NDP shows their true colours,and how they hate Canada.

[Smallc]

You are wrong. The basis of any contract is essentially the goodwill of the parties to the contract.

Not when there's legal ramifications to breaking the contract. Quebec cannot unilaterally separate.

[WLDB]

Not when there's legal ramifications to breaking the contract.

Such as? Short of military intervention I doubt there's much we can do if they decided to leave.

[fellowtraveller]

Not when there's legal ramifications to breaking the contract. Quebec cannot unilaterally separate.

You have the cart well before the horse.

Having legal ramifications does not prevent anybody from breaking a contract. If the cost is too high, it may slow somebody down. IMO, getting sued by Canada or PEI for breaking the federation contract with a unilateral withdrawal would be way down the 'to-do' list for Quebec with a unilateral separation.

If you claim lie others here that the 11 party contract cannot be unilaterally broken, you are wrong. It happens hundreds if not thousands of times every day in Canada. That the scope of the contract is smaller than this one does not matter at all in a legal sense.

My point is that nobody sane would depend on legal niceties like the Clarity Act to keep Quebec or any party from acting.

[g_bambino]

The basis of any contract is essentially the goodwill of the parties to the contract. Any of them can choose to abrogate the contract unilaterally. That includes Quebec. What happens after that are consequences: negotiations, agreements, lawsuits, armed warfare, holding hands around the campfire- is secondary to the reality that any of the parties can choose to break the contract on any or no terms they see fit.

Okay. Then: Confederation is a legal contract between eleven parties. One can't simply pull out without negotations with and eventual agreement of the others, unless the one wants to face negative consequences.

[ed.: c/e]

Edited March 21, 2012 by g_bambino

[-TSS-]

Given how incredibly close the 1995 referendum was it is reasonable to say that such a monumental decision as breaking away from an existing country and declaring independence should be made by the endorsement of a little larger majority than only 50%+1. However, it goes the other way too. If there ever was such a scenario in the future that Alaska or Greenland wanted to join Canada they would have to make such a decision by a more impressive majority than only 50%+1.

How large should the majority then be, that is debatable.

[g_bambino]

Given how incredibly close the 1995 referendum was it is reasonable to say that such a monumental decision as breaking away from an existing country and declaring independence should be made by the endorsement of a little larger majority than only 50%+1.

The question at the time and since then for the souverainistes has always been: If 50+1 is enough for Quebec to separate from Canada, is it also enough for Montreal or western Quebec counties to separate from Quebec?

(There was also the matter of the souverainistes' ignorant presumption that First Nations land within Quebec would come along with them into an independent country. But, that's another matter altogether.)

[ed.: sp.]

Edited March 21, 2012 by g_bambino

[fellowtraveller]

Okay. Then: Confederation is a legal contract between eleven parties. One can't simply pull out without negotations with and eventual agreement of the others, unless the one wants to face negative consequences.

[ed.: c/e]

You were OK until the second sentence. Fear of negative outcome does not stop people or countries from breaking deals, depends on the consequences.

Negotiations are not an inevitable outcome. Eventual agreement of everybody is certainly not guaranteed. Negative consequences are in the eye of the beholder.

Think about it.

Quebec decalres itself sovereign. What exactly does Canada and the remaining provinces do?

Sue them for damages? Where? How would damges be enforced?

Quebec would have a 'first 30 days' strategy and that would certainly include prearrangement of recognition by a few countries, it doesn't matter which ones. Think on countries that Canada is at odds with, like anybody that opposes Israel. Once Iran or Syria acknowledges the Republic du Quebec, it is effectively over and out for bullying the Republic into anything.

If Quebec leaves, Canada will have two choices only: armed response or bilateral negotiation. There won't be any blood, and bilateral means just that: two sovereign nations speaking to each other. Quebec won't speak to Canada until they are bilateral negotiations, they won't have anything much to say to any province because that is not how nations speak to each other.

[g_bambino]

You were OK until the second sentence. Fear of negative outcome does not stop people or countries from breaking deals, depends on the consequences.

You'll have to re-read what I wrote. I didn't say negative consequences stopped anything.

[Vineon]

How large should the majority then be, that is debatable.

That is exactly why this simply doesn't work: it should not be debatable. Any figure chosen beyond 50%+1 would be completely arbitrary. It is also a figure that would be imposed by the federalist side, which means it necessarily would conveniently be placed out of reach.

The only figure that represents a majority that isn't arbitrary, is 50%+1. Any other figure is redefining what a majority is. A "clear majority" doesn't mean anything.

Besides, I'm fairly sure most Québécois, including many federalists believe 50%+1 to be a valid majority. I've certainly never heard the Québec Liberals pretend otherwise.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Vineon

[Vineon]

The question at the time and since then for the souverainistes has always been: If 50+1 is enough for Quebec to separate from Canada, is it also enough for Montreal or western Quebec counties to separate from Quebec?

(There was also the matter of the souverainistes' ignorant presumption that First Nations land within Quebec would come along with them into an independent country. But, that's another matter altogether.)

[ed.: sp.]

What is "Western Québec"? Nothing. Simply a term you made up. It has no government, it has no claim of nationhood, no claim of belonging to a people that is their own, it has no clear territorial borders. Moreover, that the Outaouais region is mostly federalist hardly entails it would rather be partitionned from Québec should Québec actually secede. I very much doubt they would prefer this avenue, which would be marginalizing themselves within an English Canada without French Québec, over sticking with the rest.

As for Montreal, do you count the Greater Montreal, the 3.5 millions that make it? The South and North Shore people that work there everyday and just happen to be French and likely would have voted for the secession, if they ever get 50%+1? I live in Longueuil, a bridge crossing from the metropolis and tell everyone overseas that I live in Montréal. Do I count? Would Montreal actually (if at least the French within it), like the Outaouais people, prefer staying in Canada over seceding with Québec, should it become unavoidable? You believe being a federalist means being a partitionist? Hardly.

You make the just as ignorant assumption that the First Nations are sold against the idea of Québec sovereignty and naturally prefer sticking with Canada. They only owe allegiance to their own, not to Québec, neither Canada. Should they believe Québec sovereignty is going to have a positive impact on their communities, I don't see why they wouldn't back it up.

Besides, I'm fairly sure partition of a seceding state is illegal under international laws. A panel of international experts made that fairly clear in 1992 during the Bélanger-Campeau Commission. Since their conclusions are on wiki, I'll allow myself to paste them as reference:

1. International law guarantees the territorial integrity of Quebec. The most precise expression of the argument that international law would guarantee a sovereign Quebec’s right to its current boundaries was given, in 1992, from the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, by a panel of international law experts (Thomas Franck, Rosalyn Higgins, Alain Pellet, Malcolm Shaw, Christian Tomuschat) commissioned by the government of Quebec in the aftermath of the failed Meech Lake Accord. They responded to the following two questions on the territorial integrity and the potential partition of an independent Quebec, which were posed by a special commission of the Quebec National Assembly:

Question No. 1: “Assuming that Quebec were to attain sovereignty, would the boundaries of a sovereign Quebec remain the same as its present boundaries, including the territories attributed to Quebec under the federal legislation of 1898 and 1912, or would they be those of the Province of Quebec at the time of the creation of the Canadian Federation in 1867?”

Question No 2: “Assuming that Quebec were to attain sovereignty, would international law enforce the principle of territorial integrity (or uti possidetis) over any claims aiming to dismember the territory of Quebec, and more particularly:

“(a) claims of the Natives of Quebec invoking the right to self-determination within the meaning of international law;

“( claims of the anglophone minority, particularly in respect of those regions of Quebec in which this minority is concentrated;

“© claims of the inhabitants of certain border regions of Quebec, regardless of ethnic origin?"

The panelists answered as follows:

Answer No. 1: “If Quebec were to attain independence, the borders of a sovereign Quebec would be its present boundaries and would include the territories attributed to Quebec by the federal legislation of 1898 and 1912, unless otherwise agreed to by the province before independence, or as between the two States thereafter.”

Answer No. 2: “If Quebec were to attain independence, the principle of legal continuity (absence of a vacuum juris) would allow the territorial integrity of Quebec, guaranteed both by Canadian constitutional law and public international law, to be asserted over any claims aimed at dismembering the territory of Quebec, whether they stem from:

“- the Natives of Quebec, who enjoy all the rights belonging to minorities, in addition to those recognized in indigenous peoples by present-day international law, but without giving rise to the right to secede;

“- the anglophone minority for whom the protection provided by international law has no territorial effect; or

“- persons residing in certain border regions of Quebec, who, as such, enjoy no particular protection under international law."

“These conclusions are reinforced by the applicability of the principle of the succession to the existing territorial limits at the time of independence.”

[/Quote]

Edited March 22, 2012 by Vineon

[Evening Star]

That is exactly why this simply doesn't work: it should not be debatable. Any figure chosen beyond 50%+1 would be completely arbitrary. It is also a figure that would be imposed by the federalist side, which means it necessarily would conveniently be placed out of reach.

The only figure that represents a majority that isn't arbitrary, is 50%+1. Any other figure is redefining what a majority is. A "clear majority" doesn't mean anything.

Besides, I'm fairly sure most Québécois, including many federalists believe 50%+1 to be a valid majority. I've certainly never heard the Québec Liberals pretend otherwise.

Hm, perhaps you're right about this. I can see why you say 60% is an arbitrary figure. Maybe I don't know enough about these situations. In any case, we should not be satisfied with a situation where 50% of Quebecers want to separate. The goal should be to keep things from ever reaching that point in the first place.

[g_bambino]

What is "Western Québec"? Nothing. Simply a term you made up.

What is Quebec? Just a territorial jurisdiction with randomly drawn borders that can be re-drawn.

You make the just as ignorant assumption that the First Nations are sold against the idea of Québec sovereignty and naturally prefer sticking with Canada. They only owe allegiance to their own, not to Québec, neither Canada.

Actually, you invented that assumption for me; in reality, I said no such thing. I reiterated that the Quebec souverainistes assumed all the First Nations land in Quebec would be included the country that would magically become fully sovereign the moment there was one more 'yes' ballot than all the 'no' ones in the referendum. However, there's a simple fact here: First Nations reserves are under the federal Crown, not the Crown-in-Right-of-Quebec. That wouldn't change simply because a majority of Quebecers voted in favour of their province separating from Canada.

Of course, if Quebec became an independent state, bands that wanted to end their relationship with the Canadian sovereign and forge a new one with the more imprecicely defined Republic of Quebec would be free to do so. But, they would have to work the matter out with both the Cabinet in Ottawa and its counterpart in Quebec City.

[cybercoma]

I imagine the cabinet in Ottawa would just deny their request as a fuck you to Quebec after secession.

[Evening Star]

I imagine the cabinet in Ottawa would just deny their request as a fuck you to Quebec after secession.

Really? It would depend on the government but I can easily imagine that a federal government might not want to refuse a band's request purely out of spite, especially considering that in some cases, the feds spend quite a bit of money on FN reserves.

[g_bambino]

I imagine the cabinet in Ottawa would just deny their request as a fuck you to Quebec after secession.

Possibly. But, then again, it might be more trouble than it'd be worth; if the particular First Nation band was adamant about living under the government of the Republic of Quebec (of course, I'm assuming here that the Duke of Anjou wouldn't be installed as King of Quebec), they'd likely put up a fight if Ottawa turned away from separation negotiations.

[jbg]

That is exactly why this simply doesn't work: it should not be debatable. Any figure chosen beyond 50%+1 would be completely arbitrary. It is also a figure that would be imposed by the federalist side, which means it necessarily would conveniently be placed out of reach.

The only figure that represents a majority that isn't arbitrary, is 50%+1. Any other figure is redefining what a majority is. A "clear majority" doesn't mean anything.

Besides, I'm fairly sure most Québécois, including many federalists believe 50%+1 to be a valid majority. I've certainly never heard the Québec Liberals pretend otherwise.

There is a solution which was proposed, in a backhanded matter by either Chretien or Dion. One of them pointed out that "if Canada is divisible Quebec is divisible". Perhaps lop off the areas with significant concentrations of English-speakers, such as much of Montreal on west to the Ontario border, and let the rest of the province go on its merry way? And mind you, with no use of Canadian currency, and repaying Canada for infrastructure and a proportionate share of Canada's debt?

This is a good deal since Quebec has received a disproportionate share of equalization and transfer payments.

[jbg]

Besides, I'm fairly sure partition of a seceding state is illegal under international laws. A panel of international experts made that fairly clear in 1992 during the Bélanger-Campeau Commission. Since their conclusions are on wiki, I'll allow myself to paste them as reference:

Ask West Virginia that question.

[cybercoma]

And mind you, with no use of Canadian currency

Canada can't stop them from using the Canadian dollar, no more than the United States could stop Panama, Ecuador, and El Salvador from using the greenback as their official currency.

[jbg]

Hm, perhaps you're right about this. I can see why you say 60% is an arbitrary figure. Maybe I don't know enough about these situations. In any case, we should not be satisfied with a situation where 50% of Quebecers want to separate. The goal should be to keep things from ever reaching that point in the first place.

Supermajority provisions are common when fundamental changes are sought, in governmental and corporate law. For example, in order to amend Canada's "constitution", from Wikipedia my understanding is that there is a supermajority provision."Most kinds of amendment can be passed only if identical resolutions are adopted by the House of Commons, the Senate, and a two-thirds majority of the provincial legislative assemblies representing at least 50% of the national population" (link).

I know Canada is not the U.S. That being said, here are some supermajority provisions in the U.S. Constitution:

1. It takes 2/3 of both Houses of Congress to override a Presidential veto;
   
2. It takes 2/3 of both Houses of Congress to propose a Constitutional amendment and same must be ratified by three quarters of the states; and
   
3. In the Senate, it takes 60 votes our of 100 to terminate debate.
   

I am sure there are more. My point is that 50% + 1 is as arbitrary as any supermajority provision.

Edited March 22, 2012 by jbg

[jbg]

Canada can't stop them from using the Canadian dollar, no more than the United States could stop Panama, Ecuador, and El Salvador from using the greenback as their official currency.

But the Bank of Canada would not be their lender of last resort; much as Panama cannot draw on the U.S. Treasury or Federal Reserve Bank.

[Wild Bill]

Quebec decalres itself sovereign. What exactly does Canada and the remaining provinces do?

Sue them for damages? Where? How would damges be enforced?

Well, there's a LOT of room before armed intervention!

How about money? Ottawa could and likely would immediately stop all financial transfers to Quebec. A sovereign Quebec government would immediately have to cover all pensions, EI and the rest. That's a LOT of money!

Quebec could talk about closing the St. Lawrence Seaway but we could talk about denying commercial aircraft the right to fly to Quebec over Canada's airspace!

There is a HUGE amount of 2-way trade with Quebec from Ontario and the Maritimes! What if we applied tariffs? What if we decided to seek other sources and not buy from Quebec?

How about that Churchill Falls deal? Would Quebec send in troops if some Danny Williams clone turned the switch delivering all that electricity to Quebec to the "off" position?

A lot of ground to cover. The separatistes all seem to have this naive notion that any separation issues would be calmly and rationally negotiated with TROC, with scarcely any pain. This is total crapola! Divorce always has hard feelings. The voters in the rest of Canada will in the main be extremely hurt, bitter and angry, except for those who had come to the belief that we'd be better off without Quebec anyway!

Parizeau understood this perfectly. That is what he meant when he said that after a "yes" vote Quebecois would be like lobsters in the pot! He knew there would be immense hardships for the Quebec people but figured in the long run it would be worth it to be independent.

Perhaps if I was a Quebecer as well off as he I might have agreed with him. A little old lady on an old age pension might have felt differently. This is the reason the PQ and BQ have always downplayed any talk about such problems with separating.

The MPs for TROC will have to heed this sentiment. With Quebec gone, she will have ZERO seats to give any party in Parliament! Voters in TROC will be the only ones Ottawa will cater to, for they will be the only ones to keep them in power.

As usual, things are far more complicated than they may first seem.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Wild Bill

[Evening Star]

Thanks, jbg. That helps.

Supermajority provisions are common when fundamental changes are sought, in governmental and corporate law. For example, in order to amend Canada's "constitution", from Wikipedia my understanding is that there is a supermajority provision."Most kinds of amendment can be passed only if identical resolutions are adopted by the House of Commons, the Senate, and a two-thirds majority of the provincial legislative assemblies representing at least 50% of the national population" (link).

I know Canada is not the U.S. That being said, here are some supermajority provisions in the U.S. Constitution:

1. It takes 2/3 of both Houses of Congress to override a Presidential veto;
   
2. It takes 2/3 of both Houses of Congress to propose a Constitutional amendment and same must be ratified by three quarters of the states; and
   
3. In the Senate, it takes 60 votes our of 100 to terminate debate.
   

I am sure there are more. My point is that 50% + 1 is as arbitrary as any supermajority provision.

[PIK]

My understanding is rupert's land was given to canada not quebec, take that away ,they will have very little. If they had won that last vote, I would have bet most of quebec would have had a major stroke.

Edited March 22, 2012 by PIK

[jbg]

My understanding is rupert's land was given to canada not quebec, take that away ,they will have very little. If they had won that last vote, I would have bet most of quebec would have had a major stroke.

Or become like live lobsters boiled in a pot?

[Jack Weber]

My understanding is rupert's land was given to canada not quebec, take that away ,they will have very little. If they had won that last vote, I would have bet most of quebec would have had a major stroke.

My understanding is that 2/3rds of what one sees on the map representing Quebec is'nt really theirs.Essentially,it has been allowed to be governed from Quebec City but it really belongs to the Cree indian tribe.(including the James Bay Hydro Project,by the way).If they ever decided to seperate,Quebec would end up looking like it really is,or was....Lower Canada...