Duceppe Wants Another Referendum on Separation

[Machjo]

Yah too bad the last time there was a referendum in 1995 the first nations had their own referendum where they said they would separate from Quebec to stay with Canada. Their land is where all that Hydro comes from so Quebec wouldn't have the Hydro Canada would.

Good point.

[Wild Bill]

In the past, Quebec voters have been promised that saying yes to sovereignty doesn't mean separation and that they wouldn't have to give up things they like. I suspect that many Quebec voters still believe they could approach sovereignty like a buffet. I hope that whenever another separation referendum comes around, Canada has a leader who will make it clear to them that Canada will not agree to some sort of semi-attached arrangement.

-k

Quite true, Kimmy! I think perhaps Machjo and others are too young to remember the Referendum of 1980, when Trudeau cut through all the lies and outright misrepresentations of the BQ and PQ to clearly tell Quebecers that separation meant they were ALL the way out! No EI payments, no old age pensions, no nothing!

A quick google supports the fact that huge numbers of Quebecers have a "buffet" idea of any "after the fact" separation situation. Here's one of the links:

http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/aia/index.asp?lang=eng&Page=archive&Sub=speeches-discours&Doc=20000519-eng.htm

"In May 1980 a poll indicated that only 46% of voters understood that a sovereign Quebec would no longer be part of Canada. In October 1995 a poll revealed that the same proportion of voters, only 46%, understood that the question meant that Quebec would become independent even if the negotiations on the political and economic partnership were to fail (Maurice Pinard, "Confusion and Misunderstanding Surrounding the Sovereignist Option," brief submitted to the parliamentary committee on Bill C-20, February 2000).

The separatist leaders claim that the high voter turnout in the 1995 referendum is proof that the voters understood what was at stake. That claim is, of course, erroneous. It is obvious that many voters went to the polls believing in good faith that sovereignty was linked to a successful agreement on political and economic partnership.

Any proper referendum process requires a clear question. That is true everywhere, in Quebec as elsewhere. In 1980 and again in 1995, the question was not clear. Indeed, that was the opinion of the voters themselves. According to sociologist Maurice Pinard, "Just before the 1995 referendum, only 46% [once again, 46%!] of the voters asked said that the referendum question, which had just been read to them, was ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ clear; in fact, 53% said on the contrary that it was ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ ambiguous."

This is the basis for the Clarity Act, first proposed by the Reform/Alliance Party and then "stolen" by the Liberals, implanting a legal constraint that any referendum question on separation must be absolutely clear.

Separatists were angry, of course. Part of their approach had always been to make Quebecers believe that TROC would be calm and rational about any separation, that logic would dictate that everyone would act in their own sensible interests. The very idea is ridiculous, of course. Separation would be the mother of all divorces and who could imagine such a divorce not being highly emotional! Citizens in TROC would be hurt and angry. Woe to any MP who advocated giving anything to Quebec, fair or not fair! He would be trounced at the next election and run out of town on a rail!

No, Separatists implied to the citizens of la belle province that separatism would only mean that they would totally run their own country but all the money, customs and federal benefits of before would still be in place. They were not worried about having to deliver. As Parizeau said during his referendum, when asked about what would happen to Quebecers if and when a separation meant financial difficulties. He just smiled and replied " They will be lobsters in the pot!" IOW, it would be too late. They would be committed and unable to go back.

[Machjo]

Quebec could regret this if it separated. After all, it would undoubtedly mean reopening the constitution, and the First Nations treaties would quickly be at the forefront and seeing the international comunity has some sympathy for the First Nations, both Quebec and the ROC would likely quickly change their minds as they see that both Quebec and the ROC would stand to lose much land.

[William Ashley]

Duceppe is gearing up for another referendum on separation, I don't think he'll get it, but I see elsewhere that the lefties are blaming this on Harper. Ho Hum - LOL

http://www.muchmormagazine.com/2010/04/duceppe-begins-the-first-leg-of-a-cross-country-tour-to-get-canadians-opinions-about-quebec-sovereignty/

So do it. Hell do it for all of Canada - let the seperatist albertans see if they really wanna leave. Lets see what is left of Canada... all at one.. see what happens.

Personally I think advocating an autonomous point on that big barren island in the gulf is a good first start for self government of the Quebecqois. (and it would develope the island)

It happened to the USSR.

Edited June 12, 2010 by William Ashley

[Leafless]

"Nation" can mean more than a country, but for the context in which we're speaking, a nation (i.e. a state) is a politically organised body of people under a single government. Like Quebec.

[+]

State='The territory occupied by one of the constituent administrative districts of a nation'.

province-'The territory occupied by one of the constituent administrative districts of a nation'.

Settled---Quebec is a province.

[seabee]

« Settled---Quebec is a province. »

and the Québécois form a nation which forms the vast majority of the population of said province.

And the federal Dominion of Canada is a country, but it is not a nation.

[Wild Bill]

Quebec could regret this if it separated. After all, it would undoubtedly mean reopening the constitution, and the First Nations treaties would quickly be at the forefront and seeing the international comunity has some sympathy for the First Nations, both Quebec and the ROC would likely quickly change their minds as they see that both Quebec and the ROC would stand to lose much land.

Why? Quebec would likely simply ignore the Canadian Constitution! They could simply claim that as a sovereign nation they are not bound by another country's laws and institutions.

Of course, the First Nations peoples in Quebec would have their own feelings about such matters. It would be interesting to see how an independent Quebec would handle them. Oka and other issues have shown us that Quebec tends to lead with a heavy hand and then whine to the feds when the situation escalates to a dangerous level. If they were independent there would be no Mounties or federal army to call in!

Likely they would eventually be forced to cede some land but it would be a nasty situation.

[Machjo]

Why? Quebec would likely simply ignore the Canadian Constitution! They could simply claim that as a sovereign nation they are not bound by another country's laws and institutions.

Of course, the First Nations peoples in Quebec would have their own feelings about such matters. It would be interesting to see how an independent Quebec would handle them. Oka and other issues have shown us that Quebec tends to lead with a heavy hand and then whine to the feds when the situation escalates to a dangerous level. If they were independent there would be no Mounties or federal army to call in!

Likely they would eventually be forced to cede some land but it would be a nasty situation.

I agree that most Quebecers run roughshod over treaties and the historical leitimacy of its first Nations and Inuit. But remember how the Oka crisis raised sympathy for the Mohawks even as far away as Germany. If Quebec decided to continue doing this as an independent nation, any good will among foreign friends of its would quickly be diluted. A new nation needs to develop friends internationally. Thus Quebec's treatment of the First Nations and Inuit could make or break the new nation.

[Wild Bill]

I agree that most Quebecers run roughshod over treaties and the historical leitimacy of its first Nations and Inuit. But remember how the Oka crisis raised sympathy for the Mohawks even as far away as Germany. If Quebec decided to continue doing this as an independent nation, any good will among foreign friends of its would quickly be diluted. A new nation needs to develop friends internationally. Thus Quebec's treatment of the First Nations and Inuit could make or break the new nation.

We're not arguing the same point, Machjo! You are arguing about what could happen to an independent Quebec and I am arguing about what an independent Quebec might actually DO!

If you'll allow me to cross-thread a bit, the separatistes in the BQ and PQ have always struck me as strong academics. They may be intelligent people but they are pursuing emotional goals and supporting their methods with rationalizations. Like most academics, their raw intelligence makes them very good at these rationalizations but they can be dangerously wrong on many ideas as to what would actually happen if they achieved their goals.

They could really use a few tradespeople in their caucus! A tradesperson instinctively knows that if you put the big stuff on top of the little stuff it will likely fall over. An academic thinks it's all a matter of political will and if it does fall over it's no big deal as long as you have someone else to take the blame!

That is the danger of having too exclusively an academic education. School text examples tend to use simplified models, often from areas not pertinent to the problem at hand. Everything has its own details and usually trying to apply simple solutions from a book model means inappropriate approaches that don't work or can make the problem worse.

"Raised in isolation" from the "real world", academics can often be blissfully ignorant of their ignorance! If you never experience the details of such problems you can too easily believe that you understand and are capable of handling many situations that are outside your actual skill sets. A high intelligence may mean you can be very logical but you can logically prove anything if you lack any contradictory factors to your premise.

No cat has eight tails. Every cat has one tail more than no cat!

Therefore, all cats have nine tails.

Perfectly logical, if you have never seen a cat.

[Smallc]

Why? Quebec would likely simply ignore the Canadian Constitution! They could simply claim that as a sovereign nation they are not bound by another country's laws and institutions.

Ummm, no, under international law, they in fact couldn't do that.

[Wild Bill]

Ummm, no, under international law, they in fact couldn't do that.

And who would stop them? Who would hear the case? Who would, if necessary, send in "police" to enforce any ruling?

Do you really think that if some UN committee told them "NO!" that they would just say "OH! So sorry! We will of course abide by your ruling!"

[Bonam]

Ummm, no, under international law, they in fact couldn't do that.

Oh yes I'm sure they'd be so afraid of "international law". Maybe some third world leaders would moan about it in the UN for a few days, until the next time some Palestinian got killed, then Quebec would be forgotten and could do what they wanted.

[Smallc]

Oh yes I'm sure they'd be so afraid of "international law". Maybe some third world leaders would moan about it in the UN for a few days, until the next time some Palestinian got killed, then Quebec would be forgotten and could do what they wanted.

Ummm, no, I'm saying that they would still belong to Canada, and that someone like the Us would never allow them to leave if they didn't satisfy the requirements and we didn't want them to.

[Smallc]

And who would stop them? Who would hear the case? Who would, if necessary, send in "police" to enforce any ruling?

Do you really think that if some UN committee told them "NO!" that they would just say "OH! So sorry! We will of course abide by your ruling!"

Well, they may in fact abide by a court ruling, but there is nothing to stop us from securing our category if they don't satisfy the requirements to leave. In a federation, you can't do anything unilaterally....especially given the security agreement we have with the US where our forces and theirs can be deployed to opposite sides of the border quire easily.

[Bonam]

Ummm, no, I'm saying that they would still belong to Canada, and that someone like the Us would never allow them to leave if they didn't satisfy the requirements and we didn't want them to.

So now the US is going to force Quebec to remain a part of Canada? What?

[Moonlight Graham]

It also drives investment out of Quebec.

and brings down property values. I live in Ottawa. I could move 10 minutes across the pond and save a load of cash.

[Smallc]

So now the US is going to force Quebec to remain a part of Canada? What?

If they haven't satisfied international requirements, why not? The requirements on Quebec to separate are very high, because they aren't being brought down by Canada. There is an agreement in place where Canada can call on US troops to help in a situation where it is necessary and vice versa. I believe it only requires military to military communication (this is separate from NORAD). The US has actually used it a couple times, but I'm not sure if we have as of yet.

[GostHacked]

Could it be considered treason to even promote an idea of separation?

[Smallc]

Could it be considered treason to even promote an idea of separation?

If you tried to unilaterally separate without doing it through democratically means....it certainly wouldn't be legal....I'm not sure if it would meet the definition for treason though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason#Canada

[g_bambino]

State='The territory occupied by one of the constituent administrative districts of a nation'.

province-'The territory occupied by one of the constituent administrative districts of a nation'.

Settled---Quebec is a province.

A province with its own distinct system of governance exercising a certain amount of sovereignty over its territory (and the remaining sovereignty delegated to a federal polity by free will), making it a state, in the geopolitical sense. "Nation" is frequently used as a synonym for "state".

[Leafless]

"Nation" is frequently used as a synonym for "state".

Yes certainly, just like nation and country.

[g_bambino]

Yes certainly, just like nation and country.

Right. So, in that sense, Quebec is a nation (though it's not the word I'd employ, given its multiple meanings).

[Leafless]

Right. So, in that sense, Quebec is a nation (though it's not the word I'd employ, given its multiple meanings).

I think Mr. Harper made an error designating Quebec 'a nation within Canada' as their definition of nation is different than the standard definition and includes nationalistic ideologies.

A nation is a community of individuals cemented together by a sense of solidarity and wishing to perpetuate its existence in the future

http://faculty.marianopolis.edu/c.belanger/quebechistory/events/natpart1.htm

[g_bambino]

I think Mr. Harper made an error designating Quebec 'a nation within Canada'...

He didn't do any such thing. Parliament passed a motion recognising the Québécois as a nation within Canada. Québécois is an undefined term; it does not necessarily mean Quebecer and certainly doesn't mean Quebec, which is precisely why that specific word was chosen.

[Jack Weber]

Frankly,I don't think what Quebec seperatists call themselves will matter in the event of secession...

"Dead" might be one they might want to learn...

Edited June 14, 2010 by Jack Weber