PQ's looks to next referendum

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] The problem is that Quebec's National Assembly REJECTS the clarity act, that is the only issue. Say they capitulated (and I'm not saying they should), and said, "OK, we'll let the federal government compose the question and even conduct the referenda" then 90% of the problem goes away (from a debating point of view).[/QUOTE] <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'> That clarity act will make good toilet paper along with some other crafted canadian documents. How legitimate is legislation (the clarity act) when a party who holds a majority of the seats has the power to push through any legislation it wants. This includes the clarity act. Sorry Canada, thanks for Coming out, your democracy is about as good as dog crap on a shoe. Because the supreme court is trying to position itself as the authority in this legislation, it makes it so <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/question.gif' alt='Question'> Sorry, Marcarc Power Stems from the barrel of the gun or the rule of law. Canada is neither. Collectively the European Union and the United States has the military muscle and International Law is the rule of the world. Incidently, International Law has been around since 1946. Europe is the Quebecois's Ancesteral Parents and the United States our colonial brothers. Our history is tied to the United States and retracts into France. We will not be stepped on by Canada. Sorry I am for the truth of Quebec, not the illusion of Canada. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/cool.gif' alt='Cool'> At the moment the people of the United States are on a devine Kick, so they are trying to link themselves up with the catholic church and the pope (particulary the media, Bob Novak, Bill O'Reilley, Tim Russel, to name a few) Source: The Bourbon Kings of France (Desmond Seward) [QUOTE]"In 1775 Louis was crowned and anointed at Rheims Cathedral by the Archbishop-Duke, who...in his authority, in his divine right " [/QUOTE] divine right (dictionary.com) [QUOTE]The doctrine that monarchs derive their right to rule directly from God and are accountable only to God.[/QUOTE] King Louis XVI was revered in the same light as the pope in the Catholic Church. A church that winds itself back into the Roman Empire. What this means is that when you made a deal with King Louis XVI you were making a deal with God <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> That said, it is argued that King Louix XVI was moved to help the United States because he was persuaded he would get Nouvelle France back. It didn't work out because the United States was not strong enough to make good on this arrangement. The United States is definately strong enough now. Quebec is marching towards another referendum. Any lever and all levers will be used to break Quebec free from Canada. If it means emphasizing King Louis XVIs connection with the Catholic Church so be it <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/cool.gif' alt='Cool'>

Well, that's definitely an opinion above, and can be touted as 'fact' by anybody who wants to. All laws are essentially that-a party which holds a mandate and makes decisions for everybody else-that's the same all over the world. I quite agree that the clarity act is not a very useful document and would not expect that Quebec would simply acquesce (Spelling?) to it. Even if we assumed that such a scenario as yours played out, then it essentially becomes a border dispute. The natives want northern Quebec, Labrador is out, and the english want Montreal and places west and even south. Just to rain on your parade we've seen africans wipe each other out without a finger lifted by 'the international community' while the US is overextended in the middle east. It isn't just a coincidence that Clinton told Quebecers to vote 'no' last time. Big business doesn't like change. You can believe that the US and Europe will come riding in an create a new Quebec if you like, there are some who think aliens are going to come down and set all the poor free, beliefs are like that. You are quite correct that international law comes down to the 'rule of law'. I highly doubt that the international community will side on with Quebec in this. The gung ho separatists in office are claiming they will not abide by any canadian government legislation, only their own. If the 'international community' went along with that it essentially means that within member countries any definable group that wants to separate would be able to dictate its own provisions-hardly a scenario most nations would want to see since their own countries would be subject to the same thing. So suddenly you'll have the basques saying they want out of Spain and France under their own conditions. As far as the other point the 'point of the gun', Quebec has few battalions in the military, has always opposed serving in the canadian military and as such the overwhelming majority is english, as is most of the command. We've seen exactly what english canada is prepared to do from looking back at the seventies. As I said, nobody is talking violence, that's an extreme position and will solve nothing but turn Quebec into the 'anarchy' that another poster here derided. We in Canada have nothing to say about the matter, it is clear that our government puts industry needs first, and as such we really have no power over what they do. As I've said before, I fully support any and all referenda, for any people, because nations exist to serve the needs of the people, not vice versa. That's why to me it is simply a border dispute, if Quebec can separate, then so too can Montreal and northern Quebec if their needs are not being met. I don't want to sound like I'm picking on sovereigntists, because I feel the same way about all people all over the world-a basic right is getting rid of a government or at least not being party to a government which isn't serving your needs.

[QUOTE BY= _747]canadian documents. How legitimate is legislation (the clarity act) when a party who holds a majority of the seats has the power to push through any legislation it wants. [/QUOTE] In which case, I assume you are not paying taxes, or obeying speed limits. Yes, our political system has some flaws. But it is possible for special interest parties to gain power (*cough* PQ *cough*) in our FEDERAL government, even though they wish to dismantle that same federalism. I do not see how you can justify separation based merely on the ruling party having too much power. [QUOTE] This includes the clarity act. Sorry Canada, thanks for Coming out, your democracy is about as good as dog crap on a shoe. [/QUOTE] Instead of deciding that our 'democracy is crap', why don't you try to *fix* it, as many people are trying? Direct Democracy is a much better goal than secession. [QUOTE] Sorry, Marcarc Power Stems from the barrel of the gun or the rule of law. [/QUOTE] The Rule of Law stems from a social contract with the citizens (possibly made at the barrel of a gun). [QUOTE] Collectively the European Union and the United States has the military muscle [/QUOTE] Since power comes from the barrel of a gun, and the US and EU are those holding guns, which do you think an independent quebec would be subjugated by first? [QUOTE] Europe is the Quebecois's Ancesteral Parents and the United States our colonial brothers. [/QUOTE] The ROC is *also* your colonial brother. Just because the ROC gained independence peacefully doesn't mean they didn't also want it. France helped the US in their bid for independence, sure. However, that was hundreds of years ago, and the US is now a superpower bent only on hegemony (of Canada, of North America, of Iraq, and so on). [QUOTE] Our history is tied to the United States and retracts into France. We will not be stepped on by Canada. Sorry I am for the truth of Quebec, not the illusion of Canada. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/cool.gif' alt='Cool'> [/QUOTE] The US is currently stepping on ALL of Canada, and anti-french sentiment there means that an independent quebec would be stepped on all the harder. They have gone so far as to rename "french fries", which have no connection to france, as "Freedom fries". They have places a boycott on french products. I *really* don't think they give a crap about La Nouvelle France at this point. Any support the US gives Quebec is merely a lever to break up Canada to make it easier to assimilate. Quebec independence would last less than a year before the US stepped in and imposed no-french-signage laws, at the barrel of their very large and very english guns.

[QUOTE BY= jvanherk] Instead of deciding that our 'democracy is crap', why don't you try to *fix* it, as many people are trying? Direct Democracy is a much better goal than secession. [/QUOTE] We are and we will. <a href="http://www.brainstormingnational.org/">BRAINSTORMING NATIONAL</a> Première assemblée publique d'information et d'organisation. Le jeudi 28 avril à 19h30 Gesù - Centre de Créativité 1200, rue de Bleury à Montréal (métro Place des Arts) [QUOTE BY= jvanherk]Quebec independence would last less than a year before the US stepped in and imposed no-french-signage laws, at the barrel of their very large guns.[/QUOTE] More fear-mongering and absolutely baseless.

[QUOTE BY= michou] More fear-mongering and absolutely baseless.[/QUOTE] Fine, I admit the US may go the route of installing a puppet government instead of outright invasion. My point is, how will an independent quebec possibly resist cultural or military invasion?

[QUOTE BY= jvanherk] Quebec independence would last less than a year before the US stepped in and imposed no-french-signage laws, at the barrel of their very large guns. [/QUOTE] The trend in the United States (West Virginia the latest) is to make English the official language. So the attack on Quebec having its official language french will gain no sympathy in the states. That said, how bad would Quebec be in the United States verses Canada's campaign of assimilation. Marcarc were not African, we have direct historical Links to France and Europe. If it demonstrated before Europe that Quebec is being hijacked by Canada with policies that contravene international law, Europe will extract Quebec from Canada. Your argument about Montreal remaining and other lands will become a moot point. Because if that much effort is made to extract Quebec. It will mean all of Nouvelle France will go: Quebec, Ontario, Labrador, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. At this point these lands will be acceded to the European Union. The United States will obviously want something from this, so manitoba west will fall to the United States - Alberta's Oil <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/exclaim.gif' alt='Exclaimation'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/exclaim.gif' alt='Exclaimation'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/exclaim.gif' alt='Exclaimation'> So let Quebec go peacefully or risk Canada's house of cards from Collapsing. Nothing will alter the course of the PQ or the BQ short of a sovereignty by association agreement.

[QUOTE BY= jvanherk] My point is, how will an independent quebec possibly resist cultural or military invasion? [/QUOTE] Culturally ? A lot better than Canadians ever will. Québécers have been around for 400 years and not only have they preserved their culture, they are now on the verge of finally regaining their independance. As for military invasion, who will invade Québec ?

[QUOTE BY= michou]Québécers have been around for 400 years and not only have they preserved their culture, they are now on the verge of finally regaining their independance. [/QUOTE] It's economics. Canada itself keeps selling off its culture because we can't afford to compete with the US. Quebec, with a fraction of the resources, would be all the quicker to suffer financially and be forced to allow foreign ownership and foreign influence. Independence needs economic clout to back it up. As mentioned earlier, being recognised as a country in the international community does count for something, especially so far as currency trading goes. Have a look at some smaller, newer currencies and their worth; even the South African Krugeraand is worth a fraction of a dollar, and SA is a fairly well off country. [QUOTE] As for military invasion, who will invade Québec ? [/QUOTE] Who would invade Iraq? Who would invade Afghanistan? It doesn't have to be an 'invasion' for there to be a permanent foreign military presence.

[QUOTE BY= _747]That said, how bad would Quebec be in the United States verses Canada's campaign of assimilation. [/QUOTE] Canada has official bilingualism and multiculturalism. The US has American english and a 'melting pot'. Quebec would definitely be worse off in a country that doesn't even recognise the cultural sovereignty of other countries, let alone groups within their own country. The American way is Manifest Destiny, aka their culture over all others. [QUOTE] Marcarc were not African, we have direct historical Links to France and Europe. [/QUOTE] His point was that the many african countries, created through post-colonial independence, are all in civil war and unrest, with no interference from the UN or even the US. Quebec would be no different; Africa was also colonised by the UK and France (and the Netherlands), so it is most definitely a suitable comparison. [QUOTE] If it demonstrated before Europe that Quebec is being hijacked by Canada with policies that contravene international law [/QUOTE] Quebec *joined* confederation, bribery and special treatment or no. There is no contravention of international law. Besides that, the UN and international laws you are quoting *didn't exist* at the time and can't have been violated. [QUOTE] , Europe will extract Quebec from Canada. Your argument [/QUOTE] The EU is an economic union, not a military one,and it is not going to get involved in petty overseas land disputes. Member countries *joined* the EU to get the benefits, much like Quebec joined your dreaded confederation. [QUOTE] about Montreal remaining and other lands will become a moot point. Because if that much effort is made to extract Quebec. It will mean all of Nouvelle France will go: Quebec, Ontario, Labrador, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. [/QUOTE] Oh goodie, deciding events of today based on borders of the past, even though the population has changed hugely since then. So *What* if there are millions more anglophones there now? It USED to belong to france, wah! You are merely proposing a different kind of colonialism, where the anglophones are the victims of french/quebecois aspirations, with no regard for what other cultures may be affected. (and, through it all, the first nations continue to get royally fucked). [QUOTE] At this point these lands will be acceded to the European Union. The United States will obviously want something from this, so manitoba west will fall to the United States - Alberta's Oil <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/exclaim.gif' alt='Exclaimation'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/exclaim.gif' alt='Exclaimation'> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/exclaim.gif' alt='Exclaimation'> [/QUOTE] Ah, so it's now quebec's right to hand over the ROC to the highest bidder? That doesn't sound much like noble independence or divine right to me; it sounds like selling what is not yours, which is not only an *actual* violation of international law, but a violation of common sense. It sounds like an attempt to get what *you* want while screwing over anyone else who may get in your way. It's not even about canada at this point, but some grudge against anyone who doesn't agree with you.

OK, there's limited value here, we've got two extreme scenario's, neither of which will play out, each side here is making points on different issues. Culturally, I don't see why the US would give a rat's ass about Quebec, they don't right now. Quebec 'culture', namely films, radio, television and internet do not get that huge a subsidy, they exist because they MAKE MONEY. They exist because they are of interest and quality to make people pay to see them. Canada's military is deeply tied into the american, in some ways not even distinctive. Under NATO the US is obliged to intervene on Canada's part-there was no Quebec delegation at NATO. That really is an outside chance, almost as outside a chance as that the US will 'swallow up' Quebec. There are hundreds of different types of 'sovereignty associations' and trading relations. All business really cares about is that it can still access it's product. I highly doubt that 'joining' the US is a push that will get those 'on the fence' over it, particularly nowadays.

I am for Quebec and only Quebec. However, I am also for the United States and the Newly Established European Union. Until Canada enters into a sovereignty by association agreement with Quebec, I see no relevance to Canada's existence. I am fully aware of how the Canadian political system works or doesn't work. I see a number of advocates for a direct democracy system whatever that may be. A dynamic that hasn't been introduced to Canada is a new political party. The Accession Party of Canada <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/cool.gif' alt='Cool'> This party would exist to carry out what I said would be done militarily by Europe or the United States, however in a democratic fashion. The goal of the party would be to gain a majority of the seats and push through a referendum act allowing for a vote to be carried out in each province to be acceded either to Europe or the United States. Of course this party would have to gain legitimacy in the United States and Europe for it to have any traction in Canada. Meaning the United States and Europe will have to be fully cognizant and supportive of the endevour and who knows maybe they will float ads on American Television to prop up the party. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/idea.gif' alt='Idea'> What?? Ads on American Television? How would that reach the Canadian masses?? It would be a slow coup d'etat of Canada but no slower than the immolation of Quebec by Canada. The party would respect the sovereignty of the BQ and PQ over Quebec but the rest of Canada would be fair game. Of course I am jerking your chains, <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/razz.gif' alt='Razz'> but anything goes in love and war. Quebec pursuits a Sovereignty by Association agreement. A legitimate and rightful pursuit <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'> No harm in scoping out the reception of such a party is there <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/question.gif' alt='Question'>

[QUOTE BY= _747] Of course I am jerking your chains, <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/razz.gif' alt='Razz'> but anything goes in love and war. [/QUOTE] <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> The above post from the "I deny your reality, and substitute my own." department <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'>

Never any harm to new ideas, but I really don't understand what the previous message meant. The road to democracy has been a slow and tortuous one in Canada, part of the problem now is that constitutional changes must be ratified in a number of provinces by referendum. Combine that with the convolution that exists already within the federal system in dealing with the provinces and it is easy to understand just why the government (and people) prefer to stay out of the business of 'governance' altogether. The 'type' of party you speak of is exactly what a direct democracy party would consist of, however, it would not necessarily be so 'global' as what is being recommended. Personally, I don't think Ottawa has the right to 'dictate' policy in other jurisdictional areas, and I certainly don't think europe and the US would have any place in it. Most things that affect our lives are done locally, so this is where the real impetus of democracy lies. Most municipalities are already lobbying for such changes, however, the provinces and feds jealously guard their 'turf'. In a direct democracy the provincial jurisdiction and fed would be seriously changed. The real trick is building a federation out of that. Fortunately, the 50's and 60's are long since over so the idea that the federal government is the 'glue' that binds our social safety net together is pretty laughable now. The maritimes and prairies are better off than they were, but are even further behind in comparison with Ontario.

[QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] The above post from the "I deny your reality, and substitute my own." department <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> [/QUOTE] The Accede Party of Canada would serve to educate the United States and Europe to Quebec's precise situation. Two it would serve a broader agenda of the United States to eventually gain unfettered access to BC's softwood lumber and Alberta's oil. Europe would aquire what it already bought and paid for at the hands of Napoleon. On the Flip side, if that party should exist and you get over a certain number of votes in an Election; the party would get something like a 1.75 per vote from the Canadian Taxpayer (SWEET!!!). There is money to be made in establishing such a party <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> The United States spends Billions worldwide to further its interests. So a few million thrown to a party with these objectives would be a drop in the bucket from their perspective. An investment <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'> Quebec Wins, Europe Wins, and the United States Wins. Just to many happy people to ignore. Personally, I don't think it's right the United States is Separated from Alaska the way it is.

[QUOTE BY= _747] The Accede Party of Canada would serve to educate the United States and Europe to Quebec's precise situation. [/QUOTE] A Special Interest Group or Think Tank would serve you much better than a political party if that is your goal. Parties are for working within this country. [QUOTE] Two it would serve a broader agenda of the United States to eventually gain unfettered access to BC's softwood lumber and Alberta's oil. Europe would aquire what it already bought and paid for at the hands of Napoleon. [/QUOTE] Why would you possibly need a political party for that? We've already got plenty of multinationals working for exactly that goal.