Phacochere

I understand, and I disagree with your statement. The rest of Canada can hold its own referendum on the issue, but it would basically be nothing more than a large-scale public opinion poll. International law recognizes the right of peoples to self-determination, and in fact the House of Commons has already recognized Quebec as a nation. After winning a referendum, the National Assembly would likely unilaterally declare independence, and at that point it becomes a question of international recognition. Hopefully it would be after a significant winning margin, say over 55%, ideally 60%. I am not a partisan of holding referenda until one passes at 50+1, because although democratic, it isn't a politically stable option. However I do belive we will achieve 60%+, in time. And after indepedence, hopefully we can negotiate close economic integration with our Canadian friends.

Indeed, but I don't understand your point. I was making a comparison that has nothing to do with Quebec sovereignty, it was an example of a situation where losing a vote does not mean you drop your ideas.

Well, they do represent their constituents (me), as they are still citizens of Canada. They are a sovereignist party, but they have to act within the confines of Confederation and IMO they do so with dignity and respect for the institution.

Thanks!

I meant a referendum throughout Canada. The impetus would come from the West, not Quebec, as the old Reformers are the most vocal proponents of an elected Senate.

If I may, each riding in each provbince is free to elect whomever they choose. There is nothing preventing other regional parties from emerging, the Reform Party is a good example of this.

Here's an answer: if there were a referendum on instituting an elected Senate, that was lost by a slim margin, doesw that mean its proponents should stop thinking it is a good idea? Oh, and no need to talk about your arse.

Ok, thanks, but then why the pandering to the lowest common denominator (I'm actually thinking of someone specific here) rather than rise above the fray and attempt a more unifying discourse? If there is such a majority, why take that tack?

Listen buddy, as you write yourself in your description, you're lost.

So if I undertsand what you guys are saying, every one of you is for Canadian unity, including Quebec, but you'd rather do without the actual people that live there?

This means you want to protect sovereignists from themselves? You do so with great vigour, I have trouble believing your position is truly altruistic. Actually, I think that position is weirdly paternalistic, you don't believe the people of Quebec are apt to govern themselves. Why is that?

Please stop posting in my thread if you will bring nothing to the discussion. Thanks.

What is so amazing that would be lost if Quebec were to secede? I guess for one thing the political paradigm of federal politics would shift to the right somewhat, but what besides that? I think in time Quebec indepedence would actually contribute to bringing together the old English and French Canada by eliminating the abcess that has been plaguing Canadian and Quebec politics since forever, and that will continue if the status quo continues...

I guess you are entitled to your opinion as far as the fate of an independent Quebec, although for the record I obviously think you are dead wrong. However, Sovereignty is a word that underscores the highly democratic nature of the Quebec indepedence movement. I think the misunderstanding (and condescension) you demonstrate helps explain my point, so thank you.

"Separatist" is a word that is not representative of the impetus behind "l'indépendance du Québec". I am not afraid of that word, nor for that matter am I afraid of the word "separatist", although I think it is semantically improper. What I am saying is that using that charged word ("separatist") is a way to whip up support based on hate, and I think that is a lowly political move especially given the fact that in this case the Conservatives have recently been in the current position of the Liberals... The debate is flying low, I think we should all work to raise its level to mutually respectful levels. In that sense, I don't see much of that in this thread so far...

This is my first post here, so let me start by saying the last thing I wish to do is to incite a flame war. I registered to this forum because it is the first one that came up when googling "politics canada forum". I felt the need to express myself to the what is often called "the other solitude", in light of what I consider the insidious spilling of the political discourse and discussion into what I perceive, rightly or wrongly, as Québécois-bashing. I wish to make two points. 1) There is a valid and important reason we in Quebec use the term sovereignist rather than separatist. The latter implies a desire to secede based on hatred of another party, here English Canada. The second implies the desire of a population, considering itself a people, for autodetermination and the possession of all the powers necessary to dictate its own destiny. This distinction is important because many English Canadians I have spoken to somehow believe Quebec secessionists wish independence *because* of English Canada. In the tradition of René Lévesque, I and I believe most sovereignists support this option because we wish to take full control of all political powers to control the destiny of our corner of the world, not because of a hate for Canada. 2) Why are the Bloc members of Parliament considered second-class MP's? Do they not have the exact same legitimacy as any other MP, and has the Bloc not been fully respectful of Canadian parliamentary traditions and processes over its almost 20-year existence? Does nobody outside Quebec realize that this denigration actually contributes to the division of Canada, rather than the opposite? Again, I am hoping for some levelheaded, intelligent discussion. Canada has a tradition of respect in politics, for the most part, and at this point we are all Canadians. I think there needs to be more respect in our political discourse, and a lot of what I hear and read coming from English Canada over the last few days is lacking in the area of respect. Why is that?