Stephane Dion Takes on the NDP

[Jack Weber]

Quite right, Jack! I never fail to be amazed at how some folks believe in this approach. I call it the "Modern Liberal Neville Chamberlain Approach to Canadian Unity".

It works about as well as it did for Neville Chamberlain!

Another comparison would be the typical male approach to a separation from his wife. Many guys give them everything, hoping their woman will suddenly realize what nice guys they are and decide to stay.

Of course, what always happens is the woman takes everything he gives her and then uses a lawyer to get half of whatever is left!

In any dispute, people respect strength. A pushover loses, every time.

I agree,however,the poorly thought out adherents of the Sherbrooke Declaration haven't asked themselves this question:

Let's say we actually throw the seperatists the bone of constitutional veto power over the issue of "distinct society"...

Do they think this will placate seperatism or embolden it to go further?

I suspect it's the latter because,as I said,they would only see the constitutional veto as a stop on the voyage to secession...

[Evening Star]

While I don't support the Sherbrooke Declaration, I also don't see it as any sort of concession to separatism. A separatist wants an independent country, not a set of constitutional reforms within Canadian federalism. Afaict, 'asymmetrical federalism' reflects one conception of Canadian federalism that is popular with some in Quebec: the idea that Canada is a partnership between English Canada and French Canada, as opposed to a federation of ten equal provinces. I do not subscribe to this view at all but it is not a separatist view in any sense.

[Evening Star]

It's just that you can't say a 50%+1 vote in Newfoundland, which was close and quite possibly rigged, is ok to get into confederation, but 50%+1 is not good enough to get out.

Perhaps a mistake was made in 1949 but we cannot change that now. We can, however, set clear standards for decisions in the future.

The problem is that forcing a "self-governing and co-sovereign" entity, as you rightfully call it, to stay in a union that it does not want to be in will only cause problems. As the saying goes, "Canada doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice." Other nations around the world with similar tensions between various ethnicities and nations within their political borders shoot and drop bombs on each other, take and behead hostages, or self-immolate in protest. You can't force a people that don't want to be part of the nation to stay, lest there be war. Now that's not to say that maybe we shouldn't go to war to try and keep the country united, I'm not going to make a judgment on that either way. I'm just trying to identify the fact that requiring greater than 50%+1 for secession is pointless because it will just lead to a violent revolt if the majority of people want to leave.

50%+1 is not that clear of a majority though. As has been mentioned, the NDP itself requires more than that for a change to its constitution.

[jbg]

Its interesting to finally see the Liberals CHALLENGING the NDP as opposed to standing in agreement with them on almost every issue. It can only help re-define them.

Maybe there is some greatness left in what looked like a craven party caving in to special interests and political correctness (that pretty well describes the U.S. Democratic Party as well).

[jbg]

Strongly agree. If the Liberals were to really take a stand on this, it's one of the things that could convince me to vote Liberal.

I wouldn't go that far personally. Nothing will convince me to vote for the Liberal Party of Canada.

[jbg]

Perhaps a mistake was made in 1949 but we cannot change that now. We can, however, set clear standards for decisions in the future.

Britain took over direct rule of Newfoundland in 1931, after it had dominion status co-equal with Canada. Britain gave both Newfoundlanders and Canada an offer they couldn't refuse in 1949.

[Evening Star]

Britain took over direct rule of Newfoundland in 1931, after it had dominion status co-equal with Canada. Britain gave both Newfoundlanders and Canada an offer they couldn't refuse in 1949.

Sure, and I'm glad Newfoundland is part of the country. I just think it's weak to say that 50%+1 should be enough for a province to separate now just because 50%+1 was enough to admit a province in 1949.

[Jack Weber]

I wouldn't go that far personally. Nothing will convince me to vote for the Liberal Party of Canada.

Do you have dual citizenship?

[Vineon]

Sure, and I'm glad Newfoundland is part of the country. I just think it's weak to say that 50%+1 should be enough for a province to separate now just because 50%+1 was enough to admit a province in 1949.

What is weak is arbitrarely redefining what a (good enough??) majority is. A majority is 50%+1. The Clarity Act must be the piece of legislation that least deserves it's given name. Has it made clear what a 'clear majority' is? What a 'clear question' is?

Is it simply not defining those terms clearly so that whatever the majority obtained and the question asked be afterwards dismissed as 'not clear enough'?

[WWWTT]

Sure, and I'm glad Newfoundland is part of the country. I just think it's weak to say that 50%+1 should be enough for a province to separate now just because 50%+1 was enough to admit a province in 1949.

Aswell it took 50%+1 for Newfoundland to seperate from Britain durring that same vote to enter Canadian confederation.

WWWTT

[jbg]

Sure, and I'm glad Newfoundland is part of the country. I just think it's weak to say that 50%+1 should be enough for a province to separate now just because 50%+1 was enough to admit a province in 1949.

I certainly agree that Newfoundland is a valuable part of Canada, adding richly to Canada's cultural mosaic. I'm just saying that neither the Newfoundlanders nor Canada as a country had much choice in the matter.

[WWWTT]

Sure, and I'm glad Newfoundland is part of the country. I just think it's weak to say that 50%+1 should be enough for a province to separate now just because 50%+1 was enough to admit a province in 1949.

What I meant to say in an earlier comment was that Newfoundland left Britain with 50%+1 so as to join Canadian confederation.

So therefore this fact is very relevant and has merit in all future similar cases!

WWWTT

[Evening Star]

What is weak is arbitrarely redefining what a (good enough??) majority is. A majority is 50%+1. The Clarity Act must be the piece of legislation that least deserves it's given name. Has it made clear what a 'clear majority' is? What a 'clear question' is?

OK, this is a perfectly valid criticism of the Clarity Act. Going by this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act#Key_points

I'll actually give you that it's unfair for the House to be able to decide after a referendum whether or not the majority was sufficient. The criteria should be set out ahead of time. But I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect more than 50% + 1 for such a fundamental issue, considering international standards. I think it is fair to let the House decide whether a question is sufficiently clear before the vote and to demand that the question refer solely to secession.

[Evening Star]

Aswell it took 50%+1 for Newfoundland to seperate from Britain durring that same vote to enter Canadian confederation.

WWWTT

They were not a 'province' or 'state' of the UK. It's an entirely different situation. The Scottish independence movement is a better reference point for comparison.

[Vineon]

OK, this is a perfectly valid criticism of the Clarity Act. Going by this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act#Key_points

I'll actually give you that it's unfair for the House to be able to decide after a referendum whether or not the majority was sufficient. The criteria should be set out ahead of time. But I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect more than 50% + 1 for such a fundamental issue, considering international standards. I think it is fair to let the House decide whether a question is sufficiently clear before the vote and to demand that the question refer solely to secession.

I don't think there are many Québec sovereignists concerned about the Clarity Act. It wasn't required for Canada not to validate the results of a provincially-run referendum and Chrétien in 95 was simply going to 'not recognize' a close win by the secessionists. It is a useless piece of legislation that only deserves mockery. If Chrétien actually considers that to be his great achievement, then his contribution to Canada is pretty much void.

Frankly, I believe the process towards a secession becomes unstoppable the minute the 50%+1 mark is reached after a vote. Any non-recognition will simply fuel the sovereignty movement to unseen highs as I assume many of the Québec borderline federalists will not react favourably to having Ottawa impose its veto on the matter. In the end, Canada would actually rather negociate a secession than use force against a rebelling gvt with a population largely behind it.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Vineon

[cybercoma]

OK, this is a perfectly valid criticism of the Clarity Act. Going by this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act#Key_points

I'll actually give you that it's unfair for the House to be able to decide after a referendum whether or not the majority was sufficient. The criteria should be set out ahead of time. But I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect more than 50% + 1 for such a fundamental issue, considering international standards. I think it is fair to let the House decide whether a question is sufficiently clear before the vote and to demand that the question refer solely to secession.

How much then? 2/3 majority?

[Vineon]

Apparently there is an international standard.

What is it.

[Evening Star]

How much then? 2/3 majority?

We actually discussed the same thing last year: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=19031&hl=sudan&st=15

My position was that the number should be in line with what the criterion usually is for other major changes like this: 60% seems more reasonable to me. Your position was interesting: you argued that 50%+1 was fine as long as it's an absolute 50%+1 of all eligible voters, which might actually be a steeper requirement!

[jbg]

Frankly, I believe the process towards a secession becomes unstoppable the minute the 50%+1 mark is reached after a vote. Any non-recognition will simply fuel the sovereignty movement to unseen highs as I assume many of the Québec borderline federalists will not react favourably to having Ottawa impose its veto on the matter. In the end, Canada would actually rather negociate a secession than use force against a rebelling gvt with a population largely behind it.

What is there to "negotiate" if the secession is a forgone conclusion? Remember, in the U.S. over 50% of Virginians (outside of modern West Virginia that is) voted for secession. It didn't end well.

[Vineon]

you argued that 50%+1 was fine as long as it's an absolute 50%+1 of all eligible voters, which might actually be a steeper requirement!

Considering nearly 95% of the populace cast their vote during the last referendum, you might want to stick to the completely arbitrary figure that is 60%.

What is there to "negotiate" if the secession is a forgone conclusion? Remember, in the U.S. over 50% of Virginians (outside of modern West Virginia that is) voted for secession. It didn't end well.

I do not put any credence in a "possibility" of something resembling a large civil conflict or a gvt-overthrowing Canadian military intervention in Québec. No, I do not remember the American Civil War and I very much doubt you were there to remember it. We live in a different era and there is no armed seceding rebel fraction to war against.

Which is why in the end secession and the negotiations (without bracket marks) necessarily surrounding it are a foregone conclusion.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Vineon

[jbg]

I do not put any credence in a "possibility" of something resembling a large civil conflict or a gvt-overthrowing Canadian military intervention in Québec. No, I do not remember the American Civil War and I very much doubt you were there to remember it. We live in a different era and there is no armed seceding rebel fraction to war against.

How is it a "different era"? Because a bunch of idiots manning booths at the U.N. say so?

Which is why in the end secession and the negotiations (without bracket marks) necessarily surrounding it are a foregone conclusion.

What is there to "negotiate" if it's a foregone conclusion. "Negotiations" should imply that there is something to discuss.

[WWWTT]

They were not a 'province' or 'state' of the UK. It's an entirely different situation. The Scottish independence movement is a better reference point for comparison.

Clearly that is your argument.

However many in Canada can use the fact that I highlighted to argue in their advantage.

Newfoundland and Labrador has a land mass greater than all of the British isles combined!And stating they were not a province in the UK would give them less entitlement is somewhat belittling to them!

WWWTT

[Vineon]

How is it a "different era"? Because a bunch of idiots manning booths at the U.N. say so?

What is there to "negotiate" if it's a foregone conclusion. "Negotiations" should imply that there is something to discuss.

Are you giving it your best to not understand what I mean by negotiations tied to a secession? Think of it as a divorce, you get to "negotiate" who keeps the kids, who keeps the house and who keeps the car. There is plenty to negotiate.

You would say we live in the same era we did in the 19th century? The Québec secessionists believe in achieving independance through the sole tools of democracy, which evolved quite a lot in 150 years, believe it or not. They are not armed, they don't plan to arm themselves and the only people that manage to foresee a civil war turnout are deranged enthousiasts like you that would love nothing more than tanks rolling on "traitors".

[jbg]

Are you giving it your best to not understand what I mean by negotiations tied to a secession? Think of it as a divorce, you get to "negotiate" who keeps the kids, who keeps the house and who keeps the car. There is plenty to negotiate.

You would say we live in the same era we did in the 19th century? The Québec secessionists believe in achieving independance through the sole tools of democracy, which evolved quite a lot in 150 years, believe it or not. They are not armed, they don't plan to arm themselves and the only people that manage to foresee a civil war turnout are deranged enthousiasts like you that would love nothing more than tanks rolling on "traitors".

But I don't believe they're counting on financial independence, just political independence. I think whether or not they succeed at seceding is very much a topic of discussion.