Saipan Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 For those that disagree with the 50%+1 condition, under what conditions would you accept Quebec sovereignty? Just like we did in Kosovo. FLQ ought to first kill lot of cops, soldiers, and politicians. Then the NATO ought to bomb Ottawa in case the PM wants to prevent it. And only then the UN (with NATO) would help the Quebecers to separate and be recognized as independed "state". Of course that doesn't apply to real states like say Tibet, if the country that objecting is too big. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNG Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 Just like we did in Kosovo. FLQ ought to first kill lot of cops, soldiers, and politicians. Then the NATO ought to bomb Ottawa in case the PM wants to prevent it. And only then the UN (with NATO) would help the Quebecers to separate and be recognized as independed "state". Of course that doesn't apply to real states like say Tibet, if the country that objecting is too big. Oh boy, do I ever wish I could disagree with you on this, but I can't. I'm so against it all, but it is all so true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 Just like we did in Kosovo. FLQ ought to first kill lot of cops, soldiers, and politicians. Then the NATO ought to bomb Ottawa in case the PM wants to prevent it. And only then the UN (with NATO) would help the Quebecers to separate and be recognized as independed "state". Of course that doesn't apply to real states like say Tibet, if the country that objecting is too big. Who are you and what did you do with Saipan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) What's a clear majority for you? Is it also 60%+1 like Smallc? It makes sense that the proportion should be comparable to what is required for other fundamental changes or what is required in other democratic federations that have provisions for secession. If 60% is a common standard, as has been suggested, that makes sense to me Edited June 7, 2011 by Evening Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 I think the 50+1% thing is laughable. Look at the vote in South Sudan. It was something like 97%+ in favour. When a people really want sovereignty, is is not ambiguous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 I think the 50+1% thing is laughable. Look at the vote in South Sudan. It was something like 97%+ in favour. When a people really want sovereignty, is is not ambiguous. It depends how many people vote too, I would say. If only 10% of people show up to the polls with a 97% result, that's not very democratic. That might not be what happened in Sudan, but I can see that being a possibility. I would like to see a condition where voter turnout has to exceed something like 70-75%. You can't have a 60% voter turnout with 51% voting for secession. That's only 30% of eligible voters choosing the fate of the province. Everyone seems to be focused on the vote. When I asked conditions, I was curious if anyone had any other ideas about what would have to be met, as well as their benchmark for a referendum vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scouterjim Posted June 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 Quebec can go, but only within the 1867 borders of the province. The rest of the territory was mistakenly given to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) Just want to point out to all the Conservatives in this thread yelling at Quebec that they wont be the ones who decide if they stay or leave this country. NFLD joined Canada with a 52-48% vote in a REFERENDUM this was only a few months after the No side had already won the same referendum. At the time 800 votes decided it. I know you think that is enough for NFLD to join Canada but not enough for Quebec to leave. Jack just isn't so hypocritical and stupid. Edited June 7, 2011 by punked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 I would like to see a condition where voter turnout has to exceed something like 70-75%. You can't have a 60% voter turnout with 51% voting for secession. Voter turnout in the last Quebec referendum was 97%. But the question you raised is one I have an answer to. In my opinion, the criteria for seperation should not be measured by percentage of the vote, but by percentage of the voters. At the very least, 50+1% of 100% is not contestable as being a possible minority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battletoads Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 What do you think it should be? 55%+1? 60%+1? 70%+1? ect... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 Two thirds of voters plus one vote would be sufficient, I think. Some may think that too high, but I think most people could agree at least that if it were more than that, it would very definitely be unambiguously in favour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 Two thirds of voters plus one vote would be sufficient, I think. Some may think that too high, but I think most people could agree at least that if it were more than that, it would very definitely be unambiguously in favour. To late our country already said 50%+1 was good enough when it let NFLD join with just that. You don't get to treat Quebec differently that has been the whole problem all along. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 (edited) To late our country already said 50%+1 was good enough when it let NFLD join with just that. You don't get to treat Quebec differently that has been the whole problem all along. I'm all for letting Quebec go if they want, but you have to realize, joining and seceding are two different things. Setting a "precedent" for one does not imply that a precedent has been set for the other. Edited June 7, 2011 by Bonam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 I'm all for letting Quebec go if they want, but you have to realize, joining and seceding are two different things. Setting a "precedent" for one does not imply that a precedent has been set for the other. How are they two different things? Please do tell. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 How are they two different things? Please do tell. How are they not different? Do I need to get out dictionary definitions of "joining" and "seceding"? These are two very different actions with different meanings. Pretty close to opposites, in fact. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 7, 2011 Report Share Posted June 7, 2011 How are they not different? Do I need to get out dictionary definitions of "joining" and "seceding"? These are two very different actions with different meanings. Pretty close to opposites, in fact. Both are group of people who are determined by their geographic range deciding how the government, Resources, culture etc should be run. You can't say "The People of NFLD joined Canada with 52% of the vote agreeing to share their resources, government, GDP and culture with Canada, but we wont let Quebec have the same rights." The rules for one should apply to the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Remiel Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 Both are group of people who are determined by their geographic range deciding how the government, Resources, culture etc should be run. You can't say "The People of NFLD joined Canada with 52% of the vote agreeing to share their resources, government, GDP and culture with Canada, but we wont let Quebec have the same rights." The rules for one should apply to the other. Did we, though? In 1949, it was still the British government that had the final legislative say, both on allowing Newfoundland to secede from them and on joining us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 How are they two different things? Please do tell. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ygI3BZxdCY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 Did we, though? In 1949, it was still the British government that had the final legislative say, both on allowing Newfoundland to secede from them and on joining us. Yes but our government the CANADIAN government let them in as well. Again we said 50+1 is good enough to get in this country and dissolve your own country to do that (again I remind you the vote was won by 800 votes or so) but 50+1 isn't good enough to leave and create your own country. That is a stupid double standard. However again I point out English Canada having this debate with out French Canada is the very reason which leads Quebec to feel they need to separate. It is a dumb debate we need to put behind us so we can look at the future. The NDP a Federalist party has Crushed the Bloc and everyday another Parti Quebecois leaves. 4 have left their caucus in the last week. Now is not the time to have this debate now is the time to show Quebec English Canada believes they need to be a part of this country and we are willing to work WITH them. It was that message that won Jack so many seats. Conservatives are going to destroy our best chance of making Canada whole by trying to take pot shots at Layton. If they kill this chance I and many other Canadians will never forget it. History will remember this time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 For those that disagree with the 50%+1 condition, under what conditions would you accept Quebec sovereignty? None. Quebec is a province and nothing more. Their powers are limited and they have no rights to "sovereignty" other than what is given to them as a province. Period. Any - and I mean any - such rights can only be conferred by the rest of the Canadians. This isn't a Quebec-only question and never will be no matter how hard the separatiste dreamers want to dream. Quebec have 75% +1 and Canada is not obligated in the least and neither are the First Nations people in Quebec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 (edited) None. Quebec is a province and nothing more. Their powers are limited and they have no rights to "sovereignty" other than what is given to them as a province. Period. Any - and I mean any - such rights can only be conferred by the rest of the Canadians. This isn't a Quebec-only question and never will be no matter how hard the separatiste dreamers want to dream. Quebec have 75% +1 and Canada is not obligated in the least and neither are the First Nations people in Quebec. Sure, but is there a point at which you would decide it's not worth it to keep a province in the country against their will? Edited June 8, 2011 by Evening Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 What Smallc said... as well as the fact that the younger generation of francophone Quebecois despise the older generation's obsession with sovereignty while ignoring real problems in the province. The majority of Quebecois are tired of the sovereignty debate. That is why the NDP is now in the HC from Quebec. PQ may be elected to a minority government in Quebec next year, but it's not because the population is begging for sovereignty.. it's because they are tired of the PLQ. They've also spread their vote around to help ensure that the PQ doesn't get too crazy (last poll only 34% support the PQ which is down from the last election) "Ever again" doesn't mean "in the near and foreseeable future". Who knows what conditions may arise at some point in the future? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madmax Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 Because he doesnt , and they dont. Where does this BS come from? The left doesnt love this country, anyone who opposes Harper doesnt love this country. Really kind of pathetic....amusing but pathetic. Could the left hate Insurance people instead Seriously, this is one of those Crazy Palin type threads. Made up by the Looney Right. Great for trolling and could make the original poster a candidate for Fox News. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oleg Bach Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 The definition of an NDPer is a unionized postal worker walking though Rosedale delivering the mail - and coveting what is not his. Leftist are all wanna be capitialists but they were not born in privledge. Given the chance the left would steal from the right. So what they do is attempt to enter the realm of the rightist and take the silver ware. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted June 8, 2011 Report Share Posted June 8, 2011 Could the left hate Insurance people instead Could? Most do already. Seriously, this is one of those Crazy Palin type threads. Made up by the Looney Right. Great for trolling and could make the original poster a candidate for Fox News. Ya got that right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.