Previous  1 ... 168  169  170  171  172  Next

Actually, Yugoslavia is a pretty poor parallel. How was a Yugoslavia independently functioning liberal democratic confederation whose self-determination resulted in a plebiscite that was produced a legitimate U.D.I. Most international observers, including Webber in the McGill Law Journal, saw Yugoslavia as a case of dissolution (not separation) where the parent state ceased functioning as an autonomous unit and thus its parts were free to go.

   

Did you post something? I was staring at your awesome avatar....

   

Also, we in Canada aren't exactly doing the whole ethnic cleansing thing that Yugoslavia had going on for a while there...

   

The point is of course well-taken that Misolevic's Yugoslavia was an appalling dictatorship by the Serbs right in the heart of Europe , making it clear that Tito (the Croat war hero) had been the only glue keeping the "country" together. My point is simply that you can't force peoples to live together if they don't want to , and when the divorce occurs , the laws of the previous country don't apply any more.I know that's tricky (Woodrow Wilson had a tough time with it in the 1919 peace conference in Paris when it came to carve out new countries from the former defeated empires of Austria-Hungary , the Ottoman Empire and Germany ).

Under somewhat more civilised climes , I don't know that Ireland's independence was attained by applying British law .Slovakia did not divorce Czechoslovakia under Czechoslovak law. Further back , the same applies to Norway exiting Denmark , Portugal leaving Spain , etc. If Flanders separates from Belgium in the current acrimonious context , Belgian law will obviously be ignored .

The only clean , democratic case I can think of is Scotland . The emergence of the Scottish National Party as the ruling party in Edinburgh (at the expense of Labour)is perfectly legal . While I disagreed with Tony Blair on many subjects , he was quite a stastesman to forestall major crises by giving devolution to Scotland , Wales(to a lesser extent) and Northern Ireland . This is all happening within the context of British law . Scotland's case is of course much simpler than Quebec's , without language and border problems (thank you Hadrian and the coastline)) and , in spite of the heated political rhetoric , mutual esteem between the two nations .

Unfortunately ,the Quebec situation , if only from reading this sometimes hateful thread , would seem a whole more like Ireland than like Scotland . I understand the lingering resentment of older Quebecers who could not get French-language service from English-only sales people at Eaton's in downtown Montreal back in the sixties ( the "speak white" era ,some still call it), but I would hope the younger generation , who no longer have a raw deal , will know better .

   

I don't think Vlaanderen wants to seperate, but Wallonie... Vlaanderen is Dutch Belgium, Wallonie French. See the simularity?

It's not the majority that wants Quebec seperated.

   

Agreed. And let's not forget that Quebec has ignored TWO plebiscites on the issue.

   

Ignoring the referendums would of resulted with a unilaterral declaration of Independance.

That did not happen.

They have been respected.

   

You call the nagging that is still going on "respect"?
What don't they understand about "NO"?

   

Ignoring referendums is undemocratic and an UDI lacks legality.

It did happen - they've ignored the will of the people.

They haven't been respected OR there wouldn't be subsequent plebiscites that have the same results. If the Separatists had been victorious, do the Federalists get to have more referendums?

Nice try.

   

Everything - if it pertains to their nationalist, undemocratic agenda.

   

An instance, that almost resembles the ''forced mergers'' in several QC cities throughout the province. That was a courtesy of the Parti Quebecois. They had promised citizens of better service and a significant reduction in municipal taxes.

So in fact, quite the opposite actually occurred once these city mergers were achieved. Taxes went up. Local politicians pocketed. Not to mention at a cost of Millions at taxpayer's expense. Once the citizens realized what actually happened, held referendums to undo these mergers back a few years ago. By that time, the local media deemed that it would be too expensive and utilize more taxpayer funds to start the whole process in order to undo these mergers. Many citizens then simply opted out of the whole voting process.

So this simply goes to show that, this is the same bunch of corrupt politicians at the PQ which have also promised the world in an eventual separation or sovereignty for the province. They have managed to mislead the population with these mergers which are not as extensive compared to provincial sovereignty. Therefore, if the PQ along with the media were willing to broadcast the correct information instead of blindly leading people to their agenda, Quebecers would finally realize that sovereignty is absurd.











And oh, lol at Dayseed.

   

I wouldn't call myself a Separatist, but a Self-determinist. I don't think Quebeckers would benefit from separation. But I'm not Quebec's daddy, nor are any other non-Quebeckers. I believe that Quebec has the right to decide if they want in or out of Canada. If they're foolish enough to want to leave, so be it; but it ought to be THEIR decision, not anyone else's. I'm not sure why anyone in Ontario or Alberta even CARES whether they stay or go...it's none of their business.

Trudeau's Immigration Policies have immigrated out the French cultural majority in Quebec anyway, and every year immigration makes Quebec less and less French-dominated, so this is all moot debate anyway. But, EVERYONE would benefit from an arrangement where Quebeckers were happier, whether that's some sort of Sovereignty association, separation or a new type of Federalism. It works just fine in Europe where independent countries have sovereintist association (even within the UK, for example...LONG LIVE THE SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY!!!)

   

Who is your dealer and can he/she give me a deal on whatever it is your smoking?

   

That's an intelligent respsonse...not. "You're" and "Your" are different words, btw.

   

   

Previous  1 ... 168  169  170  171  172  Next