What Should be an Example for Quebec

[jbg]

No, they don't....not under the Constitution certainly now that they allow other languages on signs.

As long as the English part is kept very small, even in an area with few French speakers. And town's names are changed, wiping out years of tradition and history, for the sake of linguistic correctness.

I think much of this stems from a belief that you have that was until recently displayed in your signature.

Which part of my signature? I haven't changed it in months.

[Smallc]

Freedom speaks English.

[Smallc]

As long as the English part is kept very small,

No, the French simply has to be more prominent. Oh, and the names af aboriginal towns are changed too. I don't see the big deal.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Smallc

[g_bambino]

As long as the English part is kept very small, even in an area with few French speakers. And town's names are changed, wiping out years of tradition and history, for the sake of linguistic correctness.

There is an undeniable element of cultural immaturity in Quebec (not an immature culture, but immature behaviour around culture). However, its own superficial, juvenile nature belies its inherent weakness: they childishly stick their tongues out in rebellion as a cover for the knowledge that they won't ever actually leave. Having the exit left open tends to diminish calls for revolt.

[bush_cheney2004]

..... Having the exit left open tends to diminish calls for revolt.

Let 'em leave if they wish....what's the big deal compared to those barbaric Americans with bloody civil war.

[jbg]

Freedom speaks English.

Thanks for reminding me. I didn't mean it to leave the signature unless I had to shorten it to make way for the "mental hospital" part. Maybe that's what happened.

[g_bambino]

Let 'em leave if they wish....

I'd rather they didn't, but, I still agree with your statement. Membership in Confederation should be willing, not forced.

[Guest American Woman]

I think that John Stewart put it best:

"Everyone knows Republicans love America, they just hate half the people living in it."

First off, John Stewart goes for laughs, so you shouldn't be taking that statement as the 'way things are' in America. Every day Republicans and Democrats are getting along just fine within families, friends, and places of work. In fact, some even get married.

I would say the extremes on both ends 'hate' the other party, but I've seen plenty of that same kind of emotion in Canadians.

But when push comes to shove, Americans for the most part are a "united we stand, divided we fall' bunch; and I believe if part of a nation is allowed to leave, the "divided we fall" would definitely come to pass.

[jbg]

I'd rather they didn't, but, I still agree with your statement. Membership in Confederation should be willing, not forced.

There are several serious problems with an easy come easy go policy:

1. The fact that a seceding province would pick up a lot of unpaid-for internal improvements;
   
2. The fact that a seceding province would control major military assets of the former federal government (this proved to be a major problem in the civil war when Virginia, whose secession was delayed and somewhat unexpected, held control over the Hampton Naval Yards);
   
3. The fact that a formerly poor province (think AB or NFLD) could obtain years of equalization and other subsidies and then split when natural resources within their borders reaced the stage of commercial exploitation and royalty generation; and most importantly
   
4. The rights of citizens of the Federal unit within the seceded areas wishing to have the rights of Canadians (or Americans) and not wishing to trust what could be arbitrary grants or denials of privileges from what amounts to a revolutionary government.
   

I understand your point in theory. Even the Clarity Act's promise of a period of pre-secession "negotiations" is hollow if at the end the Federal entity is forced to grant the seceding province's wish.

[jbg]

First off, John Stewart goes for laughs, so you shouldn't be taking that statement as the 'way things are' in America. Every day Republicans and Democrats are getting along just fine within families, friends, and places of work. In fact, some even get married.

Heck, Republican Arnold Schwartzenegger was at Ted Kennedy's and Eunice Shriver's funerals.

[g_bambino]

There are several serious problems with an easy come easy go policy

Ah hah! But, I only said arriving or departing should be willful, not easy. You're right that there would be huge complications to be dealt with, such as those you point out. However, if in the process there should be any aggressive actions, along the lines of seisure of assets without compensation, those unnecessary acts themselves would be the cause of conflict, not the pre-established bilateral system of deal-making they'd be in breach of.

[Guest American Woman]

Canada simply made slavery illegal. America had to fight a war. Who's progressive again? If people are inteligent and reasonable freedom can be free.

I'm just wondering how many plantation owners in Canada were "intelligent and reasonable" and dutifully gave up the slaves they depended on for their livelihood? My point is, had we only had the North to consider, we would have ended slavery without having to fight a war, too. It's much easier to give up what you don't depend on to sustain your way of life.

That in no way condones slavery, but those who didn't depend on it certainly would be able to be more "reasonable" about abolishing it than those who did depend on it.

Edited August 29, 2009 by American Woman

[jbg]

However, if in the process there should be any aggressive actions, along the lines of seisure of assets without compensation, those unnecessary acts themselves would be the cause of conflict, not the pre-established bilateral system of deal-making they'd be in breach of.

Glad you pointed that out.

Most people don't know that the immediate cause of the Civil War was South Carolina's refusal to permit Federal resupply of Fort Sumter, and General Beaurigard's decision to allow an individual, I think whose name was Pickens, to fire the first shot on Fort Sumter. In effect the Confederate states did seize Union property, i.e. Fort Sumter.

President Lincoln thereupon called for states to supply militias for the resulting fighting. The call went out to so-called "Border States" or slave states still in the Union, as well as free states. The Border States at the time were Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee (which eventually seceded) and Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware (which remained in the Union). The decision to resist the takeover of Federal property did lead to the secession of Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee and thus the wider Civil War.

The point I am making is that a negotiated secession, unless effectively a Federal surrender, is impossible. Quebec simply wouldn't have the money to pay for the Federal assets within its borders.

[g_bambino]

The point I am making is that a negotiated secession, unless effectively a Federal surrender, is impossible. Quebec simply wouldn't have the money to pay for the Federal assets within its borders.

I see what you're getting at, but don't think that's necessarily always the case. Regard how the UK gradually granted independence to all of its former colonies. It was a drawn out bargaining process that sometimes involved a continued British presence in a newly free state until said state was able to support itself; this took place in Canada at the end of the 19th century, and even as recently as Belize in the 1980s. I guess I'm saying that cordial enough deal-making should negate the need for violent conflict.

[jbg]

I see what you're getting at, but don't think that's necessarily always the case. Regard how the UK gradually granted independence to all of its former colonies. It was a drawn out bargaining process that sometimes involved a continued British presence in a newly free state until said state was able to support itself; this took place in Canada at the end of the 19th century, and even as recently as Belize in the 1980s.

That worked in some cases and not in others. The British demarche from India and Pakistan, and most of Africa, was an underwhelming success.

Remember, Canada and Australia were affluent at the time of independence and I assume that most of the internal improvements were locally funded. The same situation does not now apply with regard to Quebec.

I do appreciate your recognizing the substance of my argument though.

[Remiel]

Why would it not be the case that some federal assets (and debts) would not be transferred to Quebec in the first place? Quebec is a part of the federation, and the federal entity is not seperate from the federation itself, it is part of it.. Secession is not the parting of two entities, it is the forming of two entities where there was one.

[g_bambino]

Remember, Canada and Australia were affluent at the time of independence and I assume that most of the internal improvements were locally funded. The same situation does not now apply with regard to Quebec.

Hence I raised the example of Belize; hardly a wealthy nation, either at the time of its independence or now. It needed the help of the UK to become and remain sovereign, the British military not departing the country until more than a decade after full Belizean self-rule. I appreciate that the deconstruction of the British Empire may not have always been as smooth a process; but, I'm not aware of any instances, at least from Canadian Confederation on, wherein the British intentionally tried to instigate a discord when a region peacsefully and lawfully sought further autonomy from the Empire. In fact, India and Pakistan are the result of the Brits' attempt to broker a relationship acceptable to all parties; it unfortunately failed because of the religious and cultural ideologies of Indians and Pakistanis, not because of any iniquitous British stipulations.

The Scottish independence movement is another parallel: in the same, now centuries old tradition, Scots nationalists and Westminster ministers dance around each other politically, not violently; in contrast to the Irish (also republican, interestingly) nationalist effort. It's my opinion that Canada inherited the British penchant for discussion and proper legal process, and would adhere to that in the case of any province wishing to secede from Confederation.

_[+]

Edited August 29, 2009 by g_bambino

[WestViking]

There are several serious problems with an easy come easy go policy:

1. The fact that a seceding province would pick up a lot of unpaid-for internal improvements;
   
2. The fact that a seceding province would control major military assets of the former federal government (this proved to be a major problem in the civil war when Virginia, whose secession was delayed and somewhat unexpected, held control over the Hampton Naval Yards);
   
3. The fact that a formerly poor province (think AB or NFLD) could obtain years of equalization and other subsidies and then split when natural resources within their borders reaced the stage of commercial exploitation and royalty generation; and most importantly
   
4. The rights of citizens of the Federal unit within the seceded areas wishing to have the rights of Canadians (or Americans) and not wishing to trust what could be arbitrary grants or denials of privileges from what amounts to a revolutionary government.
   

I understand your point in theory. Even the Clarity Act's promise of a period of pre-secession "negotiations" is hollow if at the end the Federal entity is forced to grant the seceding province's wish.

A major factor driving confederation was to form a mutual defence against an American invasion. A large part of Ontario was settled by loyalists who left the US following the war of independence. New Brunswick was formed by UEL settlers from the USA. British Columbia joined confederation on the promise of a continental railway to link it to the east. Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta owed a large measure of their settlement and recognition as provinces to federal immigration initiatives and the railways that brought settlers west. Prior to confederation, Quebec was a booty prize that regularly moved between English and French control during the prolonged wars between those nations.

The War of 1812-14 arose through disputes between American and British naval forces in the West Indies. Canada was invaded because it was a British holding and handy, not because the US particularly coveted Canada. That particular war helped to make Britain look at the costs of protecting Canada and open to Canada’s confederation. A quote from a favourite resource:

The middle years of the 19th century were both satisfying and disturbing for British North Americans. Immigrants from Europe streamed into the colonies, more land was cleared and towns grew. Local industries were started while lumbering and shipbuilding activities increased. Montreal and Toronto became commercial centres and the ports of the Maritimes were prosperous, fuelled by ship building and trade. Transportation improved as roads, canals and. by the 1850s, railways were built. Some British North Americans looked beyond their borders and began to think of a federation of British colonies that included not only Canada and the Maritimes, but the Red River settlement and the colonies in British Columbia.

Despite the prosperity, there were reasons to consider such an alliance. Until the mid-1840s, the colonies had enjoyed a preferential trading relationship whereby Britain reduced tariffs on colonial products. This advantage was lost in 1846 when Britain adopted free trade. At first, the colonies found some advan¬tage in entering into a limited free trade arrangement with the United States. But the Americans allowed this Reciprocity Treaty of 1854 to lapse in 1866. British North Americans would have to look to themselves as trading partners.

There was also concern in British North America about the United States. That country seemed intent on fulfilling its "Manifest Destiny" to take over North America. The threat was especially clear during and after the American Civil War (1861-65). During the war, the Northern States were angered by British support for the South, and after the war, there was a fear that the large Northern army might march into British territory.

As well, there was a serious political problem in the colony of Canada. The union of Upper and Lower Canada in 1841 had resulted in the creation of a single legislature for the new colony, Canada. By the 1860s, however, this legislature was barely func¬tioning. No single party could gain enough support from both Francophones and Anglophones to gain a majority. There had been 12 different governments in 15 years, and Canadian politicians were desperate for a solution.

Three powerful figures in Canada's legisla¬ture, John A. Macdonald, George Brown and George-Etienne Cartier formed a coalition and proposed a larger union of British North America as a way to end the political dead¬lock. In addition, this proposal would solve the problem of trade and provide security against the American threat. Meanwhile, on the east coast there was interest in a union too, a union of the Maritimes. A conference had been called for Charlottetown in September 1864 to discuss that topic. When the leaders of the new Canadian coalition heard of this meeting, they asked for an invitation. At Charlottetown the British North American delegates decided on a federation of all the colonies. A second conference at Quebec in October 1864 resulted in a plan for federal union. A federal government would control defence, trade and other matters of national interest. Provincial governments would have power over local matters such as roads and education. The final details were hammered out at another conference in London, England, in 1866.

The British government, which supported the colonial initiative, passed the British North America Act in March of 1867. On July 1, 1867, the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario (formerly Canada West) and Quebec (formerly Canada East), became the Dominion of Canada.

[Leafless]

The U.S. is not held to extortion or ransom by ethnic, racial, geographic or linguistic minorities. The lesson of not giving in to minority interests was costly; and worth it.

The cultural floodgates could be beginning to creak open.

You are currently experiencing leadership based partly on race.

No one can accurately say where this will lead the U.S. and what the ramifications could be.

[Argus]

Why would it not be the case that some federal assets (and debts) would not be transferred to Quebec in the first place? Quebec is a part of the federation, and the federal entity is not seperate from the federation itself, it is part of it.. Secession is not the parting of two entities, it is the forming of two entities where there was one.

They would and should be. The problem arises when one party decides the other party is taking advantage of it, and neither will recognize or accept the arbitration of an unbiased, neutral third party.

Suppose Quebec says "We're not going to pay any of that national debt you people have run up. We're going to start free and clear with no debt." and refuses all compromise?

Suppose the feds then say, "Well then, you're taking out of confederation only what you put into it, therefore, we're keeping northern Quebec, which was not part of the territory you had on entry."

[jbg]

The cultural floodgates could be beginning to creak open. You are currently experiencing leadership based partly on race. No one can accurately say where this will lead the U.S. and what the ramifications could be.

You made what may be a good point.

That being said Osama's Obama's approval ratings are under 50%; one of the earliest such drops for any President. The mainstream of our country is far to his right. Recent events show that he cannot be all things to all people forever, and this is cutting his support to an ultimately very slender far left base. Given the practical need for 60 senators to carry legislation and the fact that it is impossible for the Democratic Party to club its members into submission (unlike the Canadian Parliament) future successes will indeed be elusive. I consider his re-election in 2012 to be unlikely. Highly unlikely maybe not, but still unlikely.

Edited August 30, 2009 by jbg

[Smallc]

You never thought he would get elected. Neither did I mind you.

[jbg]

You never thought he would get elected. Neither did I mind you.

Absoutely correct.

I underestimated both the force and the effect of the September financial system meltdown. Jack London's White Fang could have been elected if he ran on the Democratic ticket. And to give the devil his due Obama is quite the orator.

[Smallc]

That wasn't all his election was about though. Regardless, it's far too early to make any pronouncements about 2012.

[jbg]

That wasn't all his election was about though. Regardless, it's far too early to make any pronouncements about 2012.

Living here, and with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight (better than no sight at all) that was about 90% of the election. Similar to the 1988 election in your country being about free trade and the 2000 election being about Barney.