• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Quebec Separation

ZouPrime said:
while the others are ok with the fact of being one "founding" ethnic group in a bigger country.
Click to expand...

That's the thing, everytime we want to enforce that right, as a founding nation, we get criticized to have too much influence and to be whiners.

Harper acknowledged our nation but didn't give us any power to go along with it. We can't change our constitution, we can't criticize, we can't form a coalition without being accused of conspiracy to break up the country, so what are we supposed to do?
 
ZouPrime said:
I just want to point out that this link is marked as a "free opinion"; this is NOT the official program of the PQ, and shouldn't necessarily be considered as a "mainstream" opinion.

Claiming Labrador and part of Ontario, that's the first time I heard about such a concept.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's why I said "one possible way", it's the part about the structure of the government that interests me most.
 
Pardalis said:
It will be gradual, maybe the first decade or so, to make the transition easier.
Click to expand...
You would have no control over your own currency for the first decade or so? How is that a good idea?

As I said, this is a source of contention, surely we will respect the Native's rights for autonomy, but we won't deny ours either.
Click to expand...
What does this mean on a practical level? If the First Nations wish to form a province in the void left by a separating Quebec, who are the rest of Quebec to say no? The First Nations wouldn't be denying Quebec its autonomy - just not granting it over what they would claim as their land.
 
Pardalis said:
Cherry-picking are we?

The next paragraph:
Click to expand...

There seems to be a lot of ifs in that paragraph. Assuming my translation is correct then it says that, eventually, if rump Canada constitutionally protects French and if each of the remaining Provinces does the same then Independent Quebec will add a clause to its constitution to protect the rights of the English speakers. But what good would that do if English has no official status?
 
I understand a good percentage of public opinion in Western Canada would be "good riddence to bad garbage" if Quebec did seperate.
IMHO unless they want a endless minority problem, an independent Quebec would have to give official recogintion to English in some way.
At times I want to yell "Wolfe Beat Monclam at the Plains of Abraham 250 years ago. Get Over it".:duck:
 
Pardalis said:
It will be gradual, maybe the first decade or so, to make the transition easier.
Click to expand...

Would a gradual secession keep things like housing markets stable?

If a breakup was sudden, and people wanted to leave Quebec to stay in Canada, I could imagine lots of homes and businesses suddenly up for sale. Sellers would probably have to take a loss, and some people might lose everything. And there might not be too many buyers if the new republic looked like a poor economic prospect. However, if a gradual transition to independence took ten years or more, people would have time to move and make their other arrangements at a more normal pace.

This is something I've wondered about for a long time. What are people in Canada saying about this sort of issue?
 
dudalb said:
At times I want to yell "Wolfe Beat Monclam at the Plains of Abraham 250 years ago. Get Over it".:duck:
Click to expand...

If the founding fathers had listened to the Quakers and had shut up and accepted things as they were, you wouldn't be talking right now. Whatever we do there will be consequences, but that's not a reason not to do it. Nothing would ever get done otherwise. We have a perfect opportunity to do this peacefully and without bloodshed (well, except maybe a few paper cuts, with all the paper work), so why not?
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
At times I want to yell "Wolfe Beat Montcalme at the Plains of Abraham 250 years ago. Get Over it".
Click to expand...

The Plains of Abraham are a lot less relevant than people seem to think. Wolfe captured Quebec- not because Britian particularly wanted to keep it, but because they could take it and use it as a bargaining chip when time for peace talks came around.

It turned out that France didn't want to keep it as much as they wanted their more tropical colonies.
 
Thanz said:
In my perspective, Quebec separating would be quite detrimental economically.
Click to expand...


Consider this simple economic fact: Quebec is the province which receives, by far, the most total dollars in equalization payments: for 2007-08 that amounted to $7.16 billion (second place belonged to Manitoba which received $1.543 billion).

If Quebec secedes, it seems rather unlikely it's going to keep getting that money from the federal government.
 
Fitter said:
Because the two times that a provincial referendum has been held on the subject it was rejected.
Click to expand...

Who says there's a limit to how many times it can be debated?

How many times was women suffrage, or gays in the military proposed in the courts before it finally got accepted?

First referendum we lost with 40%, the second with 49%, and the Bloc and the PQ are still around and have kept getting re-elected, so I see a trend here. There's definitely people who want it, you can't silence them.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
Who says there's a limit to how many times it can be debated?
Click to expand...


It would have been nice had both prior referendums asked the short, simple, and true question to be debated, "Do you wish Quebec to become an independent nation?" instead of the long-winded and somewhat deceptive questions which were asked. And hopefully any future referendum will ask a similarly straightforward question and not try to muddy the waters with vague comments about sovereignty-association and whatnot.

That sepratists have thus far declined to pose the true question suggests to me they know in their hearts there is not enough support in Quebec for genuine independence.
 
Corsair 115 said:
It would have been nice had both prior referendums asked the short, simple, and true question to be debated, "Do you wish Quebec to become an independent nation?" instead of the long-winded and somewhat deceptive questions which were asked. And hopefully any future referendum will ask a similarly straightforward question and not try to muddy the waters with vague comments about sovereignty-association and whatnot.
Click to expand...
The reason why the questions were so open-ended is precisely because the issue is so open-opended. What does it even means for Quebec to separate? There are as many model for national sovereignty than there are countries in the world. It is a bit naive to believe that Quebec would become a completely independant country overnight. It's not in the interest of Quebec, and it's not in the interest of Canada. What would happen to the millitary? The canadian dollar? Federal investments in the province? The devil is in the details. That's why the referendum questions were more in-line with (I'm paraphrasing) "are you willing to give the provincial government the mandate to negociate secession with Canada". Not because it muddy the waters, but because it describes exactly what it is.

That sepratists have thus far declined to pose the true question suggests to me they know in their hearts there is not enough support in Quebec for genuine independence.
Click to expand...
Obviously federalists would prefer the question to be a strawman. There's no nuance in "Do you want Quebec to separate from Canada?", and federalists would have jump on such a question to affirm that "Quebec wants to completely remove all ties with Canada forever", which is of course false.
 
Pardalis said:
First referendum we lost with 40%, the second with 49%, and the Bloc and the PQ are still around and have kept getting re-elected, so I see a trend here. There's definitely people who want it, you can't silence them.
Click to expand...
You see a trend with two data points separated by 15 years? And coming from completely two differents campaigns involving different actors and different issues? :-P
 
Pardalis said:
This should give you a good idea. And if you read French, this is one possible way a sovereing Québec would look like: http://www.mef.qc.ca/projet_de_constitution.htm
Click to expand...

Aside from the obvious (severed ties to the Crown), how is the President in this model different than the GG?

ETA: I like the Senate Electoral College idea. That's a good compromise between direct elections and un-democratic appointments. It is also a good way to make it really regionally accountable.
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
The only things about it are in French, that's the best I found in English.
Click to expand...

Your French citation -- my French is not as deep as a well, nor as wide as a church-door, but it is enough -- was no more convincing, I'm afraid.

Is this one of those "cultural" differences where I'm just not seeing that it's good to unjustly oppress Anglophones?
 
Pardalis said:
Now let the French-bashing begin...
Click to expand...

You DO realize that not all french people are separatists, don't you? Criticism of separatists does not constitute 'french bashing' any more than criticizing priests who abuse alterboys constitutes bashing all homosexuals.

Heck, not all Franco-Canadians even live in Quebec.

Any Quebec citizens who are against separation are not going to get 'bashed'.

I have heaped a lot of criticism against the separatist movement. But my arguments are not necessarily against the idea of separation. My criticism is specifically against specific claims made by separatists, claims that are misleading, wrong, or outright lies. If there were separatists who denied claims made by people such as Pardalis, yet still wanted to withdraw from confederation, I would actually respect their opinions.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom