on that.

Oh, and just in case you forgot:

http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/federal_politics/topics/1891-12470/
(Parizeau blaming the loss on money and the 'ethnic vote'.)

Given the fact that there was fraud that affected 10s of thousands of votes in Quebec (most affecting the 'no' side), and given the fact that the 'Yes' side was illegally spending money to support its position,

BS

Ah, such a well-argued rebuttal.

Did you really not know about the problems with discounted 'no' votes in Quebec? Or are you just pretending it did not happen?

From: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2000/08/02/referendum000802.html
Nearly two per cent of the votes cast during the 1995 referendum were rejected. But three predominantly federalist ridings showed unusually high rates of rejection.

Boy, the rest of your post is getting wayyyy off topic isn't it? Looks like you've got an axe to grind, but there's no way I'll let it unanswered.

Why is it off topic? You seem to think separation will be an easy thing. A more realistic person would be able to look at all the issues.

Thousands of workers in border communities (such as Hull/Gatineau) work in Ontario or New Brunswick, many more than the number of Ontario workers who work in Quebec.

They'd be allowed to cross over. It would be stupid not to.

Why would Ontario or New Brunswick actually want them to? We have our own work force here. The citzens of other countries cannot just come here to work usually require a permit, and usually its for jobs for which there is a demand for particular labour skills or some overriding need. Why would we treat Quebec different if they wanted to be "independent"?

By the way, I notice that you ignored the part where an independent Quebec would be missing out on Billions of dollars a year due to a lack of federal Transfer payments, EI, business subsidies, etc.


Some arrangements will have to be made, again, it will not be immediate secession, it's not going to be like Korea, because the two parties are not at war, unlike what you like to pretend they are.

Do you not remember that prior to the first referendum thousands of jobs were lost as many companies moved their headquarters out of Montreal over even the chance of separation?

See what fear mongering does? These people listened to people like you, and overreacted.

No, they looked at what the economic impact would be if they were to remain stationed in an 'independent' Quebec, and decided that it would be better to take residence in Ontario.

But the, why actually assume business people would be looking out for their best interests when you can just assume that their actions are due to 'panic'?

Do you really think that the rest-of-Canada would not have its interprovincial trade negatively affected by having to cross a foreign country (possibly with its own border crossing and passport requirements)?

There's no reason why it would be a problem if the process is gradual.

Ummm... why exactly does it matter if the process is gradual? At some point, if Quebec becomes a separate country, it will likely have customs/border crossings/import restrictions. Whether it happens immediately (you know, like most separatists were suggesting) or slowly.. and once it does, then you have the problem I described.

What, do you think trucking companies will be happy having to clear customs going from Ontario to New Brunswick just because they didn't have to do so right away but were able to go a year or 2 without that problem?

(regarding the Cree and Pontiac wishing to remain in Canada

Again, no one is proposing a clear and immediate secession.

Again, irrevant. Doesn't matter if Quebec separation happens tomorrow or in a decade... somewhere along the line a decision will have to be made whether the Cree can remain in Canada.

So what do YOU think? Once you get your independent country, are you going to allow the Cree to take their northern Quebec lands and stay in Canada? Or are you going to force them to stay?

Why exactly is it fear mongering to point out those problems?

The fear mongering is you characterizing these issues as being of great danger, your use of words like "break up", and the way you constantly refer to "separatists" as if you were talking about the "Taliban".

If you don't like me referring to the separatists, then what should I refer to them as? The Warm fuzzy cuddly fluffy bunnies? Doesn't really indicate what they want, does it?

That is fear mongering. you have every right and perhaps good reasons to be against Québec's sovereignty,

Hey, I actually have no problem with Quebec declaring independence, separating, etc. But, what I am against is all the lies and misinformation that are coming from the separatist side.

Had you actually come out and said "Yeah, separation will hurt both Quebec and the rest of Canada economically, but I feel its beneficial for cultural reasons", I would not have a problem. But when you come out and spread BS such as how everthing is going to be A-OK, or that there won't be economic or social issues, then I have a problem. (Or, when its suggested that Quebec could continue receiving transfer payments, or send MPs to Ottawa, or re-enter confederation at any time.)

I'm a moderate myself, but unless you state your reasons intellligently without resorting to fear rhetoric and demonizing of the other side, you're just proving to be a fool and a bigot, and make me want to separate even more.

I hope there is more people like Dro'k in the rest of Canada, people with whom dialogue and honest debate is possible.

What, you mean people like Dro'k who seem to be either naive or willing to give in to be quiet in the face of any misinformation in an attempt to avoid any controversy? Yeah.. he's the one I'd want supporting me...

 

[Segnosaur]

I'm pretty sure the average Quebeccer isn't interested in violence. However, if they are under the assumption that the can automatically separate whenever they want without violence, they may attempt it.

If that's not fear-mongering, I don't know what is. I don't care if you lie to me, but are you lying to yourself?

Ummm... what exactly did you think I meant by "they may attempt it"? Any 'yes' vote, or any declaration of independence by the Quebec government, to me, is "attempting it".

What's even more funny, is that you didn't really answer my response:
It's been 30 years, nothing violent happened. Two referenda and we've accepted peacefully the results, even though the last one we got 49%, which isn't really a loss, and not to mention the other side cheated.

Not really sure what you wanted me to respond to. You never asked any particular question that needed response, and I've never suggested that there's been anything but peace. I did point out some problems with your claim that the 'other side cheated' by pointing out incidence of cheating by the 'yes' side that were more aggregious than anything the no side did.

 

[Segnosaur]

Actually, I think the Quebec government would come to the negotiating table after a yes vote, at least initially. There's always the possibility that negotiations would break down and independence would be declared unilaterally.

Well, according to the referendum legislation, they would be required to make a 'proposal' to the Canadian government, then after a year (if no deal was worked out) declare separation unilatarally.

Unfortunately, I think that would be the result if folks like you were across the table from Quebec.

What, a realist?

You DO know that there was a lot of mis-information that was being spread by the 'yes' side, do you not?

We tried things your way... keep quiet about the misinformation and problems, and look where it got us.. within a 1% vote for separation.

I linked you to the Supreme Court case. If you don't want to read it, that's not my problem.

You know, there seems to be a particular trend wtih you... you assume I'm unknowledgable about the subject (based on my opinions), but when all is said and done, I end up actually end up demonstrating a clearer knowlege of a subject than you.

It happened when discussing the green shift (when I was accused of not understading it, right before I illustrated how it could be detrimental to Ontario), and it seems to be happening here.

Once again, I stand by my utter disgust at people who think that risking breakup of the country is worth the 'risk' of having a conservative majority for even a single term. Sorry, I happen to think a little better of Canada than you do.

Charming.

Newsflash: The Bloc can't break up the country. It's the PQ you want to be worrying about.

While the PQ would be the ones that would actually be responsible for declaring independance and/or negotiating with Canada following any 'yes' vote, it does not mean that the BQ does not have a substantial amout of influence. In the last referendum they were significant in rallying the 'yes' side. As such, it would be beneficial to the stability of Canada if they were to suffer a complete and total rejection at the hands of Quebec voters.

Ironically, it's a separatist party that is protecting the status quo in Parliament. Without them, Harper would be free to experiment with his "reforms". Classical conservatives of the Burke variety (i.e., happy with the political institutions we currently have) are thankful.

What makes you think that A) I'm a conservative of the Burke variety, and B) that being a 'classic conservative of the Burke variety' is a good thing?

I've stated much earlier in the thread that I'm not a member of the conservative party. I do have libertarian leanings however (I believe in smaller government, although I'm not willing to totally dismantal all aspects of our social safety net). I have voted conservative because they are the party that is closest to (even if they don't exactly match) those ideals. Having a minorty government may prevent the government from taking steps to reduce the government.

And why is it necessary to be happy with the politically instituations we currently have? If we had a "Department of Wasting Money", would it not be a good thing to eliminate that department, even if that particular department had been around forever?

 

[D'rok]

We tried things your way... keep quiet about the misinformation and problems, and look where it got us.. within a 1% vote for separation.

You know, there seems to be a particular trend wtih you... you assume I'm unknowledgable about the subject (based on my opinions), but when all is said and done, I end up actually end up demonstrating a clearer knowlege of a subject than you.

You have demonstrated that you do not understand the Secession Reference. Prove me wrong. For one thing, your timelines are off - that case was referred to the Supreme Court by the Liberal govt as a result of their horrible non-strategy in the 95 referendum. It is not part of that strategy. Nor is that strategy "my way" - I am trying to get you to engage with me on Canadian constitutional law. You are re-fighting the referendum battle.

More tellingly, you have brought up all of the usual federalist scare-mongering talking points. Some of those are actually legitimate issues, but they are all irrelevant to the main point, which is that secession is a legitamate option for Quebec, and all of those issues will be on the negotiating table - the table that the rule of law in Canada obliges all parties to sit at in good faith following a clear Yes vote. I happen to think that Quebec, generally speaking, respects the rule of law and will give the the process a chance regardless of the polemics on both sides.

This is the current state of constitutional law in Canada, like it or not. I happen to like it. Note: I do not like the idea of breaking up the country, but I am proud of us for crafting a framework for dealing with the issue in the Canadian way - i.e., peacefully and democratically.

While the PQ would be the ones that would actually be responsible for declaring independance and/or negotiating with Canada following any 'yes' vote, it does not mean that the BQ does not have a substantial amout of influence. In the last referendum they were significant in rallying the 'yes' side. As such, it would be beneficial to the stability of Canada if they were to suffer a complete and total rejection at the hands of Quebec voters.

If the PQ comes to power and the Bloc has a strong presence in Ottawa, I agree that it is an unholy alliance. But the PQ is a long, long way from power right now. The Bloc qua Bloc is not a threat to the stability of Canada.

What makes you think that A) I'm a conservative of the Burke variety,

Nothing. What makes you think I think that? I thought it was clear that I was assuming you were not that variety of conservative.

and B) that being a 'classic conservative of the Burke variety' is a good thing?

I didn't make that argument. I said that those type of conservatives don't want radical reform, therefore they are thankful that the status quo has been maintained. It is ironic that the status quo has been maintained due to the separatist vote.

I've stated much earlier in the thread that I'm not a member of the conservative party. I do have libertarian leanings however (I believe in smaller government, although I'm not willing to totally dismantal all aspects of our social safety net). I have voted conservative because they are the party that is closest to (even if they don't exactly match) those ideals. Having a minorty government may prevent the government from taking steps to reduce the government.

The way you vote is your business. You don't need to justify it.

And why is it necessary to be happy with the politically instituations we currently have? If we had a "Department of Wasting Money", would it not be a good thing to eliminate that department, even if that particular department had been around forever?

Necessary to what? Where are you getting that from?

Generally speaking, classical conservatives are not against change, they're against storming the Bastille, metaphorically speaking - i.e., they're against radical change.

 

[Corsair 115]

Two referenda and we've accepted peacefully the results, even though the last one we got 49%, which isn't really a loss, and not to mention the other side cheated.

It can be argued that asking a long and vague question on the referendum ballot is a form of cheating as well. So if you're going to mention cheating, then a vague, misleading referendum question qualifies as well.

 

[Pardalis]

Hey Seignosaur, can't you understand your own language?

I suggest you start a thread if you want to continue.

READ CAREFULLY:
The Québec sovereignty issue had nothing to do with the last election, therefore you are off topic, if you want to discuss this start another thread.

(I even underlined the important bit, just for your comprehension)

It can be argued that asking a long and vague question on the referendum ballot is a form of cheating as well. So if you're going to mention cheating, then a vague, misleading referendum question qualifies as well.

No, if you bothered to follow the conversation, you would understand I wasn't asking a question about whether or not anyone cheated, that wasn't the crust of my response, my response was about whether or not "separatists" would use violence.

My point was that no violence was used for the last 30 years, and that we've accepted two negative referenda without any trouble. So therefore his fear mongering is unjustified. You'll notice Seignosaur avoided to answer to the point.

Please try to follow or don't join in what is already a derail.

 

[Cuddles]

Please keep on topic guys. If you want to discuss Quebec and referendums, start another thread that isn't about the recent election.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles