Could a soverign Quebec play a role in a Federalist Republic
hamiltonguyo @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 3:08 pm
i think the problem is the english canadians are thinking nation states not nations. Canada is not a Nation state. France is a nation state. Germany is a Nation state.What we have now is a Federation incorparating several smaller states. What the BNA 1867 was written as was a CONfederation. Confederations are looser. We should go by the strictly 1867 responsibilities and possibly add the right of a province to be included in international talks including it. I also think The Queen should be Queen of the Provinces by their right not because shes the Queen of Canada. If a province wants to dump the queen and become a republic thats fine but any change to the dominion (i use that because its was the first name)government would still be needing the regular ammendments. This is what works not a trudeau-est perfectly bicultural nation but a confederation of smaller national and non national provinces.
note i was using the proper term of nation not that of a nation state
Knoss @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 3:23 pm
France and Germany are nation states can't the same also be said of Montana and Texas? See there is not reason a soverign state can not be in Confederation.
Numure @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 3:27 pm
Knoss Knoss:
France and Germany are nation states can't the same also be said of Montana and Texas? See there is not reason a soverign state can not be in Confederation.
No. To be a Nation-State, you have to have a COUNTRY, that within its borders the clear majority share the same language, culture and social beliefs. Share the same nation. The case with Canada, is we CLEARLY do not share the same languages, beliefs, religion, social beliefs. Canada is constituted of many Nations. And to say Québec isnt a Nation is absurd, ridiculous and shows a strong lack of any sort of Connection maple-leafs might have with his fellow citizens of this province.
Before you allow yourself to comment on the state of mind of Québecers, Maple-leaf, try to learn what their state of mind is.
Tricks @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 3:50 pm
Numure Numure:
Our total GDP is 230 Billion$. 1/5 of Canada's total GDP.
Quebec is the second most populated and the most manufacturing-intensive province in Canada. The province had the fifth highest level of income per capita in 2000, and the fourth highest level of labour productivity.
http://www.innovation.gc.ca/gol/innovat ... 02450.html
While it was in 200, not that much is going to change. There are 10 provinces, and it has at least 4 higher then it.
$1:
Lmao Canadian Québécois... That's a laugh. Québec includes all its residents. We opposed the war because it was simply an imperialist European War. We wernt intrested in spilling our blood for either Britain or France. while Canada was in its Nation Building Stages. And we have, in a large majority, always been opposed to war. We will have a military, like any country does. I'm sure most of the Québec Military members that are seperatists would love to be apart of it.
Either way, your in no position to judge. You know absolutly nothing about the average Québécois and what goes about in this province.
You think every thing is an imperialist european war. You though ww2 was im sure. Why not spill your blood for france? They are the only ones that would ever be your ally. I doubt you would have a very reliable military. It would be too small to protect the size of land that you have. Borders would be a massive problem, since you would pretty much be an island among land.Either way, your in no position to judge. You know absolutly nothing about the average Québécois and what goes about in this province.
$1:
You seem to fail to understand what the UN is. As you fail to understand quite alot, as the child you are.
I know what the UN, a piece of shit, but that does not mean you will get a seat there. Many countries do not have seats there, are you really that arrogant to think that you are good enough to be in the un? Don't call me a child...or I will rip off your head and shit down your neck you fucking asshole.$1:
I don't, not like Québec hasnt had its own adventures in Internationnal Affairs since the 70's independant from Canada. I guess, you ignored that, right?
If you already take part in international affairs, why is that such a big promise from harper? You don't need it. Since you already take part right? (im taking you were sarcastic) If you werent, then you still haven't answered my question....YOU WOULD HAVE NO ALLIES!!!Nation: #
1. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
2. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
3 The government of a sovereign state.
Doesn't sound like quebec to me. CANADIAN
$1:
On another note, Canadians do not have an identity. This is a common known fact in the Social-Political circle of this country. Your a people in search of one, and as of yet, the only way you can define it, is as anti-americanism. You eat, interact, watch/listen/play/talk the same language, music, movies, tv shows and sports as them but do not accept it.
A unique Canadian identity, is as of yet, non-existent.
Well lets see, we also do that with brits, sometimes aussies (maybe not TV shows but who cares). Wait, we do that with the majority of the planet.So all those countries don't have an identity either? You don't then, cause france is just like you, arrogant, annoying, and not very useful in wars A unique Canadian identity, is as of yet, non-existent.
(no offence to CANADIAN soldiers from quebec, this is aimed at serperatists 
)
Mustang1 @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 3:51 pm
Some clarification may be needed: modern political science commonly treats “federalism” as the middle term of a tripartite classification – the poles being “confederalism” and the “unitary state.” Canada, therefore, is actually a federation, and not a confederation (although late 19th century lexicon practically makes little distinction between the two), but it is, from a political science standpoint, better to conclude that the BNA Act of 1867 provided elements that were both unitary and divided sovereignty (a component of federalism)
Canada is also, politically speaking, a nation-state or more specifically, a binational or multinational (if aboriginal “third order” reaches acceptance) state. It is clearly exists where the limits of common identity that coincide with the boundaries of sovereign authority. While there exists Canadians, there also exists linguistic groups and cultural groups that make up ethnic groups that reside within the state. Belgium is another example of a binational state.
Mustang1 @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:01 pm
Tricks Tricks:
You think every thing is an imperialist european war. You though ww2 was im sure. Why not spill your blood for france? They are the only ones that would ever be your ally. I doubt you would have a very reliable military. It would be too small to protect the size of land that you have. Borders would be a massive problem, since you would pretty much be an island among land.
Only a misguided separatist would look at the Great War solely through imperial goggles. The fact is that when innocent Europeans needed help, Canada answered the call – something to take pride in and honour. If someone is smug about protesting and rioting when they should have been marching and fighting then pity them. You’ll notice that a similar attitude was displayed during World War Two. What a great historical legacy. I’m glad Canada didn’t take that self-serving approach.
Tricks @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:04 pm
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Tricks Tricks:
You think every thing is an imperialist european war. You though ww2 was im sure. Why not spill your blood for france? They are the only ones that would ever be your ally. I doubt you would have a very reliable military. It would be too small to protect the size of land that you have. Borders would be a massive problem, since you would pretty much be an island among land.
Only a misguided separatist would look at the Great War solely through imperial goggles. The fact is that when innocent Europeans needed help, Canada answered the call – something to take pride in and honour. If someone is smug about protesting and rioting when they should have been marching and fighting then pity them. You’ll notice that a similar attitude was displayed during World War Two. What a great historical legacy. I’m glad Canada didn’t take that self-serving approach.
maple_leaf1 @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:06 pm
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Some clarification may be needed: modern political science commonly treats “federalism” as the middle term of a tripartite classification – the poles being “confederalism” and the “unitary state.” Canada, therefore, is actually a federation, and not a confederation (although late 19th century lexicon practically makes little distinction between the two), but it is, from a political science standpoint, better to conclude that the BNA Act of 1867 provided elements that were both unitary and divided sovereignty (a component of federalism)
Canada is also, politically speaking, a nation-state or more specifically, a binational or multinational (if aboriginal “third order” reaches acceptance) state. It is clearly exists where the limits of common identity that coincide with the boundaries of sovereign authority. While there exists Canadians, there also exists linguistic groups and cultural groups that make up ethnic groups that reside within the state. Belgium is another example of a binational state.
Canada is also, politically speaking, a nation-state or more specifically, a binational or multinational (if aboriginal “third order” reaches acceptance) state. It is clearly exists where the limits of common identity that coincide with the boundaries of sovereign authority. While there exists Canadians, there also exists linguistic groups and cultural groups that make up ethnic groups that reside within the state. Belgium is another example of a binational state.
I think I agree with that....
Knoss @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:06 pm
I'm not sure I could see the Austrians having reason to fight in Serbia, and for the Germans to help, I don't know if Canada had get involved, I think we shouldn't of had the draft though.
maple_leaf1 @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:12 pm
Numure Numure:
Knoss Knoss:
France and Germany are nation states can't the same also be said of Montana and Texas? See there is not reason a soverign state can not be in Confederation.
No. To be a Nation-State, you have to have a COUNTRY, that within its borders the clear majority share the same language, culture and social beliefs. Share the same nation. The case with Canada, is we CLEARLY do not share the same languages, beliefs, religion, social beliefs. Canada is constituted of many Nations. And to say Québec isnt a Nation is absurd, ridiculous and shows a strong lack of any sort of Connection maple-leafs might have with his fellow citizens of this province.
Before you allow yourself to comment on the state of mind of Québecers, Maple-leaf, try to learn what their state of mind is.
You speak of Quebecers like Duceppe does. You put all of them in the same bag. The fact is, half the province isn't in the same "state of mind" as the other. My part of Quebec does not think the same way yours does....Maybe it's time to seperate....From East-Quebec! Because, we don't listen to the same music, movies, speak alot more english than you do...In fact, we use it on a daily basis.
I now declare a new nation: West-Quebecers!
Mustang1 @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:23 pm
maple_leaf1 maple_leaf1:
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Some clarification may be needed: modern political science commonly treats “federalism” as the middle term of a tripartite classification – the poles being “confederalism” and the “unitary state.” Canada, therefore, is actually a federation, and not a confederation (although late 19th century lexicon practically makes little distinction between the two), but it is, from a political science standpoint, better to conclude that the BNA Act of 1867 provided elements that were both unitary and divided sovereignty (a component of federalism)
Canada is also, politically speaking, a nation-state or more specifically, a binational or multinational (if aboriginal “third order” reaches acceptance) state. It is clearly exists where the limits of common identity that coincide with the boundaries of sovereign authority. While there exists Canadians, there also exists linguistic groups and cultural groups that make up ethnic groups that reside within the state. Belgium is another example of a binational state.
Canada is also, politically speaking, a nation-state or more specifically, a binational or multinational (if aboriginal “third order” reaches acceptance) state. It is clearly exists where the limits of common identity that coincide with the boundaries of sovereign authority. While there exists Canadians, there also exists linguistic groups and cultural groups that make up ethnic groups that reside within the state. Belgium is another example of a binational state.
I think I agree with that....
Sorry, it may have been high on the academicese, but political science’s lexicon is specific and I was aiming for precise.
If you’ve got any questions, I’d be happy to address then and hopefully clear up any vagueness.
Wullu @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 4:27 pm
Mustang1 Mustang1:
maple_leaf1 maple_leaf1:
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Some clarification may be needed: modern political science commonly treats “federalism” as the middle term of a tripartite classification – the poles being “confederalism” and the “unitary state.” Canada, therefore, is actually a federation, and not a confederation (although late 19th century lexicon practically makes little distinction between the two), but it is, from a political science standpoint, better to conclude that the BNA Act of 1867 provided elements that were both unitary and divided sovereignty (a component of federalism)
Canada is also, politically speaking, a nation-state or more specifically, a binational or multinational (if aboriginal “third order” reaches acceptance) state. It is clearly exists where the limits of common identity that coincide with the boundaries of sovereign authority. While there exists Canadians, there also exists linguistic groups and cultural groups that make up ethnic groups that reside within the state. Belgium is another example of a binational state.
Canada is also, politically speaking, a nation-state or more specifically, a binational or multinational (if aboriginal “third order” reaches acceptance) state. It is clearly exists where the limits of common identity that coincide with the boundaries of sovereign authority. While there exists Canadians, there also exists linguistic groups and cultural groups that make up ethnic groups that reside within the state. Belgium is another example of a binational state.
I think I agree with that....
Sorry, it may have been high on the academicese, but political science’s lexicon is specific and I was aiming for precise.
If you’ve got any questions, I’d be happy to address then and hopefully clear up any vagueness.
Nah..just took a couple reads through. It is a bit more precise than the norm here...took me a bit to get it hehe
Numure @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:04 pm
Tricks Tricks:
Quebec is the second most populated and the most manufacturing-intensive province in Canada. The province had the fifth highest level of income per capita in 2000, and the fourth highest level of labour productivity.
http://www.innovation.gc.ca/gol/innovat ... 02450.html
While it was in 200, not that much is going to change. There are 10 provinces, and it has at least 4 higher then it.
http://www.innovation.gc.ca/gol/innovat ... 02450.html
While it was in 200, not that much is going to change. There are 10 provinces, and it has at least 4 higher then it.
Actually, we have the second highest GDP in this province. Your basing your ''4th'' position income per capita. I did'nt know income was GDP. Did'nt go threw that in High School yet? Only finishing 7th grade now?
Tricks Tricks:
You think every thing is an imperialist european war. You though ww2 was im sure. Why not spill your blood for france? They are the only ones that would ever be your ally. I doubt you would have a very reliable military. It would be too small to protect the size of land that you have. Borders would be a massive problem, since you would pretty much be an island among land.
WW1 was an imperialistique war of power. A power grab for Austria, that resulted in every single continental european power to get involved. Either way, thats another debate.
The definition of Alliances have changed alot today. But, if you wish to use old ones, Canada's contribution was minuscule in both World Wars. No matter how much importance the CBC puts to Canada's contribution. Allies doesnt mean providing troops and military force, its about providing political and/or economic support to your friends in time of need.
I fail to see how Québec would fail to do this? And I also fail to see how our current good friends in the internationnal community would all of a sudden abandon us.
Tricks Tricks:
I know what the UN, a piece of shit, but that does not mean you will get a seat there. Many countries do not have seats there, are you really that arrogant to think that you are good enough to be in the un? Don't call me a child...or I will rip off your head and shit down your neck you fucking asshole.
You, just showed your own young and foolish ignorance as to what the UN is. Explain to me under what clauses of the UN Québec wouldnt be able to join it. Your just a foolish little child, with but a glimpse of knowledge of how the world works.
Tricks Tricks:
If you already take part in international affairs, why is that such a big promise from harper? You don't need it. Since you already take part right? (im taking you were sarcastic) If you werent, then you still haven't answered my question....YOU WOULD HAVE NO ALLIES!!!
Harper is promising a seat on UNESCO, something you cannot have unless your are a country.
We have embassies around the world. Our own seat in the Francophonie. I still fail to see how we would have no allies.
Tricks Tricks:
Nation: #
1. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
2. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
3 The government of a sovereign state.
Doesn't sound like quebec to me. CANADIAN
1. A relatively large group of people organized under a single, usually independent government; a country.
2. The territory occupied by such a group of people: All across the nation, people are voting their representatives out.
3 The government of a sovereign state.
Doesn't sound like quebec to me. CANADIAN
Each point is a different basis to use the term Nation. We fall into the first category. A relatively large group of people organised under a single government(L'Assemblé Nationale). Not independant, and thus why they added the ''Usually''.
Your young are just not trained yet to pick up, does small but important nuances.
Tricks Tricks:
Well lets see, we also do that with brits, sometimes aussies (maybe not TV shows but who cares). Wait, we do that with the majority of the planet.So all those countries don't have an identity either? You don't then, cause france is just like you, arrogant, annoying, and not very useful in wars (no offence to CANADIAN soldiers from quebec, this is aimed at serperatists )
(no offence to CANADIAN soldiers from quebec, this is aimed at serperatists )Because the world is at war every single day and we are all on the verge of a nuclear war
You really shouldnt believe all does sci-fi books boy.
Numure @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:07 pm
maple_leaf1 maple_leaf1:
You speak of Quebecers like Duceppe does. You put all of them in the same bag. The fact is, half the province isn't in the same "state of mind" as the other. My part of Quebec does not think the same way yours does....Maybe it's time to seperate....From East-Quebec! Because, we don't listen to the same music, movies, speak alot more english than you do...In fact, we use it on a daily basis.
I now declare a new nation: West-Quebecers!
I now declare a new nation: West-Quebecers!
We might be split on the issue of Souvrainté. But we arnt split on the issue of Nationalism. Except that 12% of anglophones, like you. I can understand why they feel they are Canadian. They are.
But the rest of us, Are Québécois. The issue that is splitting us, is wheter we want to be French-Canadians, too.
Numure @ Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:09 pm
Mustang1 Mustang1:
Some clarification may be needed: modern political science commonly treats “federalism” as the middle term of a tripartite classification – the poles being “confederalism” and the “unitary state.” Canada, therefore, is actually a federation, and not a confederation (although late 19th century lexicon practically makes little distinction between the two), but it is, from a political science standpoint, better to conclude that the BNA Act of 1867 provided elements that were both unitary and divided sovereignty (a component of federalism)
Canada is also, politically speaking, a nation-state or more specifically, a binational or multinational (if aboriginal “third order” reaches acceptance) state. It is clearly exists where the limits of common identity that coincide with the boundaries of sovereign authority. While there exists Canadians, there also exists linguistic groups and cultural groups that make up ethnic groups that reside within the state. Belgium is another example of a binational state.
Canada is also, politically speaking, a nation-state or more specifically, a binational or multinational (if aboriginal “third order” reaches acceptance) state. It is clearly exists where the limits of common identity that coincide with the boundaries of sovereign authority. While there exists Canadians, there also exists linguistic groups and cultural groups that make up ethnic groups that reside within the state. Belgium is another example of a binational state.
Amen to that. I disagree with you on many issues. But this one, I must give you kudos.
The only difference between us and belgium, is that Belgium Recognises both Nations. We don't.