Previous  1 ... 6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Several of your posts have shown desires for concepts that can only be achieved by a sovereign nation and to achieve those ends I can understand why you would prefer Quebec would separate. Some of your statements reflect dissatisfaction with our current federal model and those sentiments are echoed by other regions. What that hints at is a revised federal model may reduce regional dissatisfaction and build a stronger country. No guarantee as we have shown in the past how big a mess our politicians can make of any attempt at improvements.

Quebec, due to language, history and culture is not just another group of dissatisfied people, but has a larger proportion of the population frustrated with the status quo than other regions. What appears in separatist posts are individuals with goals and aspirations that can only be addressed by independence. Western separation strengthens under Liberal governments and wanes under a Conservative government. It is separation based on political ideology and not cultural. With Quebec it is a combination of both that drives the indenpendence movement. Individuals will weight the reasons differently, but the concept resonates with a larger group than let's say the Western Canada Concept. Consequently I can see us addressing Quebec independence time after time until the goal is achieved.

Still any area that wishes to separate would face a messy battle where the reality will not match the vision of the protagonists. People think they would be able to separate with political boundaries the same as the current provincial borders. A review of the literature of any group promoting a separation for their region will bear me out. It makes the presentation of political separation easier as people relate to the maps they way they are today. I believe the reality is the land mass that leaves would be a unique shape. As we have been focused on Quebec separation we could look at the geographic possibilities for an independent francophone nation. The most likely would be a 300 kilometer wide strip along the St Laurent holding the majority of Quebec's population becoming a new nation and the balance of the province would be a territory within Canada. The subdivision of Quebec would have an impact on the new nation's economic potential. It is not something we usually see discussed, but it would influence individual decisions whether to support an independence movement or not.

   

Caelon, that's the old partition argument of a few years ago. If Canada is divisible, so is Québec. It makes sense to me. Sovereignists hate that argument.

   

It applies equally as well to the western separatists too. If Alberta wanted to leave what about much of the north where is is mainly a native population. The aboriginals may feel they would rather be within Canada than an independant Alberta (e.g. more protected). So Alberta leaving Canada may look different than the Alberta within Canada. Quebec has a similar issue in population demographics.

Change the geography from the plan and you have to look at the impact on all the forecasts. Whatever your viewpoint I do not think you can expect the other side to play by your concept of the rules. For example the famous 50% plus 1 vote and we go speach was a preconceived notion of simple democratic rules when the constitution does not allow for separation. The federalists have the right to say 'we will only negotiate separation if it is a 2/3 majority'. That position can have other consequences that may be worse, but it is a possibility.

So I see any real move to make the separation of a region a reality to be one that will be acrimonious and filled with 'dirty' tactics by both sides. Does the general public have the stomach for this? It is not like an armed revolution in say former Yugoslavia. Most Canadians will talk about it, whine, slander other groups, etc. and in the end not bother because it is too much effort.

   

*applauds*

Excellently said!

   

Mon chère Pimp Bob Gratton à t'as réponse

[youtube]http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=120SbHzHTuQ[/youtube]

   

Your right, but if there’s a plan to divide Québec in multiples part, it open the field to all extremists movements like IRA in Ireland. All partitions that happened after a country became independents in history finished in blood.




We are a French-Canadian culture, not Québécois culture? You surprise me now. It's true that before, we used to call ourselves French-Canadians, and even before we were just Canadians. But this is past. I've been to St-Boniface in Winnipeg, and I can tell you the French culture of Québec is not really strong there. They are different from us, and close to be completely assimilated (There is no more than 13 000 French-Canadians in St-Boniface, it's hard to swallow when we know French-Canadians Métis where the first to colonize Manitoba). I have been to Acadie in New-Brunswick, and I consider Acadians as brothers, but they are a different nation for me. Their accent is so different, and their history, even if it is close to us, took a different evolution. Also, the assimilation rate outside Québec is frightening. It’s about 8% in New-Brunswick, but a lot more in West Canada. Even if federalists try to convince us to stay, showing us there is a big French-Canadian family in Canada, the only nationality related to Québec is Québec. It is not France, it is not Acadie and it is not French-Canadian. You may disagree if you want, but for me it is an obvious truth. Even Bouchard-Taylor report says we aren’t French-Canadians, but Québécois. Sorry but your opinion over that is outdated. Even Stephen Harper recognizes Québec as a nation.

You say we founded this country along with the English; it is a bit ironic, because the history of Canada is much more about division than cooperation between the two nationalities. At 1867, we decided to unite our forces to construct the railway from one ocean to the other, but it was an economic agreement, not based on something we had in common. You said we founded this country together, but you forget to say we’ve been conquered by the English. It’s never been a free and independent choice from our nation to “cooperate” with the English. We were forced to cooperate, and all French people, with little exceptions, who founded cities in West Canada, have been assimilated. That is how they’ve been thanked to help the English found the west side of the country. You seem to prefer to see Canada with pink glasses, but reality is something different.

For Pierre Falardeau, he gained sometimes. His movie on patriots was an exception. Most of his movies didn't had any money from federal government. You can listen to him talking with Normand Lester about it at this link : http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid= ... 8214&hl=fr




I agree with that part. But it would help to put more money in French programs. Some of the immigrants want to integrate themselves on the first generation.




Your right, it’s rude, but I don’t know what else we could do to make Montréal stop becoming more and more English. I’m looking for solutions, maybe a good one would be to apply 101 bill to small and middle enterprises as Parti Québécois are suggesting.

   

! Finally someone understand !

   

Bonjour les amis!

I'm another federalist frog who'd like to join in the party lol!

Marc there is simply no comparison that can be made between the Balkan region or Central Asia, where partition movements have resulted in bloodshed, and a peaceful democratic country like Canada. How can you imply that partition would lead to civil strife or war and yet, on the other hand, pretend that Quebec secession would occur smoothly?

Seperatists hate the partition argument simply because it is very difficult to rebut. The exact same arguments can be made in favour of both secession and partition. If Quebec qualifies for secession on the basis that it constitutes a nation, then it flows by pure logic that other groups (Indians, native Anglo-Quebecers), who have historically inhabited definable parts of the territory, can make a legitimate claim of independance from Quebec on the same basis.

   

Caelon, that is not entirely accurate. In Reference re Secession of Quebec, the Supreme Court decided that the expression by a clear majority of Quebecers, in a clear referendum question, of the wish to secede from Canada, would create upon the provinces and the federal government a contitutional obligation to negociate in good faith the terms of this constitutional amendment. The SC left to political actors to decide what constitutes a 'clear majority' to a 'clear question'. This was then written into law in the Clarity Act. In case another referendum occurs, the House of Commons will examine the question and fix a level of majority that it will consider constitutes a 'clear majority' triggering its constitutional obligation to negociate.

The level of majority will therefore be a political determination. However, if the federal government required a 2/3 majority to a very clear question, this would certainly play in favour of Quebec claims for the international recognition of a unilateral declaration of independance. Indeed, in such a case Ottawa could be accused of not complying with Canadian constitutional law (Reference re Secession of Quebec).

In the spirit of the SC ruling, it would seem certain that a 50%+1 majority to a clear question such as "Do you want Quebec to become an independant country?" would suffice. However, the situation of the Montenegran secession from the Federation of Serbia and Montenegro could constitute an interesting precedent for a future referendum in Quebec. In that Case, the Council of Europe and European States required a 55% majority, to recognize Montenegran independance, even though they had imposed a clear question.

The 1995 question was a complete farce! It was deliberately ambiguous and would have justified the House of Commons to set a higher level of majority had the Clarity Act then been in force. However, I'm not convinced that it could have set a 2/3 majority threshold without departing from constitutional law.

   

Yes I hate the partition possibility, not because it is hard to rebute, but because it is only hate over Québécois that can generate this possibility. Canada would use his power in the balance to humiliate Québec. That is all about power. The one who is the most powerful, could impose his view to the other nation. That is not what I call a modern way to resolve problems. If it wasn't that simple, why we don't talk about getting Acadia with us, and the estern side of Ontario ?

The independance project is a democratic and a peaceful project, but it could change if Canada thinks differently.

And the example I shown was Ireland, a little nation who had big problem with the english because of the partition. A very similar situation ...

   

Marc01 , please stop talking about independance , it's dead and most quebeckers don't want to hear about it anymore. You seem to think that ROC (rest of Canada) is stupid and that they will negociate with Quebec. Stop dreaming marc01 and be realistic !! Separation is impossible !! And there is a very economical reason for it : assets that are worth millions while in Canada would be worth nothing in a free Quebec !!

For example : The Plains of Abraham : probably worth hundreds of millions while in Canada, this great treasure would not be worth much in a free Quebec where it would become a squatters camp for the thousands and thousands who would lose their jobs, their home and their dignity in a free Quebec ! Ditto !!

pimpbrewski : great post again . to your question , here's my answer : I don't want to end up in a Squatter camp after working so hard all my life !!

   

it's you who tell me to be realistic ? You must be joking !

   

To return to the original topic, I'd say I never could have imagined any good reason to vote for seperatists. However, although I'm certainly not voting for them, the Bloc seems to be doing some good in the current election. Since apparently they will sweep the province on Tuesday, they will stop the tories from forming a majority government, which will be a good thing not only for Quebec but for the whole of the country. Harper's right-wing Christian agenda is bad for Canada. He can hardly move it forward in a minority government. Give him a majority and he becomes a dangerous man.

   

Vote for the Bloc... because if Harper gets elected, he'll destroy the french language.

ok, I almost did that with a straight face.

I'm not making this up. I can't find the link, but a Bloc-head said that.

   

I'm dead serious ! In a free Quebec, population would shrink to 4 millions, mostly senior citizens and poor people. It would become like Serbia, Montenegro etc etc ... Since Quebec has a lot of natural ressources , it would probably be picked up by France as a colony ( a bit like Tahiti or Mauritius ) or the USA .
I , for myself, would leave for Eastern Canada probably New Brunswick and watch for the nearby the disaster of my former place of birth. But I'm not worry because Quebec doesn't have the balls to separate . I'm far more scared of Canada kicking us out !! One day the'll have enough of our blackmail, the Bloc , and all the shit we're throwing at them.

God Bless Canada

   

Previous  1 ... 6  7  8  9  10  11  Next