The Future of the Coalition

Smallc · January 2, 2009

That Clarity Act is going to save this country one day.

I agree. This is especially true because most of the spirit of the act applies whether it itself is applied or not.

Edited January 2, 2009 by Smallc

Jack Weber · January 2, 2009

Oh just admit it. I make it exciting around here. If I wasn't here you'd all be sitting around nodding at each other. I spice things up playing devils advocate and such.

Completely off topic...In a previous thread,Halton Hills,you said you were a "union mouthpiece".What is your opinion on something like "Right to Work" legislation?

Mr.Canada · January 2, 2009

Completely off topic...In a previous thread,Halton Hills,you said you were a "union mouthpiece".What is your opinion on something like "Right to Work" legislation?

I'd have to look at the piece you are directly referring to in order to give you some worthwhile advice on that one.

Jack Weber · January 2, 2009

I don't need advice on the matter because I already know about it,least of all advice from the likes of you,kiddo.I was looking for an opinion from someone who claims to be a union man,yet holds extreme conservative views.

In other words,you seem to be a little conflicted,Halton Hills.

Edited January 2, 2009 by Jack Weber

Mr.Canada · January 2, 2009

I don't need advice on the matter because I already know about it,least of all advice from the likes of you,kiddo.I was looking for an opinion from someone who claims to be a union man,yet holds extreme conservative views.
In other words,you seem to be a little conflicted,Halton Hills.

I see, so because I support workers having equal rights and having fair pay means I need to support lavish NDP spending plans, gay marriage and abortion?

Sorry but many union members are Tory supporters and not NDP supporters.

Again, get back to me on the info you want me to review and I'll give you some advice.

Edited January 2, 2009 by Mr.Canada

Topaz · January 2, 2009

I don't need advice on the matter because I already know about it,least of all advice from the likes of you,kiddo.I was looking for an opinion from someone who claims to be a union man,yet holds extreme conservative views.
In other words,you seem to be a little conflicted,Halton Hills.

Is there an extreme Con that is a union member??? I thought they were either NDP or Lib. That's like Harper going back to his Lib, PC views while being an Conservative/Reformer!

Smallc · January 2, 2009

So there can be a right wing union man, but not a left wing christian person?

Edited January 2, 2009 by Smallc

Mr.Canada · January 2, 2009

So there can be a right wing union man, but not a left wing christian person?

Sure, one can be morally conservative and fiscally and socially liberal. It''s possible.

Smallc · January 2, 2009

That's not what you've said in the past. I don't have time to go back and look, but you have said that the christian left doesn't really exist.

Mr.Canada · January 2, 2009

That's not what you've said in the past. I don't have time to go back and look, but you have said that the christian left doesn't really exist.

I probably did say that. Sounds like something I'd try to say to see if it plays. A Christian must remain morally conservative, no choice there. That means no homosexuality and no abortion.

Having said that if a Christian is against those things but for more social spending to help people and more liberal in their social ideologies it's certainly possible as long as they can stay true to the Church.

Progressive Tory · January 2, 2009

I probably did say that. Sounds like something I'd try to say to see if it plays. A Christian must remain morally conservative, no choice there. That means no homosexuality and no abortion.
Having said that if a Christian is against those things but for more social spending to help people and more liberal in their social ideologies it's certainly possible as long as they can stay true to the Church.

There seems to be some misconception that if you are a Liberal you can't be a Christian, or if you're Christian you can't be homo-sexual. Churches must INSPIRE goodness, not try to LEGISLATE it.

You're right though about no Party owning the right to morality, humanity or economics. I like Michael Ignatieff because he best reflects my fiscally conservative, socially liberal and spiritually Agnostic views. I want my government to govern, not preach.

Jack Weber · January 2, 2009

I see, so because I support workers having equal rights and having fair pay means I need to support lavish NDP spending plans, gay marriage and abortion?
Sorry but many union members are Tory supporters and not NDP supporters.

Again, get back to me on the info you want me to review and I'll give you some advice.

Erm...I don't know how asking for an opinion on "Right to Work" legislation with your personal moral quandries.The NDP really does not and has not done a whole lot for the labour movement for a long time.Supporting the Tories definately won't help out the labour movement,however.It's kinda like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders.

You're a union man...Goggle Right to Work Legislation.Look at its historical underpinnings and see if it jives with fairness for workers.Look at the statistics involving wage stagnation,lower incomw and standard of living, and,benefit loss in regions where RTW has been implemented.

Mr.Canada · January 2, 2009

There seems to be some misconception that if you are a Liberal you can't be a Christian, or if you're Christian you can't be homo-sexual. Churches must INSPIRE goodness, not try to LEGISLATE it.
You're right though about no Party owning the right to morality, humanity or economics. I like Michael Ignatieff because he best reflects my fiscally conservative, socially liberal and spiritually Agnostic views. I want my government to govern, not preach.

What government is preaching?

Jack Weber · January 2, 2009

So there can be a right wing union man, but not a left wing christian person?

A right wing union man is a chicken voting for Col. Sanders.The political right generally hates organized labour because it is a hinderance to their free marketeering dogma.They look at union members as undeserving ingrate subversives and union leaders as corrupt sleazy thugs.

I'm surprised that Halton Hills is as staunchly pro-union as he claims to be when his views and obvious voting patterns would cut the legs out from underbeath the labour movement.

BC_chick · January 2, 2009

A right wing union man is a chicken voting for Col. Sanders.The political right generally hates organized labour because it is a hinderance to their free marketeering dogma.They look at union members as undeserving ingrate subversives and union leaders as corrupt sleazy thugs.

Maybe he's socially conservative.

Mr.Canada · January 2, 2009

Maybe he's socially conservative.

Precisely. A right winger can be a union guy just as a left winger can be a Christian, same deal.

fellowtraveller · January 2, 2009

A right wing union man is a chicken voting for Col. Sanders.The political right generally hates organized labour because it is a hinderance to their free marketeering dogma.They look at union members as undeserving ingrate subversives and union leaders as corrupt sleazy thugs.
I'm surprised that Halton Hills is as staunchly pro-union as he claims to be when his views and obvious voting patterns would cut the legs out from underbeath the labour movement.

Everybody stuffed intoi a little stereotypical pigeonhole in your tiny proscribed universe.... does it get claustrophobic in there?

I am touched by the faith in the Clarity Act here...... just wondering, but how much credence do you think that the separating state - not a province, but New Soverign State- will ascribe to an Act of some other government that they are no longer a part of?

"Hello, this is Canada and I insist we negotiate on the terms of the Clarity Act!"

"Right, call back when you change your tone of voice. We are busy"

Smallc · January 2, 2009

Maybe he's socially conservative.

Oh goody, socially conservative and fiscally liberal.....could it get any better?

Smallc · January 2, 2009

not a province, but New Soverign State-

They can't separate without a change to the Constitution. That type of change requires the consent of every single province in Canada, as well as the Senate, the Commons, and the Governor General. Do you think that all of the provinces and the federal government are going to agree to a province leaving Confederation?

fellowtraveller · January 2, 2009

They can't separate without a change to the Constitution. That type of change requires the consent of every single province in Canada, as well as the Senate, the Commons, and the Governor General. Do you think that all of the provinces and the federal government are going to agree to a province leaving Confederation?

I don't think the New Sovereign State will spend 2 seconds worrying about what Canada or New Brunswick thinks or does?

Consent will be given by the citizens of the Sovereign State, a few foreign countries will acknowledge it and ... it is done.

Why would any state ackowledge the authority of the state they have just left? Ever wonder why the separatistes always contend that there will be a Declaration of Independence immediately after a 'yes' vote? Wonder no more. It is no idle threat, it is the only logical move and it would be successful for a new country flushed with nationalist fervour.

The Clarity Act is a sop to Canada, not legisaltion that anybody serious would think will have the slighetst effect on deterring separation. Canada may belive that it sets out the terms of negotiation, but that is part theater and part wishful thinking.

Unless you think the feds will order in the troops and start shooting.

"Please sir, may I leave now?"

Yeah, right.

Smallc · January 2, 2009

Why would any state ackowledge the authority of the state they have just left?

My point is THEY CAN'T LEAVE without the consent of every other government in Canada. They can't be a sovereign state unless they have been allowed to leave in the first place. They can't even have a legitimate vote without the consent of the HoC. There is no justification under international law and they have no authority to do so within the constitution. They wouldn't even be able to claim a majority vote for succession unless every vote showed up at the polls and a majority of them voted to leave. In fact, Canada would have almost every right to tell the troops to go in and start shooting if that's what it took. It is only under a very small number of circumstances that they would be allowed to leave.

Wild Bill · January 2, 2009

My point is THEY CAN'T LEAVE without the consent of every other government in Canada. They can't be a sovereign state unless they have been allowed to leave in the first place. They can't even have a legitimate vote without the consent of the HoC. There is no justification under international law and they have no authority to do so within the constitution. They wouldn't even be able to claim a majority vote for succession unless every vote showed up at the polls and a majority of them voted to leave. In fact, Canada would have almost every right to tell the troops to go in and start shooting if that's what it took. It is only under a very small number of circumstances that they would be allowed to leave.

Your faith is touching. It reminds me of Nancy Reagan crying "Just say NO!"

You at least seem to realize that Canada would have to send in our troops to enforce the legalities. What you don't seem to understand is that first of all, any government in Ottawa is not likely to want to start a civil war armed conflict and second, a lot of our troops are from Quebec!

There are also no end of countries that would recognize an independent Quebec, like Cuba or Iran.

After you've waved your law books at them and scolded them severely, just what do you think would happen?

Smallc · January 2, 2009

After you've waved your law books at them and scolded them severely, just what do you think would happen?

They can't separate without the law book. It is law that allows them to separate, not a simple majority vote. I don't know what's so hard about that. A province CANNOT separate on its own terms. The fact that people seem to want to find loopholes to allow them to do so is very disturbing.

Progressive Tory · January 2, 2009

I do,as well.I think he's more of a backroom policy wonk than a leader.That Clarity Act is going to save this country one day.Either with seperatists in Quebec or the kooky fringe in Alberta.

He's a brilliant man but has too much integrity to be a politician; or at least head of his Party.

Progressive Tory · January 2, 2009

There are only a handful of real conservatives here, maybe 5. The rest are socialists and therefore in favor of the traitorous coalition.

Again with the "traitorous coalition?" Sorry, but Political Science professors all agree that it is the best safeguard against tyranny. Your beloved Mr. Harper said that he would never make a deal with 'Separatists' so I sent you a link to the letter he sent to the GG in 2004 asking to form a Coalition with the Bloc and NDP, signed by Stephen Harper, Gilles Duceppe, and Jack Layton. Sorry, but the whole traitor thing is getting old.

Of course, unless you're saying that Stephen Harper was a traitor in 2004 when he tried to form a 'Coup' to overthrow Paul Martin, by signing a deal with 'Separatists' and 'Socialists'.

One negates the other, so let's move on.