British names on street signs grate in Montreal
Praxius @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:12 am
OldChum OldChum:
Quebec could not afford to leave as we hold up their finances for them . They would not have enough left after you pull out the military and the fed government jobs
Hey, they got Just for Laughs and the Gags.... just make the entire place one big joke and they got all the income they need...... oh wait....
MAC1767 @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:14 am
Praxius Praxius:
OldChum OldChum:
Quebec could not afford to leave as we hold up their finances for them . They would not have enough left after you pull out the military and the fed government jobs
Hey, they got Just for Laughs and the Gags.... just make the entire place one big joke and they got all the income they need...... oh wait....
Praxius @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:17 am
MAC1767 MAC1767:
.... As for them seperating, i dont think that would ever happen, would never work, they would starve to death,
There are smaller countries with far less resources in comparison that seem to do just fine for themselves. I wouldn't jump the gun too quickly.
$1:
plus they wouldnt like the Trans CANADA Highway being fenced in with barb wire so the atlantic provinces and the western provinces could link up.
Nope, they wouldn't like that idea.... they'd either stack up the border patrols and toll booths on each end of the highway or rip it right up so there wasn't a connection in the first place.
And how the heck would anybody be able to drive all the way through Quebec from either end without stopping for gas and pee breaks if the whole thing was fenced off?
$1:
i think if you want to be Canadian and play by our rules "welcome aboard" if your french thats great, good for you, but if your going to try to split up MY country, well i think there is a place you can go to be as french as you like, with french schools, french road signs, ITS CALLED FRANCE. 
The problem is this country isn't just yours.... it's not even just mine.... it's just as much their nation as it is everyone else's who's technically a citizen. Thus, they have as much of a say on what occurs as the next person.... esspecially when it comes to the future of their own province.
And if they or any other province of this nation wished to pull out of the nation, then isn't that their "Democratic" right to do so?
PENATRATOR @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:25 am
Yes, they can leave, they have no ownership on the Province which lies within the Dominion of Canada, same as I can't take Lunenburg County with me if I choose to "leave"
Lemmy @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:43 am
Well, actually, the United Nations Charter is pretty explicit in entrenching the rights of like-minded individuals to self-determination. If Quebecers want to form their own country, independent of Canada, they have every right to do so under international law.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/unchartr.html
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/escr.html
PENATRATOR @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:47 am
Well we can starve'em out, just get Donny to put up roadblocks at either end of the province and not let anyone in.
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:47 am
Lemmy Lemmy:
Well, actually, the United Nations Charter is pretty explicit in entrenching the rights of like-minded individuals to self-determination. If Quebecers want to form their own country, independent of Canada, they have every right to do so under international law.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/unchartr.html
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/escr.html
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/unchartr.html
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/escr.html
Yep, and if they separate, they'll set the precedent for the Native groups in Quebec to start taking their pieces of it and soon Quebec will be nothing but a little colony on James Bay
Akhenaten @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:13 pm
Lemmy Lemmy:
Well, actually, the United Nations Charter is pretty explicit in entrenching the rights of like-minded individuals to self-determination. If Quebecers want to form their own country, independent of Canada, they have every right to do so under international law.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/unchartr.html
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/escr.html
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/unchartr.html
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/escr.html
United Nations hass zero credability ever since they looked at Rwanda and couldn't decide if they were looking at a genocide or not. Now they specialize in making grand simplistic statements without looking at the contingencies. This was last a huge debate when Kosovo was declaring itself seperate but that was a pretty unique situation and there are many critics of this "rights to self-determination" wording, and others who would refuse to accept it should it be pointed their direction (Spain, U.K., France to name a couple).
Lemmy @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:17 pm
All valid points, but ultimately whether Quebeckers want to remain Canadian is up to them, not Canadians in other provinces.
Proculation @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:24 pm
Lemmy Lemmy:
Well, actually, the United Nations Charter is pretty explicit in entrenching the rights of like-minded individuals to self-determination. If Quebecers want to form their own country, independent of Canada, they have every right to do so under international law.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/unchartr.html
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/escr.html
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/unchartr.html
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/escr.html
That's not exactly true. Quebec would need a positive response from Canada to secede. It cannot do it unilaterally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_ ... _of_Quebec
Akhenaten @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:27 pm
$1:
All valid points, but ultimately whether Quebeckers want to remain Canadian is up to them, not Canadians in other provinces.
Well, it's up to them if they want to seperate sure, however I don't really see why that precludes the right of the rest of Canada to potentially kick them out of the dominion. Further while they may have the right to make this decision they don't have the right to dictate the details of how a seperation would manifest itself.
I've always had sympathy for Quebec. They've earned the right to be a seperate state from the British dominion simply by refusing to fight alongside the US against the rest of us. They wanted nothing to do with that war and I can respect that and the deal we made with them that was a part of it.
But that was a looong time ago. Long before the rest of the dominion invested in their province (infrastructure, etc.). This complicates things a lot.
Lemmy @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:37 pm
Proculation Proculation:
That's not exactly true. Quebec would need a positive response from Canada to secede. It cannot do it unilaterally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_ ... _of_Quebec
Like the positive endorsemnet given Georgia by Russia? Or Kosovo or Bosnia or Chechnya or Pakistan by their former country-men? A "positive endorsement" would certainly make the process easier (BIG understatement), but international law would be on Quebec's side.
Lemmy @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:43 pm
Akhenaten Akhenaten:
Well, it's up to them if they want to seperate sure, however I don't really see why that precludes the right of the rest of Canada to potentially kick them out of the dominion. Further while they may have the right to make this decision they don't have the right to dictate the details of how a seperation would manifest itself.
I've always had sympathy for Quebec. They've earned the right to be a seperate state from the British dominion simply by refusing to fight alongside the US against the rest of us. They wanted nothing to do with that war and I can respect that and the deal we made with them that was a part of it.
But that was a looong time ago. Long before the rest of the dominion invested in their province (infrastructure, etc.). This complicates things a lot.
I've always had sympathy for Quebec. They've earned the right to be a seperate state from the British dominion simply by refusing to fight alongside the US against the rest of us. They wanted nothing to do with that war and I can respect that and the deal we made with them that was a part of it.
But that was a looong time ago. Long before the rest of the dominion invested in their province (infrastructure, etc.). This complicates things a lot.
Separation would be messy as hell, and the Yanks would be rubbing their palms at the opportunity to welcome some new territory into their little republic. I, too, have sympathy for separatists (maybe because my parents are Scottish Nationalists
) As for kicking Quebec out, I suppose the other 9 provinces could separate, then form a new country without inviting Quebec, so they could achieve that goal if they wanted (but Quebec would technically still be Canada, so we'd have to come up with a new name for our new Quebecless country )
Proculation @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 2:46 pm
Lemmy Lemmy:
Proculation Proculation:
That's not exactly true. Quebec would need a positive response from Canada to secede. It cannot do it unilaterally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reference_ ... _of_Quebec
Like the positive endorsemnet given Georgia by Russia? Or Kosovo or Bosnia or Chechnya or Pakistan by their former country-men? A "positive endorsement" would certainly make the process easier (BIG understatement), but international law would be on Quebec's side.
Wikipedia Wikipedia:
Rights to secede under international law and self-determination
The answer to the second question, which concerned Quebec's right under international law to secede, gave the opinion that the international law on secession was not applicable to the situation of Quebec. The court pointed out that international law "does not specifically grant component parts of sovereign states the legal right to secede unilaterally from their 'parent' state."
The Supreme Court of Canada's decision stated that the right of a people to self determination was expected to be exercised within the framework of existing states, by negotiation, for example. Such a right could only be exercised unilaterally under certain circumstances, under current international law. The court held that:
The various international documents that support the existence of a people's right to self-determination also contain parallel statements supportive of the conclusion that the exercise of such a right must be sufficiently limited to prevent threats to an existing state's territorial integrity or the stability of relations between sovereign states.
and that
A state whose government represents the whole of the people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of self-determination in its own internal arrangements, is entitled to the protection under international law of its territorial integrity.
The court stated in its decision that under international law, the right to secede was meant for peoples under a colonial rule or foreign occupation. Otherwise, so long as a people has the meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination within an existing nation state, there is no right to secede unilaterally.
The answer to the second question, which concerned Quebec's right under international law to secede, gave the opinion that the international law on secession was not applicable to the situation of Quebec. The court pointed out that international law "does not specifically grant component parts of sovereign states the legal right to secede unilaterally from their 'parent' state."
The Supreme Court of Canada's decision stated that the right of a people to self determination was expected to be exercised within the framework of existing states, by negotiation, for example. Such a right could only be exercised unilaterally under certain circumstances, under current international law. The court held that:
The various international documents that support the existence of a people's right to self-determination also contain parallel statements supportive of the conclusion that the exercise of such a right must be sufficiently limited to prevent threats to an existing state's territorial integrity or the stability of relations between sovereign states.
and that
A state whose government represents the whole of the people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of self-determination in its own internal arrangements, is entitled to the protection under international law of its territorial integrity.
The court stated in its decision that under international law, the right to secede was meant for peoples under a colonial rule or foreign occupation. Otherwise, so long as a people has the meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination within an existing nation state, there is no right to secede unilaterally.
PimpBrewski123 @ Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:49 pm
It would seem a bit ridiculous for Montreal start changing their street signs.
The whole thing would be an additional cost to Montreal taxpayer. They are being taxed enough as it is.
All this would not accomplish much of anything and bring no benefit to the populace. Then again, politicians are supposed to represent the greater good of the population.