Layton clarifies position on referendum majority

[RNG]

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

My assertion was based on the extremely hostile response from all of the Quebec provincial parties. And the innuendo of both the CTV and CBC articles. But you just keep on drinking the NDP cool-aid.

[RNG]

http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/canada/article/872169--layton-tries-to-clear-air-on-quebec-separation

Pressed about whether the NDP still recognizes the 50 per cent level, the furthest Layton would go was to say: "It's there in our declaration."

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/decision-canada/Quebec+separation+issue+dogs/4834188/story.html#ixzz1NWKeJv7U

The question on the table: Does the NDP still believe a 50-per-cent-plus-one score is enough for Quebec to separate or does his party back the Clarity Act passed by the old Liberal government of Jean Chrétien after the close 1995 referendum?

The NDP voted in favour of the Clarity Act, which allows the House of Commons to decide if a referendum question is clear, but has on its books the 2005 Sherbrooke Declaration which says the National Assembly is free to write a question and that 50 per cent plus one is enough to decide on secession.

http://www.canada.com/business/Separation+issue+dogs+Jack+Layton/4835151/story.html

On Tuesday, a day that was supposed to be devoted to the historic victory caucus of the 103 NDP MPs elected May 2, the issue became a storm cloud hovering over Layton's head at a news conference.

He wound up dodging and weaving when asked to explain how to reconcile the contradiction.

I could go on. Google is your friend. But you have started to bore me.

[pegasus]

Quotes please.

9 times on Tuesday, http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/cent+plus+Layton+says+bluntly/4846402/story.html Jack was asked if he would follow the "clarity act". He skirted the question 9 times. The "clarity act" specifically implies a "clear question" and a "clear majority". 50% plus 1 is not a clear majority.

Voter turnout in the last referendum was 92 percent. Out of 4.67 million votes cast, the two sides were separated by about 50,000. http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9510/canada/10-31/

That leaves about 373,600 people who did not vote.

Unless you get a 100% turnout rate for the next neverendum, a 50% plus 1 result is not a clear majority. And you will never get a 100% turnout for any election, because some people may be unable or unwilling to vote for one reason or another.

But now, after the Quebec Provincial politicians go whacko on Jack's non-committal answer, he agrees that a simple 50% plus 1 is enough to drive a wedge through the country.

So Jack, are you in agreement with the Clarity Act or not? To me he appears not to.

[pegasus]

"MONTREAL - It shouldn't be asking too much of Jack Layton, newly elected leader of the official Opposition in the federal Parliament, to state perfectly clearly where he stands on the Clarity ActBut given the opportunity to do so at this week's first meeting of the lately expanded New Democratic Party caucus, Layton shied away from doing so.

He continued fudging the issue, as he did during the election campaign, essentially saying sort-of-yes and no to the question of whether he and his party support the act's provisions. When asked if he agrees, as do some of his newcomer Quebec MPs, that a Yes vote of 50 per cent plus one in a Quebec sovereignty referendum would be sufficient, he said only that he agrees with the Supreme Court of Canada ruling of 1998, the precursor to the Clarity Act passed the following year, without actually mentioning the act.

That ruling stipulated that the Canadian government would have to enter into negotiations with the Quebec government if Quebecers expressed a clear will to secede. The Clarity Act, which the NDP supported when it came to a Commons vote, stipulates that the federal Parliament has the power to decide if the question posed in any subsequent sovereignty referendum is sufficiently clear, and to determine if any vote in favour of secession is a clear enough expression of Quebecers' will, with the strong implication that more than 50 per cent plus one would be required.

However, in an effort to overcome its longstanding liability in this province, which is that Quebecers inclined to support the NDP's social policies also tend to be of sovereignist persuasion, the party adopted something called the Sherbrooke Declaration at a convention six years ago. This clearly repudiated the Clarity Act, in that it stipulates that in the event of another referendum an NDP federal government would basically stand aside and let Quebec's National Assembly dictate what the question will be, and that it would accept 50 plus one as a clear enough endorsement of secession. Asked about that, Layton said the Sherbrooke declaration stands as party policy.

Such weaseling on such a vital matter is disturbing coming from the leader of what has become Canada's alternative governing party. The last referendum, in 1995, clearly demonstrated the need for something like the Clarity Act.

The question posed at the time was not only deliberately unclear, but decidedly misleading: "Do you agree that Quebec 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 Quebec and of the agreement signed on 12 June 1995?"

To people who don't follow politics closely, probably a majority of Quebecers, the reference to an agreement might suggest there was an agreement of sorts for continued formal ties to Canada, a comforting thought to nationalist-minded Quebecers reluctant to endorse a hard break with the rest of the country. In fact, it referred to an agreement among the leaders of the Parti Québécois, the Bloc Québécois and Action démocratique du Québec to join forces for the Yes campaign.

A clear question would be something along the lines of: "Do you want Quebec to become a sovereign country separate from Canada?" In neither of the two referendums thus far has the question remotely approached such a level of clarity. (Polling support for sovereignty tends to drop proportionately to the clarity of the question put to respondents.)

Similarly, a 50-per-cent-plus-one vote for separation not only falls below international standards for such votes, but should be considered practically insufficient even by sovereignists, since that majority support could readily fade in the face of difficulties involved in enacting a unilateral secession. This would surely have been the case had the 1995 result been reversed and the PQ government attempted a hostile secession on the strength of 50.6-per-cent support. In any case, subject peoples who truly want independence tend to vote for it 90 per cent-plus if given the opportunity.

Jack Layton surely knows all this. Perhaps he needs to be reminded that his full title now is Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Repudiating the Clarity Act implies a lack of loyalty to Canada and its preservation, and makes Layton appear unworthy of his new office."

http://www.montrealgazette.com/opinion/editorials/time+Layton+clear+Clarity/4841243/story.html

Edited May 27, 2011 by pegasus

[bloodyminded]

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.

If they couldn't do it with elected, substantial political representation, they won't be able to do it without.

[Smallc]

If they couldn't do it with elected, substantial political representation, they won't be able to do it without.

Who? The separatists? They don't need to elect anyone to Ottawa to be able to leave.

[Evening Star]

The Gazette editorial is swaying me on the numbers question, actually.

[Sir Bandelot]

Jack Layton is a federalist, and his party was chosen by the majority of Quebecers to represent them in Ottawa. If he wants respect from all Canadians he should use his new position to strengthen federalism in Quebec, not be vague and not entertain any ideas of seperatism. Politicians: know what you are, and be what you are! Do not try to be all things to all people!

Mr. Layton should unabashedly stand fast in support of federalism, he was never elected on any kind of seperatist mandate and should not make any concessions, whatsoever to that concept.

Edited May 27, 2011 by Sir Bandelot