g_bambino Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 The country and provinces are too big and population too small for a Parliamentary system to function properly here. This is why Canada is now in a mess. What? Quote
jbg Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 Exactlty. Confederation is a legal contract between eleven parties. One can't simply pull out without negotations with and eventual agreement of the others. Butt he assumption of the posts I responded to was that once secession is voted upon "negotiations" would only concern the details, not the secession. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Jack Weber Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 The answer should be to ask Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee how well secession turned out south of the border Mason-Dixon Line? Not bad,all things considered,seeing as they both should have been hanged for treason... The only execution of any Confederate officer for anything related to that war was the Warden at the Andersonville prison camp...And he was a Swiss volunteer!!! Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
WLDB Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 Not bad,all things considered,seeing as they both should have been hanged for treason... As all of the American founding fathers should have been. Quote "History doesn't repeat itself-at best it sometimes rhymes"-Mark Twain
WLDB Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 Exactlty. Confederation is a legal contract between eleven parties. One can't simply pull out without negotations with and eventual agreement of the others. They didn't sign on to the constitution. I know legally that doesnt mean anything, but what means does the country have to keep Quebec here if they vote for independence and start ignoring the rest of Canada? I imagine there'd be next to no support for military intervention. Quote "History doesn't repeat itself-at best it sometimes rhymes"-Mark Twain
Evening Star Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 They didn't sign on to the constitution. I know legally that doesnt mean anything, but what means does the country have to keep Quebec here if they vote for independence and start ignoring the rest of Canada? I imagine there'd be next to no support for military intervention. It's only the 1982 Canada Act that Quebec did not sign, right? I thought it was part of a province that requested the 1867 Constitution Act? Quote
WLDB Posted March 20, 2012 Report Posted March 20, 2012 It's only the 1982 Canada Act that Quebec did not sign, right? I thought it was part of a province that requested the 1867 Constitution Act? Yeah, 150 years ago. Im not a fan of being bound by the decisions of people who have been dead for over 100 years. Quebec rejected the new one which should take precedents over the 1867 BNA act. Quote "History doesn't repeat itself-at best it sometimes rhymes"-Mark Twain
Smallc Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) Yeah, 150 years ago. Im not a fan of being bound by the decisions of people who have been dead for over 100 years. Quebec rejected the new one which should take precedents over the 1867 BNA act. The 'new one' is only an addition and modification to the original, and not a replacement. Quebec's signature was never required for that. Edited March 21, 2012 by Smallc Quote
WLDB Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 The 'new one' is only an addition and modification to the original, and not a replacement. Quebec's signature was never required for that. I know. Thats why I acknowledged that legally it makes no difference, but if I were a Quebecer I wouldn't be too happy about that. If the rest of the country can change the constitution without Quebec, why cant Quebec separate if a large majority want it? This of course is all hypothetical. Separatism appears to be on the downslope and hopefully wont rise again, but one never knows. They're quite fickle politically. Quote "History doesn't repeat itself-at best it sometimes rhymes"-Mark Twain
Evening Star Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 I know. Thats why I acknowledged that legally it makes no difference, but if I were a Quebecer I wouldn't be too happy about that. If the rest of the country can change the constitution without Quebec, why cant Quebec separate if a large majority want it? I actually agree that we should have waited to come up with a deal that Quebec would have signed (even if it just meant waiting until QC elected a Liberal provincial government) but, as Smallc thankfully notes, we did not get a new constitution in 1982. It was a set of reforms to the existing constitution: i.e. it only has any meaning in the first place because we are 'bound by the decisions of people who have been dead for over 100 years' (and how could any lawful society not be bound by those sorts of decisions?). Quote
Smallc Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 And let me say that I too wish that we could have got a deal that Quebec would have signed. That said, it had far more to do with internal Quebec politics than a bad Constitution Act, 1982. Quote
WLDB Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 (and how could any lawful society not be bound by those sorts of decisions?). I think these things should be updated regularly. Once a generation or so. Our constitution has a lot of annoying things in it. Quote "History doesn't repeat itself-at best it sometimes rhymes"-Mark Twain
Evening Star Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 And let me say that I too wish that we could have got a deal that Quebec would have signed. That said, it had far more to do with internal Quebec politics than a bad Constitution Act, 1982. Definitely. The only thing I dislike about the Constitution Act is the notwithstanding clause. Quote
Smallc Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Definitely. The only thing I dislike about the Constitution Act is the notwithstanding clause. Which, ironically, should have been enough for Quebec to sign on. Quote
Smallc Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 I think these things should be updated regularly. Once a generation or so. Our constitution has a lot of annoying things in it. Such as? And what would you replace them with? How would these replacements be better? Quote
Evening Star Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 I think these things should be updated regularly. Once a generation or so. Our constitution has a lot of annoying things in it. In any case, you have to acknowledge that it is false to say that Quebec "never signed on to the constitution". If that were true, it would mean that QC is a colony of Canada, which is a very different situation from the status quo. Quote
cybercoma Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 I think these things should be updated regularly. Once a generation or so. Our constitution has a lot of annoying things in it. This is why we have a supreme court to interpret these things. Quote
jbg Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Definitely. The only thing I dislike about the Constitution Act is the notwithstanding clause. What about this doosy? "1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. " Isn't that an exception that swallows the rule? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Smallc Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Not having section 1 would be rather irresponsible. It leaves the courts some leeway when they make their decisions. Quote
jbg Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 (edited) Not having section 1 would be rather irresponsible. It leaves the courts some leeway when they make their decisions. Way too much. In the U.S. the Courts have found the requisite "leeway" to proscribe shouting "fire" in a crowded theater. Edited March 21, 2012 by jbg Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Smallc Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Way too much. In your opinion, of course. Nothing is absolute, in reality. Quote
Tilter Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 In any case, you have to acknowledge that it is false to say that Quebec "never signed on to the constitution". If that were true, it would mean that QC is a colony of Canada, which is a very different situation from the status quo. Quebec never signed the constitution, they refused & then used the "notwithstanding" clause to avoid a democratic way of forcing their patois on the residents of te province. Quote
WLDB Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Quebec never signed the constitution, they refused & then used the "notwithstanding" clause to avoid a democratic way of forcing their patois on the residents of te province. Indeed. The notwithstanding clause is one of the big things I want removed. Quote "History doesn't repeat itself-at best it sometimes rhymes"-Mark Twain
fellowtraveller Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 Exactlty. Confederation is a legal contract between eleven parties. One can't simply pull out without negotations with and eventual agreement of the others. You are wrong. 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. No doubt Quebec would see the Clarity Act as a law pertaining to somebody else i a different country, nothing to do with their soveriegn state which has its own laws. And it would take years if not decades to sort out all the legal niceties- all in the face of a fait accompli. Quote The government should do something.
Wild Bill Posted March 21, 2012 Report Posted March 21, 2012 You know, the entire OP for this thread is wrong on so many levels! The idea that the NDP hates Canada is, in the words of That 70's Show's Red Foreman, crap! NDP folks may hold some ideas that others of us don't agree with, or even find downright loopy, but that doesn't mean they don't love their country as much as anyone else of a different political persuasion. They just look at things differently, that's all!I am the first to call some of my NDP friends ideas goofy but that doesn't mean I stop buying them a beer! Without differences of opinion to knock the corners off an argument you have a much harder time finding the truth. Trying to do it only with people who think the same as you do only ends up with everyone fooling themselves. It's as lowbrow to call NDP folks Canada-haters as it is to say Conservatives want to hurt welfare people just for the thrill of making them cry! We really should try to keep this board running at a higher level! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.