Previous  1  2  3  4  5

The US does?!

*looks at the map*

Dude, Canada owns the St. Lawrence Gulf...

   

Well, in all likely hood and if the current trend continues, the Quebec "government" after seperation would continue to screw Canada in any way possible.

By this I mean territorial issues, boundries, partitioning, money issues, debt payments, currency (I believe a mandate for seperation is to still use Canadian currency? Has that changed? Will it?) you know, all the little details that separatists don't think about. Nevermind the fact that the current Quebec after your "election" will continue to gain exorbant amounts of money from the Canadian government just to stay in the country. Headaches headaches for both sides. Is it worth it?

Well, the point is, you tried to paint the Quebec National Assembly as the "clear thinking logical" components of the negotiating table and (unlikely as you pointed out) Canada as the idiotic, lumbering half-wits. Of course, as you pointed out, all of this is "unlikely" right?

In the terms of the boundries of the St Lawrence (a very important water route), I think it is safe to say that both sides would gouge each other and act like asses in the event of separation. The argument here is the clear fact of ownership of the route. Who gets it?

Hyperbolic to an extent but not entirely untrue. Do you know any separatists who actually *think* about the consequences? I don't think separatists poll themselves on whether they diversify on the "ridiculous I'm a complete lunatic, we get what we want" side or the "Calm, collected we know our limitations" side.

This whole argument started when certain few were claiming ownership of a certain river, simply because of geographical location. What do you think?

Perhaps. Hopefully we won't have to reach that particular diversion of lands. Unfortunately, *some* perhaps want more and more, this and that because they claim it. That is the root of border disputes. However, the concept here is that historically (and I am not trying to piss you off) Quebec is (or was) a conquered land. What right does somebody who was defeated over a hundred years ago choose its land designations because they feel it's time for a change? Of course Canada took great pains to enact dipshit laws on "legalities" and "clarity" which will bite them in the ass one day.

Why would you take this as to "affect" you personally? But you are right, I suppose that was a little out of hand. When my dollars go into the government that I voted for to bribe Quebecers to vote Liberal (ironic no?) as the Quebec government instead of the BQ PQ, whatever the hell you want to call them, yes you could perhaps take that as a form of outcry of rage. You can disregard that if you want, it is your right but truth shouldn't be discarded.

I'm curious about what kind of "news" Quebec gets or even if it gets any outside its brick wall of anything not Quebec.

   

Never said they didn't. We were talking about the river itself. The river runs along the border of the U.S and I don't think they would idle by as Canada and Quebec shit in each others mouths over an important trade route. In fact, the U.S would probably jump in and yell "jump" and Canada and Quebec would go "how high?" Meaning, the U.S would run the show and nobody can do anything about it.

   

I'm not talking about Canada declaring war. When I say we, I am referring to the Native peoples of Canada. Though I do not speak for all of them, I do have a pretty firm fingure on the pulse and emotion of the notion of following Kebec into independence.

We have voted overwhelmingly against it. The tensions between Native and Quebecuois is not only legendary, but monumental.

We have no intentions of following Kebec or staying within Kebec, if it seperates.



The territory to the North of Quebec is its own property. Unlike the widespread belief, amerindians do not own about 80% of Quebec. They have special rights on a large area, but they own only a small part of it (About 2%? I'm not positive here) - and even then, the definition of "own" is loose as, officially speaking, it's still Quebec's land, it's just that it's administered independantly. [/quote]

Regardless of what treaties were signed, by whom or when, the Mohawk have no intention of remaining in Kebec. If they chose not to remain a part of Canada, they would undoubtedly become a free nation of their own. With the current temperment of the MWS and its support, I don't think any of them will care what you or any French leader says about what they do or do not own. They will merely take it. And seeing as Kebec will have no military or arms, this shouldn't be hard. Especially considering the masses of weapons in Oka, Akwesasne or Kanehsatake.



Once again I think you are blind to the tentions between the Cree and the Quebecuois. Another group avowed to remain free of an indepentant Kebec. A groupd that has had its lands plundered, is more then willing to give the Quebecuois the boot and renegotiate Hydro deals with Kebec and the east coasters. Much to the appreciuation of the east coasters I am sure.


Openly, I doubt they will, but the US likes its blackops. It is not beneath them to funnel weapons to the Natives fighting along the shores of the St Lawrance to stop the very madness that has already been mentioned in this thread about taxing the seaway. THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

   

It seems arguable to me to say there's a "current trend" of "Quebec trying to screw up Canada". It can be seen that way, even from someone inside Quebec, but the provincial govt's continuous demands are not really motivated by the will to make the ROC suffer rather than the chance to obtain more money. It's almost easy for a Quebec govt to get money from the fed right now, and since nobody spits on money that's almost gifted to you... still, the consequences of these demands can be summed as "screwing up Canada", so I can't say your point of view is invalid.

If Quebec seccessed, chances are a similar attitude would keep up - but if Canada holds harder to its (current) possession (and let's just say that's a certitude), Quebec wouldn't be able to simply get the biggest piece of the cake nearly constantly anymore. Basically, yes, Quebec would keep asking as much as possible, but due to a nearly certain more intransigeant position from Ottawa, genuinely fair agreements would be likely to be reached through negotiations where both parties would have to give some and take some.

Still, there's a step between "wanting as much as possible from Canada" and "screwing Canada for the sake of it". Remember the concept of sovereignty-association? It's still more favored among separatists than outright seccession, but since s-a is ridiculed and dubbed unrealistic, it was pretty much tossed aside. Still, this favor for this rather utopic concept shows there's a minimum of goodwill within separatists and that most would not support unilateral measures that hurt Canada (even if these measures aid Quebec), but rather prefer a minimum of concertation most of the time.



Well, one would need to interpret my sayings to an extreme to believe I meant things that way, about as much as I'd need to misinterpret your claims to believe you think it's impossible for the National Assembly to ever negotiate with Canada on equal terms. In both cases, there's a slight hint towards an extreme of the spectrum, but it seems to me neither of us is really positionning himself straight on that extreme.

But yeah, I don't believe either side would refuse to act fairly and logically. A province separating would be an issue too important for anyone to act childishly.



A good question. From the source of the St Lawrence to the Ontario/Quebec border, it's obvious Canada would get the ownership of the river. From the Quebec/Ontario border to approximately an imaginary line drawn between the very end of the Gaspesia peninsula and the western tip of the Anticosti island, Quebec would certainly be the owner. But what about the last end of the river (namely, the Gulf of the St Lawrence)? Would Canada retain its property just between Gaspesia and Anticosti, outside a little bit of coast at large of both? Would Quebec gain anything from the Îles-de-la-Madeleine, which are located near the middle of the gulf a few hundred kilometers over PEI? What about the area between Newfoundland and Quebec, is it divided half-half up to the strait of Belle-Isle? It's about certain both sides would leave the table feeling uneasy, for they'll have to sacrifice parts they wanted to respectively keep and obtain in order to keep the other party willing to negotiate.



I know a few. I have to agree many, if not most, tend to deflect from the subject if I try to engage in potential consequences (even when the problem is minor and could easily be solved). Still, federalists also tend to act in a similar fashion, but in reverse : talk with them of the risks, they'll feel "at home". Talk of the potential gains, and from personnal experience, the most common answer I've heard was a dismissive "it's all hypothetic". I came to the conclusion that it's a matter of perception : some will think separatists are idiots because they ignore risks in favor of merely potential gains, others will think federalists are stupid because they ignore enhancements because they fear the risks that would need to be taken.

With time I've learned to accept that chances are everyone's a bit dumb on the sides, regardless of their position on the issue. In many cases, the definition of what's intelligent and what's not is in itself so arbitrary it becomes easy to make the other side look like total morons in a single sentence.

I'd say that the 'higher-ups' of all parties probably have thoughts of both sides of the medals, and probably even find good in what the other sides have to say, although few will openly admit it.



Oh! I hardly know what to think. My feeling is that the ownership of the river, as well as the transport route itself, probably has to be divided fairly. But what is the definition of "fair" here? That, I must say, is unsettling.



No worries, I'm not pissed off. Undisputable facts are that, after all : undisputable facts. I could lash out and say we weren't defeated because we never were assimilated, or something along those lines, but it'd be twisting history. And wouldn't bring much good to anyone anyway.

And the right we'd have... mostly international laws and "conventions". About a hundred year ago, these laws and "conventions" didn't quite exist, so I have to say the "right" we'd have is recent. Not so long ago the only way for a "conquered" people to get "its" land back was to "conquer" it back, but thinking this is still true today is not exactly right. In fact, considering that technically speaking, war is illegal by now, a people that tries to take "its" land back through fighting has high chances of not even being recognized afterwards, even if it "wins". Basically, approximately since the end of WW1, the owner of a certain area is no more "the last one who conquered it", but rather "whichever people thinks it's its own, demands to obtain control of it democratically and gains the ascent of the international community". Kind of a complex definition I'm imagining here, and obviously it's not the official one (if there's any), but it seems to me that's what's closer to reality currently. I'd like to hear what you'd have to say about that.

As for Canada's laws on legality and clarity, well, I'd say the ones which Quebec would have good reasons to object to after a referendum on sovereignty passed would be abandonned on the spot as to avoid making negotiations more difficult. After all, such laws, if any (and as long as the reasons to want them down are good), would be likely to be disproved or cancelled by the international community if it had to interfere. Still, I doubt any of the Canadian laws are really weird enough to deserve being shot down when they'd actually come in effect.



Well, now that I think of it I had and still have few if no reasons to take it "personally" in any way. I just wasn't sure if you were trying to push a point or otherwise argumenting, and since I'm the person advocating the other side, I felt like any point pushed forward would be there for me to respond to. But it's all fine and sorted out, so there's no problem here.

I understand your situation must be frustrating. To be honest, I kind of felt bad when the Cons announced that $2.3G. One, it's more than what I expected, and two, I felt like what I expected would be considered like highway robbery to begin with in the ROC so I'd rather have preferred if Quebec got no additionnal money, so that things would settle down. And when Charest announced he wanted to lower taxes by $700M with that money, I wanted to outright hide in a crypt. I don't like to know our provincial government makes us Québécois all look like we take pleasure and pride in nearly stealing money away from other provinces thanks to technicalities only to directly put it in our own pockets. Seriously.



My guess is that we get less news about the ROC than the ROC gets about itself. Chances are that the ROC also gets more news about Quebec than Quebec does about the ROC. But we're not completely in the dark. To name a recent event among many others, Danny Williams's outburst in the Globe&Mail was widely discussed in the medias during the last week or so.

   

Oh, sorry. When you said "red-skinned", I misinterpretated it as if you meant it as in "Canada red". My bad.

There indeed are tensions, lots of tensions. To the point of natives unilaterally leaving, without engaging in any negotiations later on? Well, I have to say that's news to me. If the tensions are truly that bad, then I have to admit I didn't know.



I... doubt it would be that easy. Quebec would have no army, but no native community would have a "real" standing army either. "Civilians with weapons" would be close to the actual truth. If natives basically expropriate the land Quebec technically owns without engaging in genuine negotiations first, then chances are Quebec wouldn't leave it at that and would actually take the time to make up an army and/or obtain international help and assentment to get back what the government would now consider as its own. As much as, as you say, natives may outright overlook agreements and "take what they want", Quebec would overlook what the natives think and try to get back what they officially own through all kinds of deals and contracts and whatever.



Don't think Quebec would ever let native take the infrastructure of Hydro-Québec. They wouldn't simply let it slide, unless they let the natives gain control through, I mention it again, previous negotiations. If they took over some of Hydro's installations, just like that, and tried to renegotiate deals with Quebec, it's about 100% sure Quebec wouldn't really react in friendly terms. After all, hydroelecticity is the #1 ressource of Quebec, so we wouldn't simply let it go away because someone out there says that, despite all agreements and ownership acts and common sense, it's theirs.

Things could change if the balance of power if offset in favor of Crees and other natives by any factor, but I won't go on overboard speculation here.



I doubt special taxes would be raised on the St Lawrence. Chances are things would remain business-as-usual, so I'm pretty convinced the US would have no reason to want to interfere in anything to begin with. As you say, indeed, that will never happen.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5