Layton clarifies position on referendum majority

[RNG]

Apparently all of the Quebec provincial parties immediately dumped on Layton for his initial comments. They all interpreted it to mean he was suggesting the federal government had the right to arbitrarily say there must be an X% yes vote for the measure to be validated. Now he is backing off but I guess there is still grumbling in Quebec. The title of this post is the headline from the CBC story (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2011/05/26/quebec-reaction-layton-referendum.html).

From CTV (http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20110526/layton-quebec-110526/)

QUEBEC — Quebec's political parties have banded together to take the NDP's Jack Layton to task, in an early hint of the political challenges he will face in his new role as Opposition leader.

All three provincial parties agree the province would need only a simple majority in a referendum -- 50 per cent plus one vote -- in order to separate from Canada.

Their statements come a day after Layton carefully tiptoed around the question of how many votes it would take.

The episode is an early example of what could prove to be a perennial dilemma for Layton as Opposition leader, now that he has supplanted the Bloc Quebecois: how to satisfy his new supporters in Quebec, without alienating others in the rest of Canada?

On Wednesday, Layton seemed to endorse the decade-old Clarity Act, which sets conditions for Quebec independence.

The Act is unpopular amongst nationalist Quebecers -- and is repudiated by all political parties in the province -- because it gives the House of Commons the right to decide what constitutes a clear referendum question.

Layton also shied away from reporters' repeated invitations to explicitly state whether he supports a popular position in Quebec that 50 per cent plus one vote is enough to secede.

What say you Quebecers and interested parties.

Edited May 26, 2011 by RNG

[bloodyminded]

Apparently all of the Quebec provincial parties immediately dumped on Layton for his initial comments. They all interpreted it to mean he was suggesting the federal government had the right to arbitrarily say there must be an X% yes vote for the measure to be validated. Now he is backing off but I guess there is still grumbling in Quebec. The title is the headline from the CBC story (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2011/05/26/quebec-reaction-layton-referendum.html).

From CTV (http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20110526/layton-quebec-110526/)

What say you Quebecers and interested parties.

I say this is no surprise. A win in Quebec is guaranteed some serious headaches.

[Tilter]

I say this is no surprise. A win in Quebec is guaranteed some serious headaches.

As an ex Quebekker I'd say that the agreement to split has to include at least 100 billion bux in aid for an emerging nation :lol:

[Moonbox]

Layton just committed political suicide outside of Quebec. This is something the Liberals and the Conservatives will hang him on next election and he'll flop so hard in Ontario because of this it won't be funny. 51% for Quebec to secede? Right. Not going to happen. With the number of crybaby whiners boneheaded French Canadians there are in his party, the NDP is just going to end up the spiritual successor of the Bloc with the pretense of being a national party.

Jack Layton the joke everyone. Stand back and watch the show.

[Evening Star]

Wasn't a simple majority sufficient in the 1980 and 1995 referenda?

--

OK, read the article. Layton supports the Clarity Act, which afaik applies to the wording of the referendum question itself. He also supports the idea that a simple majority is enough to decide a referendum. Both are positions I agree with and don't sound that different from the positions of other parties.

Edited May 26, 2011 by Evening Star

[noahbody]

The Act is unpopular amongst nationalist Quebecers -- and is repudiated by all political parties in the province -- because it gives the House of Commons the right to decide what constitutes a clear referendum question.

So basically Quebecers are saying, "We wish we had known your views on clarity before we voted, because we're against clarity before we vote." No irony there at all.

[RNG]

Wasn't a simple majority sufficient in the 1980 and 1995 referenda?

--

OK, read the article. Layton supports the Clarity Act, which afaik applies to the wording of the referendum question itself. He also supports the idea that a simple majority is enough to decide a referendum. Both are positions I agree with and don't sound that different from the positions of other parties.

The way I read the story, the problem is that his statement two days ago implied that he felt the feds could set what percentage yes vote was needed to trigger action. That's yer problem!

[WWWTT]

Layton just committed political suicide outside of Quebec. This is something the Liberals and the Conservatives will hang him on next election and he'll flop so hard in Ontario because of this it won't be funny. 51% for Quebec to secede? Right. Not going to happen. With the number of crybaby whiners boneheaded French Canadians there are in his party, the NDP is just going to end up the spiritual successor of the Bloc with the pretense of being a national party.

Jack Layton the joke everyone. Stand back and watch the show.

Man your comments are freakin funny!

Keep up the good work and all the best on your predictions!

Good luck buddy!

WWWTT

[CPCFTW]

Wasn't a simple majority sufficient in the 1980 and 1995 referenda?

--

OK, read the article. Layton supports the Clarity Act, which afaik applies to the wording of the referendum question itself. He also supports the idea that a simple majority is enough to decide a referendum. Both are positions I agree with and don't sound that different from the positions of other parties.

You agree that quebec should be able to secede from canada simply because 50.1% of quebecers (concentrated mainly in and around quebec city) voted to? You're not much of a Canadian if you agree with that position. That's our land, some entitled frenchies don't have some kind of noble right to all that land. If quebec city wants to secede into some kind of pathetic nation-state then that's fine, but the rest of quebec should not be subjugated to the will of the francophones in quebec city.

[TimG]

He also supports the idea that a simple majority is enough to decide a referendum.

It takes 60%+ to change our voting systems in most provinces. The idea that 50%+1 represents a mandate to push through such radical change goes against every democratic tradition everywhere. In the few places where a referendum was used to justify a breakup the percentage was far greater than 50%+1. Edited May 27, 2011 by TimG

[Remiel]

That's our land, some entitled frenchies don't have some kind of noble right to all that land.

Funny; with an attitude and a mouth like that I don't reckon you are much of a Canadian either.

[Keepitsimple]

With so many Quebeckers abandoning the Bloc and voting for a Federalist Party, it's pretty dumb of Layton to get caught up in this issue. He has very little experience of being in the spotlight where people are actually LISTENING to what he says. That being said, the importance of the Clarity Act - IMO - is not so much the "clear majority" but the fact that a "clear question" must be approved by Parliament. If you'll remember the idiotic question from the 1995 referendum:

Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Québec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?.

If there is a next time, you can bet that the question will be a tad more direct - and consequential.

[TimG]

If there is a next time, you can bet that the question will be a tad more direct - and consequential.

The 50%+1 is necessary to allow the clarity act to be enforced. If the federal government is non-committal on the exact percentage then that puts pressure on the PQ to be clear because an unclear question might be ignored. If the federal government commits 50%+1 on any question then the PQ will have a free hand to be a confusing as possible. Layton is idiotic for caving on this.

[RNG]

You are all skirting the fact that supposedly, two days ago he was saying that the feds could declare that an X% majority would be needed to "win". And after all the Quebec provincial parties dumped on him he folded like a two-buck suitcase. Way to go, Happy Jack!

[punked]

You are all skirting the fact that supposedly, two days ago he was saying that the feds could declare that an X% majority would be needed to "win". And after all the Quebec provincial parties dumped on him he folded like a two-buck suitcase. Way to go, Happy Jack!

Quotes please.

[RNG]

Quotes please.

Go to the OP and click on the CTV link I posted.

[punked]

Go to the OP and click on the CTV link I posted.

Yah I did, it seems like you are putting your own spin on things here.

[RNG]

Yah I did, it seems like you are putting your own spin on things here.

From the OP, which is from the CTV article -

Layton also shied away from reporters' repeated invitations to explicitly state whether he supports a popular position in Quebec that 50 per cent plus one vote is enough to secede.

What more do you want?

[ReeferMadness]

What a tool. Open up the separation issue and make a statement that most Canadians outside of Quebec will find objectionable. Way to go, Jack.

[punked]

From the OP, which is from the CTV article -

What more do you want?

That does not support what you said at all. Go back and read what I quoted and asked for a quote for please. Again I feel like your spin is far far off base and you though no one would call you on it.

As for Layton's position if people (The Liberals and the media) would stop playing politics with Separation and using it as a wedge issue it would be put to rest. Quebec supported a Federalist party what more do you people want from that Federalist party and Quebec? Do you want them all to go out and learn English? This attack Quebec and anyone they support is what got us to Separation in the first place. Christ stop daring them to Separate and they will stop trying to Separate it is that simple.

Why does English Canada have to put on a Chicken suit every 10 years and start clucking at Quebec? We killed the Separatist and now we are arguing about Separatist? Doesn't that seem like a moot and Stupid point?

Edited May 27, 2011 by punked

[RNG]

That does not support what you said at all. Go back and read what I quoted and asked for a quote for please. Again I feel like your spin is far far off base and you though no one would call you on it.

As for Layton's position if people (The Liberals and the media) would stop playing politics with Separation and using it as a wedge issue it would be put to rest. Quebec supported a Federalist party what more do you people want from that Federalist party and Quebec? Do you want them all to go out and learn English? This attack Quebec and anyone they support is what got us to Separation in the first place. Christ stop daring to Separate and they will stop trying to Separate it is that simple.

Why does English Canada have to put on a Chicken suit every 10 years and start clucking at Quebec? We killed the Separatist and now we are arguing about Separatist? Doesn't that seem like a moot and Stupid point?

From the CBC news article -

"As far as we are concerned, this decision will be taken here in Quebec and the answer is 50 per cent plus one," Moreau said.

"If Mr. Layton has a different opinion he's free to express it. But that won't change the rule that applies here," Moreau added.

Full story - http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/05/26/quebec-reaction-layton-referendum.html

[punked]

From the CBC news article -

Full story - http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/05/26/quebec-reaction-layton-referendum.html

Still doesn't prove what you asserted. That is why I asked for quotes.

[Smallc]

At least on the issue of the question, it proves that Layton hasn't really thought things through. Perhaps I was wrong to want him in the opposition.

[punked]

At least on the issue of the question, it proves that Layton hasn't really thought things through. Perhaps I was wrong to want him in the opposition.

Why because he got Quebec to through the Separatist out of office?

[Smallc]

Why because he got Quebec to through the Separatist out of office?

No, because he's being very shortsighted. There will probably be a separatist government in Quebec City soon, and no one should want them to be the ones to determine a sovereignty question, given their history on such things. You may think that the NDP has killed the separatists, but that isn't even close to reality. You've simply managed to move them out of Ottawa.