Separation vs. Sovereignty

[BC_chick]

The point is they could...and it might be good for Canada if they did...

What's good for Canada is putting aside exaggerated facts and/or untruths about the past and learning to get along. There was a class war in Quebec, not necessarily an ethnic one. The rich French were just as bad as their English counterparts, but the separatist movement has done a great job of exploiting the divisions to seem as though they were purely based on ethnicity.

Both sides have a lot invested into this partnership. Sure, parting is an option and it may be a right. Staying and infighting is another. Healing from the past, however, is the best alternative.

Edited December 4, 2008 by BC_chick

[Huston]

I thought it was a provincial decision... hence, the referendum.

That is one way.

[Phacochere]

Then you should have no problem if all Canadians get to vote in your next referendum. Now do you understand?

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.

[Wilber]

You put reforming the Senate with my consent in the same category as dismantling my country without my consent. I don't dispute the legality of doing so but don't ever expect me to respect it. It won't happen. Unlike you, my country doesn't end at my provincial border.

[Smallc]

Unlike you, my country doesn't end at my provincial border.

Now that is something you and I can certainly agree on.

[August1991]

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.

That's not entirely exact. The House of Commons recognized the Quebecois as a nation within a united Canada.

After winning a referendum, the National Assembly would likely unilaterally declare independence, and at that point it becomes a question of international recognition.

South Ossetia did something like that and so far, only Russia has recognized it.

In all likelihood, the international community would expect Quebec to negotiate an understanding with ROC in particular if the referendum question involved the word "association".

----

The problem with Quebec independance/sovereignty/secession/separation is that a majority of the people in Quebec don't want it. Even a majority of francophones in Quebec don't really want it. Moreover, many, many people in Quebec are utterly fed up of the question. Everyone is looking for a way out (eg. Dumont's "autonomy") and the fanatics on both sides keep throwing wood on the fire.

At a certain point, the BQ just looks like a shake down operation. Duceppe got a better deal from the coalition. In a way, it's rather sad that Levesque's original idealism has been reduced to begging for crumbs.

----

Returning to your OP:

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.

I heard Chantal Hebert compare "separatist" and "sovereignist" to "socialist" and "New Democrat". I suppose the comparison is apt. I prefer Parizeau's approach which is to say simply: "We want a country."

I personally have never felt comfortable with this whole idea of a "people". For example, Barack Obama belongs to what "people"? OTOH, I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that a group of people decide to run their own affairs their way.

Different people in Quebec favour independence for a variety of reasons. Some Quebecers simply do not like English people and resent history and the conquest. As to your own personal reason (take full control of all political levers), it seems odd that few people in Quebec (including in parcticular sovereignists) accept so easily equalization transfer payments. Slice the statistics as you will but Quebec receives more from Ottawa than it sends to Ottawa. This is not a credible basis on which to claim independance.

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?

Like it or not, the Bloc members in Ottawa are like the Italian Communist Party members in Rome during the Cold War. They are a large faction that no one wants within government. (The comparison comes from Parizeau.)

It is hard for many English-Canadians to understand how politicians can sit in a chamber that they want to "destroy". Did Irish republicans send members to sit in London?

Canada is ultimately a flexible federal state where democracy is more important than any particular institution. The Bloc members are accepted. Indeed, it's not certain at all that the Bloc has advanced the cause of Quebec's independance. Instead, as you put it, the Bloc is just another regional party within a federated country.

Edited December 4, 2008 by August1991

[guyser]

You put reforming the Senate with my consent in the same category as dismantling my country without my consent. I don't dispute the legality of doing so but don't ever expect me to respect it. It won't happen. Unlike you, my country doesn't end at my provincial border.

+1 Wilber.

[M.Dancer]

However I do belive we will achieve 60%+, in time. And after indepedence, hopefully we can negotiate close economic integration with our Canadian friends.

the neverendum referendum strategy. It's based on the assumption that one day quebecers will be stupid enough to thow out the baby with the bath water.

There is little motivation to negotiate with an idependant quebec. Ontario Dairy farmers will want their fair share of the dairy industry, currently dominated (by law) by quebec. Onatrio manufacturers will not want to compete with quebec manufactures in the US if they ride on the coat tails of the FTA. No one in Canada will want to subsidize and independant Quebec and very few will want to do busines in a province that without federal transfer payments will be near economic collapse.

I remeber quite well during the first of the neverendum referendum listening to a Pequiste answer the concerns of those worried about CPP and UI. She told them of course they would still get both....it's lies like these they peddle...yet they want our respect...

here are some things Quebecers will lose

1) Interprovincial trade agreements

2) International trade agreements

3) Milk marketing monopoly

4) Influence over monetary policy

5) Billions of dollars in federal transfer payments

Here are some things Quebecers will gain

1) Foreign aid

2) Plunging Real estate prices

3) More cheese than they can eat

Edited December 4, 2008 by M.Dancer

[Michael Hardner]

Good to see that Morris EDITED that post....

Anyway, we have some folks on this thread with good knowledge about the issue. I'm wondering if someone can add some explanation of how the 'clarity act' would come into play after a declaration of independence.

[fellowtraveller]

Good to see that Morris EDITED that post....

Anyway, we have some folks on this thread with good knowledge about the issue. I'm wondering if someone can add some explanation of how the 'clarity act' would come into play after a declaration of independence.

I think it would be utterly worthless, for this reason: the new state would naturally claim that the laws of their former state did not pertain. That is why the PQ/BQ are insistent on claiming autonomy ASAP after a referendum vote.

[fellowtraveller]

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. [/b] 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.[/b]

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.

Well. we do agree on something, that Quebec has the right to self determination. Of course, being both a democratic province and nation, Quebec will be obliged to agree that First Nations claims precede any of theirs and that a First Nations dec;laration of independence from Quebec will be fully respected.

As Canada is divisible, so is Quebec.

The First Nations will be tearing up all those James Bay agreements they made , but if one of the parties ceases to exist it will be a brand new negotiation. Good luck with that.

[cybercoma]

If there is such a big distinction between the words, then why were the translators mixing them up and using them interchangeably on CPAC?

[Michael Hardner]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act

Ok, well what a wonder 3 minutes of reading can do you.

The Clarity Act simply states the conditions under which the Government of Canada would negotiation Quebec secession.

The question as to whether Canada would negotiate things such as a common currency is open.

[M.Dancer]

Ok, well what a wonder 3 minutes of reading can do you.

The Clarity Act simply states the conditions under which the Government of Canada would negotiation Quebec secession.

The question as to whether Canada would negotiate things such as a common currency is open.

There is no need to negotiate a common currency. A separatist Quebec can use what ever currency they wish..they could even use Bank of England notes with her Majesty printed prominately on them. The common denominator will be whatever currency they chose, they will have zero say in the monetary policy of the issuing nation.

Wat would be funny though would be a made in Quebec currency, Perhaps it would have Paul Rose's face on it....ideally it would be printed on soft absorbant tissue so it would be useful to everyone.

[BC_chick]

As Canada is divisible, so is Quebec.

The First Nations will be tearing up all those James Bay agreements they made , but if one of the parties ceases to exist it will be a brand new negotiation. Good luck with that.

Not to mention the second 'exodus' of the 49% of the nay-voters. If the first 'exodus' (as they refer to it in Montreal) didn't have catastrophic enough results for the province, the second will surely finish it off.

[Oleg Bach]

Quebecers want to be Canadians - the Block just want to be as rich as possible...and will they share those riches with all Quebecers? Or will an elite form that in time will abuse the average citizen? What's the long term plans of the Block - does anyone know?

[JerrySeinfeld]

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.

And this is different from other provinces how?

We all want control of our own destiny. Somewhere along the line, Quebec developed a

spoiled child" syndrome whereby they think somehow they're "more special" than any other province.

This is precisely why the US state system is so much better than our federalist system. Each state can write it's own destiny to a large degree - at least, much larger degree than here in Canada.

Edited December 5, 2008 by JerrySeinfeld

[Smallc]

This is precisely why the US state system is so much better than our federalist system. Each state can write it's own destiny to a large degree - at least, much larger degree than here in Canada.

Well, you can always move there.

[August1991]

There is no need to negotiate a common currency. A separatist Quebec can use what ever currency they wish..they could even use Bank of England notes with her Majesty printed prominately on them. The common denominator will be whatever currency they chose, they will have zero say in the monetary policy of the issuing nation.

Morris, there is so much confusion on this point that I am thankful to read something accurate and simply stated. You are right. Hear, hear.

[reasonoverpassion]

"Under certain circumstances there exists a right of nations to self-determination. But to claim this right without taking into account the price that will have to paid, without clearly demonstrating that is to the advantage of the whole nation, is nothing short of a reckless gamble. People do not exist for states; states are created to make it easier for people to attain some of their common objectives"

Therefore, those who wish to undermine or to destoy the Canadian federal system must define clearly the risks involved and demonstrate that the new judical and political situation they want to establish would be in the general interest of our people.

According to international law, people--in both the legal and the ethnic sense--can declare independence if they are dominated by an external power or subjugated by a terrible tyranny. Neither case applies to Quebec."

Pierre Elliot Trudeau "Quebec and the Constitutional Problem"(unpublished), 1965; Federalism and the French Canadians

[Wilber]

Well, you can always move there.

Not a good answer. We have a big problem here that they do not. No harm in acknowledging that and questioning why.

[Smallc]

Not a good answer. We have a big problem here that they do not. No harm in acknowledging that and questioning why.

Everyone has problems. I prefer to work within our system and where I stand, it seems to be working just fine. The mechanisms that are in place are allowing it to work. There's nothing wrong with our federation despite what some believe.

Edited December 5, 2008 by Smallc

[Smallc]

I really don't like the whole: "wow, look at what they have, it so much better." It usually isn't true. Every system has its pros and cons.

[M.Dancer]

Sad news for separatists....looks like the will of Quebecers once again is to shun the PQ.

The poll surveyed 1,001 Quebeckers between Nov. 28 and Dec. 3 and showed the Liberals leading with 45-per-cent support, comfortably ahead of the Parti Québécois at 29 per cent and the Action démocratique du Québec, trailing at 15 per cent.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/National/home

[Army Guy]

What is it that Quebec has to gain from separation, other than the obvious freedom from english Canada, but what else do they hope to gain....