Smallc Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) I'm not so sure about Ontario being at break even, Smallc. Remember, I live here. From my perspective the province is hurting very badly economically. Perspective is pretty limited though. We have to use the actual data. Being a have not province doesn't really actually mean much in terms of net contribution to Canada. Ontario still sends more than it gets, therefor, it's a net contributor. Edited September 18, 2012 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 If Quebec were to separate and joining America was an option, I think a strong majority of Ontario would go for it! You can't keep your house and feed your kids with patriotism. First, I think you're wrong on that (Ontario is probably the most Canadian province, except for perhaps Alberta), and second, I'm not sure where you get this idea that the US is the land of milk and honey, given both the state of the economy, and the fact that Canada now outperforms them in most ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vineon Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 Your wrong both sides have plenty that they could lose, for instance if a direct land route is not secured through Quebec, how will the maritime provinces be be re supplied. this option alone is enough to have one opened via direct force. there are plenty of others. Don't ever think that our government or industry captains are beyond spilling blood in chasing down the mighty buck...Yes we talk a good game but Canadians are no different than the rest of the outside world. Hah. As much as I'm sure an 'Army Guy' such as yourself is excited about "spilling blood" and using "direct force" to open up a land route, it is a problem easily solved with a simple free trade agreement. Go lock away your gun, military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 First, I think you're wrong on that (Ontario is probably the most Canadian province, except for perhaps Alberta), and second, I'm not sure where you get this idea that the US is the land of milk and honey, given both the state of the economy, and the fact that Canada now outperforms them in most ways. It doesn't have to be the "land of milk and honey", Smallc. It just has to be better than what many Ontarioans are facing NOW! Certainly, except for the cost of health insurance, Americans have a higher standard of living. Otherwise, our border towns wouldn't have such lineups to cross to buy groceries! When a man or woman is having a hard time feeding his kids, those are the factors that begin to dwarf patriotism. We would likely also see a public/private sector split, since public sector workers tend to be much more insulated from the effects of job losses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 (edited) It doesn't have to be the "land of milk and honey", Smallc. It just has to be better than what many Ontarioans are facing NOW! And there's little if any evidence that it would be better. Certainly, except for the cost of health insurance, Americans have a higher standard of living. That isn't at all certain...and you can't somehow exclude the cost of health insurance from that. America is a larger consumer market, so prices are lower. That doesn't translate to a higher standard of living. We have virtually the same HDI score (we're usually higher, in 2011, we were two points lower) our nominal GDP per capita is now higher, our PPP number is coming closer, our quality of life and livability is generally higher....etc, etc. There's no reason to believe that a country stretching from Ontario to BC (a possible outcome) wouldn't be strong, united, and economically successful. Edited September 18, 2012 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 18, 2012 Report Share Posted September 18, 2012 Any 'Canadian' who wants to is free to join the US right now! Seriously folks, East-West split makes so much more sense. So where is "the west" that is screwing the rest of Canada as you claim? Does it include BC? Sask? Manitoba? Your previous answer was nonsensical... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 As much as I'm sure an 'Army Guy' such as yourself is excited about "spilling blood" and using "direct force" to open up a land route, it is a problem easily solved with a simple free trade agreement.Go lock away your gun, military. Excited No, fearful yes, after all this is Canada we are talking about. But thanks for the stereo type. I've been doing this stuff for over 32 years now, and as much as i'd like to say it will all be sorted out in a conference room it won't,it never has..... not in the last 30 years anyways.... they have all been sorted out on the battle field, and yes by guys like you ....see not enough army guys around , so they will make up there numbers with guys like you.... My piont was they need to have this discussion before they go to the polls , they need to find a favorable split by all parties ....thinking that this will be decuided after the fact in a conference room is sticking your head up your ass, and hoping fopr the best....maybe you can find the an example of separation that has gone good in the last years, and why Canada / Quebec is going to be the first.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) Your wrong both sides have plenty that they could lose, for instance if a direct land route is not secured through Quebec, how will the maritime provinces be be re supplied. this option alone is enough to have one opened via direct force. there are plenty of others. Don't ever think that our government or industry captains are beyond spilling blood in chasing down the mighty buck...Yes we talk a good game but Canadians are no different than the rest of the outside world. lunacy, for what idiotic reason would quebec close it's borders? is economic suicide high on the list of dumb things to do after separation? it will be business as usual, quebec still needs us... Edited September 19, 2012 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 maybe you can find the an example of separation that has gone good in the last years, and why Canada / Quebec is going to be the first.... apparently the military is not in tune with political history, probably the reason we don't allow them to make political decisions... separations that went well...Czech and Slovak republics separated democratically without incident...the soviet Union separated very cleanly into 15 different countries...so quebec would be far from the first more like 17th...unless Belgium breaks up first then that make quebec 18th... the Yugoslavian states demonstrate what happens when idiot nationalist/military with guns think they have a patriotic duty to force people to stay against their democratic will, that never ends well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 what if Canada does not want Quebec using our currency, what does it matter, more silliness...ten different states use US currency it has no effect... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 lunacy, for what idiotic reason would quebec close it's borders? is economic suicide high on the list of dumb things to do after separation? it will be business as usual, quebec still needs us... Your talking like i came up with these ideas, no sir, these were ideas that were brought forth during the last ref have you read creitien book read the paras on the ref and tell me it all lunacy, these were questions and actions our government took on our behalf, not army guy making shit up....Why would they close it's borders , because Quebec government at the time suspected Canada would use military force to prevent, or counter Quebec separation....business as usual we hope it is , but thats not what our liberal buddies at the time had planned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 apparently the military is not in tune with political history, probably the reason we don't allow them to make political decisions... separations that went well...Czech and Slovak republics separated democratically without incident... I'll give you this one,but it does not mean that they did not have their problems either.... the soviet Union separated very cleanly into 15 different countries...so quebec would be far from the first more like 17th...unless Belgium breaks up first then that make quebec 18th... This one have you read any of these break ups, tell me they had a clean break up including the times leading up to it, most of these stories are covered in blood....like most things Russian.....very few if any were clean....as you proclaim.... the Yugoslavian states demonstrate what happens when idiot nationalist/military with guns think they have a patriotic duty to force people to stay against their democratic will, that never ends well... This is what happens when men can't solve things like adults...and while you have listed one example that has ended without violence , care to take a stab at all those that did end in conflict.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) I'll give you this one,but it does not mean that they did not have their problems either.... This one have you read any of these break ups, tell me they had a clean break up including the times leading up to it, most of these stories are covered in blood....like most things Russian.....very few if any were clean....as you proclaim.... This is what happens when men can't solve things like adults...and while you have listed one example that has ended without violence , care to take a stab at all those that did end in conflict.... well you'll have to cede the others as well...the USSR was dissolved in a democratic vote by the Congress of People's Deputies in december of 1991, any violence(very little) afterward was due to disputes within the new republics between groups vying for power, Russia did nothing violent to prevent the breakup... this is how it is done when adults do it logically...why would I care to explain those breakups that didn't end peacefully? your point was they never do and clearly they do, at least 16 times... Edited September 19, 2012 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 well you'll have to cede the others as well...the USSR was dissolved in a democratic vote by the Congress of People's Deputies in december of 1991, any violence(very little) afterward was due to disputes within the new republics between groups vying for power, Russia did nothing violent to prevent the breakup... this is how it is done when adults do it logically... why would I care to explain those breakups that didn't end peacefully? your point was they never do and clearly they do, at least 16 times... It's interesting that Canadians have such a myopic view of nations and democracy. There are examples of independent or semi-independent states within states all over the world. Aland is part of Finland, but is mostly independent. Puerto Rico is part of the USA, and yet it is not a state. Faroe Islands and Denmark... There is nothing inherently wrong with independent states that have strong ties... the examples are everywhere if you do a bit of research. Quebec leaving (which is HIGHLY unlikely given that support for sovereignty is below 30% right now) does not have to destroy the country and cause civil unrest and violence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vineon Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) Your talking like i came up with these ideas, no sir, these were ideas that were brought forth during the last ref have you read creitien book read the paras on the ref and tell me it all lunacy, these were questions and actions our government took on our behalf, not army guy making shit up....Why would they close it's borders , because Quebec government at the time suspected Canada would use military force to prevent, or counter Quebec separation....business as usual we hope it is , but thats not what our liberal buddies at the time had planned. I was under the impression secessionist leaders never believed Canada would use it's military force (against one that doesn't exist save the off chance of a quebec militaries defection???). If Chrétien took some planes and other military assets out of Québec, it wasn't out of fear of them using them to counterstrike, it was out of fear of them being using as leverage for asset transfer during negociations, as in "we think we should get 25% of all federal assets, we'll keep the planes until we come up with a deal". Edited September 19, 2012 by Vineon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Road Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 It's interesting that Canadians have such a myopic view of nations and democracy. There are examples of independent or semi-independent states within states all over the world. Aland is part of Finland, but is mostly independent. Puerto Rico is part of the USA, and yet it is not a state. Faroe Islands and Denmark... There is nothing inherently wrong with independent states that have strong ties... the examples are everywhere if you do a bit of research. Quebec leaving (which is HIGHLY unlikely given that support for sovereignty is below 30% right now) does not have to destroy the country and cause civil unrest and violence. Good point. They might move the flag but that is largely symbolic, we are still the nation that everybody loves: Canada, the True North, Strong and Free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 Puerto Rico is part of the USA, and yet it is not a state. Puerto Rico is a poor example. What happened there is that when Spain lost the Spanish-American war it was ceded to the U.S. The Phillipines were granted independence since they never fit comfortably into the U.S.'s territorial or administrative scheme. Cuba always had a vital independence movement and was granted its wish. Puerto Rico could be a state but would face almost immediate bankruptcy under the U.S. tax structure which must, constitutionally, be uniform throughout the country. Also, we tend to admit states in pairs and there is rarely an odd number of states. In the most recent case, Alaska, then a likely Republican state was paired with Hawaii, a likely Democratic state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 Puerto Rico is a poor example. What happened there is that when Spain lost the Spanish-American war it was ceded to the U.S. The Phillipines were granted independence since they never fit comfortably into the U.S.'s territorial or administrative scheme. Cuba always had a vital independence movement and was granted its wish. Puerto Rico could be a state but would face almost immediate bankruptcy under the U.S. tax structure which must, constitutionally, be uniform throughout the country. Also, we tend to admit states in pairs and there is rarely an odd number of states. In the most recent case, Alaska, then a likely Republican state was paired with Hawaii, a likely Democratic state. So how is it a poor example? I was providing examples off the top of my head of semi-independent states that still exist together economically and socially and yet are not the same state per se. It is a commonwealth of the USA. It was a good example in that it does not fall neatly into the way Canadians think that countries should be organized, plus it is our next door neighbour. Canadians can't seem to wrap their heads around what Quebec might look like if it wasn't actually part of Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 Canadians can't seem to wrap their heads around what Quebec might look like if it wasn't actually part of Canada. That may be true, but so what? If there were a separation, Canadians would feel the way they feel and politicians would have to react to that, right or wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 It's interesting that Canadians have such a myopic view of nations and democracy. There are examples of independent or semi-independent states within states all over the world. Aland is part of Finland, but is mostly independent. Puerto Rico is part of the USA, and yet it is not a state. Faroe Islands and Denmark... There is nothing inherently wrong with independent states that have strong ties... the examples are everywhere if you do a bit of research. Quebec leaving (which is HIGHLY unlikely given that support for sovereignty is below 30% right now) does not have to destroy the country and cause civil unrest and violence. spain and netherlands also have regions with unique status ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 That may be true, but so what? If there were a separation, Canadians would feel the way they feel and politicians would have to react to that, right or wrong. canadians are already adjusting to the possibilty...how we see it is much more level headed than it was 30yrs ago... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 So how is it a poor example? I was providing examples off the top of my head of semi-independent states that still exist together economically and socially and yet are not the same state per se. It is a commonwealth of the USA. It was a good example in that it does not fall neatly into the way Canadians think that countries should be organized, plus it is our next door neighbour. Canadians can't seem to wrap their heads around what Quebec might look like if it wasn't actually part of Canada. Puerto Rico is essentially a State with two distinctions: 1) a different tax structure; and 2) it does not vote in Federal elections. Other than that it has all of the other attributes of a U.S. state. Virginia, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, fwiw, are "commonwealths". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 (edited) Puerto Rico is essentially a State with two distinctions: 1) a different tax structure; and 2) it does not vote in Federal elections. Other than that it has all of the other attributes of a U.S. state. Virginia, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, fwiw, are "commonwealths". I could imagine Quebec as something similar... perhaps in lieu of actual separation... "Sovereignty association" they called it in the previous referendum. Edited September 19, 2012 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 "Sovereignty association" they called it in the previous referendum. Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States is not like sovereignty association some Quebec sovereigntists desired. PR is completly subject to US sovereignty; its powers are delegated and controlled by Congress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted September 19, 2012 Report Share Posted September 19, 2012 Puerto Rico's relationship with the United States is not like sovereignty association some Quebec sovereigntists desired. PR is completly subject to US sovereignty; its powers are delegated and controlled by Congress. True.... I was mixing up two trains of thought there.... 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.