Quebec and separation

Guess what dino? That same kind of mathematical exercise has officially been performed by Ontario and Alberta and they also come to the same conclusion. The only difference is their provincial governments having deals with federalist counterparts. When McGuinty, Klein and Charest raise the issue, is called fiscal imbalance and provincial/federal misunderstanding. When "separatists" raise the issue, its hogwash. Get your head out of your ass dino.

[QUOTE BY= Samuel] Guess what dino? That same kind of mathematical exercise has officially been performed by Ontario and Alberta and they also come to the same conclusion. The only difference is their provincial governments having deals with federalist counterparts. When McGuinty, Klein and Charest raise the issue, is called fiscal imbalance and provincial/federal misunderstanding. When "separatists" raise the issue, its hogwash. Get your head out of your ass dino.[/QUOTE] I never said there wasn't a fiscal imbalance. But for the PQ to tell Quebecers that if Quebec leaves Canada it will be richer is aload of crap. Only Alberta would survive independant because it is the only province in Canada with ZERO debt and it has so much wealth. Quebec has the most debt per province and what wealth do you have? Even Saskatchewan is a have province not Quebec.

[QUOTE BY= dino]I never said there wasn't a fiscal imbalance. But for the PQ to tell Quebecers that if Quebec leaves Canada it will be richer is aload of crap. Only Alberta would survive independant because it is the only province in Canada with ZERO debt and it has so much wealth. Quebec has the most debt per province and what wealth do you have? Even Saskatchewan is a have province not Quebec.[/QUOTE] Countries do not survive in spite of their debt, dino? What do you make of Canada? Do you know what fiscal imbalance is, obviously not. Aren't you the least bit ashamed of arguing people with nonsense like that? I suppose that's why you use an alias <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'>

You guys have missed the point. Big business controls what goes on in this country. If quebec managed to have a referendum on separation (assuming someone has the guts to state clearly that all ties are to be broken with Canada) and if the majority voted in favor of separation then the minority groups would come to the fore. The first nations would state their demands as would all the other groups who did not support separation. Then the crap would hit the fan. There is no way to pull Quebec out of Canada non violently. Once the violence begins the US will brings troops in to restore order and they will never go home. We will have become an official US protectorate. If you think quebecers have had it rough, imagine how things will go under the US thumb.

[QUOTE BY= Milton] You guys have missed the point. Big business controls what goes on in this country. If quebec managed to have a referendum on separation (assuming someone has the guts to state clearly that all ties are to be broken with Canada) and if the majority voted in favor of separation then the minority groups would come to the fore. The first nations would state their demands as would all the other groups who did not support separation. Then the crap would hit the fan. There is no way to pull Quebec out of Canada non violently. Once the violence begins the US will brings troops in to restore order and they will never go home. We will have become an official US protectorate. If you think quebecers have had it rough, imagine how things will go under the US thumb.[/QUOTE] Ya, ya, ya and the USA's first mandate will be to slaughter everyone in sight upon arrival <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/eek.gif' alt='Eek!'> I see it as the perfect opportunity to set things right for Natives who have been wronged by federalism for centuries. I see it as new beginning and turning the page on a tired old and failing system. But, like you Milton, its just my humble opinion, minus the federalist fear mongering.

[QUOTE BY= Samuel] ] Countries do not survive in spite of their debt, dino? What do you make of Canada? Do you know what fiscal imbalance is, obviously not. Aren't you the least bit ashamed of arguing people with nonsense like that? I suppose that's why you use an alias <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'> [/QUOTE] do you think countries survive with a huge debt? If you do your very misguided. Look up what happened to Argentina when they ran up a huge debt. By the way an independent Quebec would have the biggest debt in the industrialized world and that's not fear mongering it's a fact. Yes I do know what fiscal imbalance is and it happens to be a problem caused by the Liberal government not federalism. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>

You are so dunse, why do you continue making a fool of yourself on sites like this dino? FYI, fiscal imbalance can be tracked going back to the 1920s. A sovereign Québec should absorb a larger part of the debt than Canada thinks we account for, just so we can smirk even wider once we outperform it in the short term.

[QUOTE BY= Samuel] You are so dunse, why do you continue making a fool of yourself on sites like this dino? FYI, fiscal imbalance can be tracked going back to the 1920s. A sovereign Québec should absorb a larger part of the debt than Canada thinks we account for, just so we can smirk even wider once we outperform it in the short term.[/QUOTE] I don't exactly remember Quebecers talking about fiscal imbalance when the tories were in power. A sovereign Quebec won'd absorb debt you will simply drown in it. I look at Quebec separation as someone jumping off a cliff and not knowing what's under them until their in mid air and they look down and see that they will land in an ocean. If Quebec becomes a country (fat chance) you will simply sink. As in you won't be better off independent.

It amazes me how the same flags to liberation is tossed around repeatedly. Mandate one dino is to get a clear numerical victory on a clear question. Do you want soveriegnty (clear enough?). As long as the number is above 50 % the steps can be taken by the Qeubec government to establish sovereignty. Don't give me the hogwash that that number is not acceptable. That was an acceptable result to accept Newfoundland into Canada. What about the other 49.9% of newfoundlanders that didn't want to join Canada? Canada can't have it both ways <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/exclaim.gif' alt='Exclaimation'> Mark Kelly's CBC report state 54% were in favor of sovereignty. Dino your very own federalist propogandist machine. Are you going to refuse to acknowledge that result as well <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/rolleyes.gif' alt='Rolling Eyes'> salut <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>

[QUOTE BY= dino] [QUOTE BY= Samuel]I don't exactly remember Quebecers talking about fiscal imbalance when the tories were in power. A sovereign Quebec won'd absorb debt you will simply drown in it. [/quote] I look at Quebec separation as someone jumping off a cliff and not knowing what's under them until their in mid air and they look down and see that they will land in an ocean. If Quebec becomes a country (fat chance) you will simply sink. As in you won't be better off independent.[/QUOTE] Of course you don't remember the Tories in power, during their last year in office, you were 8 years old for crying out loud. Ask your history teacher to talk to you about the Great Depression, the welfare state and the Rowell-Sirois Commission. Best of all though, shut the hell up until you can discuss issues with some sort of background to your life.

[QUOTE BY= dino]I don't exactly remember Quebecers talking about fiscal imbalance when the tories were in power. A sovereign Quebec won'd absorb debt you will simply drown in it. I look at Quebec separation as someone jumping off a cliff and not knowing what's under them until their in mid air and they look down and see that they will land in an ocean. If Quebec becomes a country (fat chance) you will simply sink. As in you won't be better off independent.[/QUOTE] Of course you don't remember the Tories in power, during their last year in office, you were 8 years old for crying out loud. Ask your history teacher to talk to you about the Great Depression, the welfare state and the Rowell-Sirois Commission. That was fiscal imbalance at its ugliest. While people were starving, federalists were filling their cophers with surplus after surplus year after year. Not a federalist issue, how stupid. Best of all though, shut the hell up until you can discuss issues with some sort of background to your life.

[QUOTE BY= Samuel] [QUOTE BY= dino]I don't exactly remember Quebecers talking about fiscal imbalance when the tories were in power. A sovereign Quebec won'd absorb debt you will simply drown in it. I look at Quebec separation as someone jumping off a cliff and not knowing what's under them until their in mid air and they look down and see that they will land in an ocean. If Quebec becomes a country (fat chance) you will simply sink. As in you won't be better off independent.[/QUOTE] Of course you don't remember the Tories in power, during their last year in office, you were 8 years old for crying out loud. Ask your history teacher to talk to you about the Great Depression, the welfare state and the Rowell-Sirois Commission. That was fiscal imbalance at its ugliest. While people were starving, federalists were filling their cophers with surplus after surplus year after year. Not a federalist issue, how stupid. Best of all though, shut the hell up until you can discuss issues with some sort of background to your life.[/QUOTE] What teacher? I've finished school. When was there a fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces. Fiscal imbalance happened in 1995 when finace minister Paul Martin cut transfer payments. It's not federalists filling up there pockets with our money it's Liberals. Federalists are 88% of the Canadian population. Only 27% of them are planning to vote Liberal. And if you want to suggest there has been a fiscal imbalance since the 1920's it affected everyone not just Quebec. Fiscal imbalance is not a reason to break apart the country. Think this country is bad with sharing money, try the united states were there isn't even any equalization payments. An independent Quebec would need an american currency and that would suck you deep into the united states. They would treat you like an american state. Perphaps then Quebecers could realize that life in Canada ain't that bad. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>

You've finished school, dino? Very impressive indeed <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'>

I doubt it would come down to numbers, but it may come down to 'the question'. While two committees helped with the previous question, I think it would be nuts of Quebec to not include the federal government by allowing them to act as one of the committees to help form the question. Otherwise they are just giving the federal government 'an out'. Both sides play it beligerantly to satisfy thier core constituents, but in the end practicality should prevail. I have serious doubts that it would ever come down to a complete withdrawal, but with a gun to it's head from a referendum the federal government would pretty much have to give in to Quebec's claims. Basically, to my mind, the only part to play for federalism would be native issues (meaning land, even though they don't want to deal with it), and some form of taxation numbers which would provide for the debt-something easily possible contrary to what many here claim. A first course in economics will tell you-anything is possible with the political will behind it. Argentina also didn't get into problems because of debt, that's a huge issue that shouldn't be thrown around by amateurs like us. For the numbers Newfoundland isn't really a good comparison, since it was the only province where the people actually voted at all. Of the four initial members of Canada it is clear that the majority of canadians were against it, and we saw how far that went. It's a good realistic analogy though, if 51% voted to join Canada, then it should be plenty to get out, but things don't always work that way. If the feds played some role in creating a satisfactory question then it would be hard put to refuse a 51% vote. That would no doubt be something that would be headed to an international court. Let's try and keep this civil people, you're just giving fuel to those who claim that it's a GOOD thing that average canadians (and quebecois if you like) don't have any political power.

<a href="http://gg.ca/media/doc.asp?lang=e&DocID=4264">http://gg.ca/media/doc.asp?lang=e&DocID=4264</a> <blockquote>The visit will take place from May 17 to May 25, 2005 during which time the Royal Couple will visit Saskatchewan and Alberta to commemorate the centenary of the entry of those two provinces into Confederation.</blockquote> If Canada is so patriated why is the Queen here tommorrow? Where is the Alberta Separatist party going to be during this commemoration? Marcarc, If what you say is accurate about the original provinces not having a say in establishing a confederacy this will only serve to inflame Quebec's position. Not only did we slip under foreign occupation in 1759 but we were also forced into a confederacy we didn't want. Newfoundland serves as an example for what a successful referendum is. It also states if at first you don't succeed, try and try again. NFLD didn't get a numerical victory the first time round. The second time around (or third??) they barely attained a majority. The Federal Government and the Supreme court had to strain to see a victory in that result. I think a simple question - do you want sovereignty?? (yes/no) will suffice. After a numerical victory is achieved then a civil separation can be initiated. If after that point Canada wants to say ok fine get out!!! and you get nothing. Quite possible. As long as the United States is willing to maintain trade relations with Quebec, quebec's economy will continue to function. Because no more tax dollars will be going to Ottawa, Bernard Landary is correct is stated Quebec will be wealthier after the fact. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>