Mulcair changing the NDPs position on sovereignty?

[g_bambino]

that would be a first, a popular independence movement defeated by a law, sorry it'll never happen once they vote in the affirmative it's done... only the division of assets and liabilities need to be determined, being stubborn and not coming to a workable settlement hurts both parties...

You can't seem to stick to one story: in one it's a unilateral declaration and it's all done; in the other it's a negotiated parting. Make up your mind.

[wyly]

You can't seem to stick to one story: in one it's a unilateral declaration and it's all done; in the other it's a negotiated parting. Make up your mind.

you'll need to give it some thought difficult for some like yourself who believes the rule of law trumps everything(no offense meant)but sometimes laws count for nothing...

[g_bambino]

you'll need to give it some thought...

The responsibility for clarifying your inconsistencies is yours. I'm asking politely that you please do so.

[wyly]

The responsibility for clarifying your inconsistencies is yours. I'm asking politely that you please do so.

i have you just don't get it...

[g_bambino]

i have you just don't get it...

I see you ascribe to the American Woman school of debate.

[wyly]

I see you ascribe to the American Woman school of debate.

using a glass of water analogy...50% of the glasses volume is occupied by water, i can see it as being half full or half empty, you can see it from only one perspective...for now I've done the best I can, no amount of explanation on my part will help you envision it any other way...either you see it or you don't...

[g_bambino]

I've done the best I can

Instead of doing your best to predetermine what I'm going to say and the supposed reasons why I'll say it, why don't you just clarify the hypothetical scenario you want to look at: Is it a unilateral declaration of independence and the assumption by those who've issued it that independence is immideately thereafter complete? Or is it a declaration of a desire to be independent and the commencement thereafter of negotiations to reach that end?

In any case, circumstances will have great affect on the process and the outcome.

[PIK]

And then there is the pontiac.

[August1991]

Though I'm sure some Dippers here will disagree, Mulcair appears to be changing the Sherbrooke Declaration's perceived ideas.

And Newfoundlander, you only understand one side of Canada - but maybe you understand Canada best of all.

IMHO, "Canadian" politics - federal politics - are regional, not ideological. Canada is like the equator, a place on the map. Nevertheless - Imagine! - this place exists.

----

IMHO, the key question is whether Mulcair & the NDP understand this regional nature of Canada, and of life.

Edited September 22, 2012 by August1991

[WWWTT]

I see you ascribe to the American Woman school of debate.

Ouch!

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

All this debate really is just smoke and mirrors and does not reflect the reality of what would actually happen if there was a 50%+1 result in some form of a constitutional referendum vote in Quebec.

Simply put,such result in such a vote would only give the provincial government of Quebec greater leverage in transfer of power to the province from the federal level.

Total independence = complete transfer of power.

It would help if you looked at this statement as an equation such as E=MC2(mathematical)

In the current case of Quebec,I can write/define this equation as, Quebec limited autonomous identity = partial transfer of minor powers.(partial transfer would be pension plan and immigration,possibly more).

Keep in mind that many other provinces have benefited from Quebec's attempts to achieve greater transfer of power.Especially Alberta!

So in my mind,as far as I'm concerned,when Albertans and pro Albertans critisize Quebec for trying to gain more power,they are only being hypocrites and are actually working against themselves.

WWWTT

[Newfoundlander]

All this debate really is just smoke and mirrors and does not reflect the reality of what would actually happen if there was a 50%+1 result in some form of a constitutional referendum vote in Quebec.

Simply put,such result in such a vote would only give the provincial government of Quebec greater leverage in transfer of power to the province from the federal level.

Total independence = complete transfer of power.

It would help if you looked at this statement as an equation such as E=MC2(mathematical)

In the current case of Quebec,I can write/define this equation as, Quebec limited autonomous identity = partial transfer of minor powers.(partial transfer would be pension plan and immigration,possibly more).

Keep in mind that many other provinces have benefited from Quebec's attempts to achieve greater transfer of power.Especially Alberta!

So in my mind,as far as I'm concerned,when Albertans and pro Albertans critisize Quebec for trying to gain more power,they are only being hypocrites and are actually working against themselves.

WWWTT

So you're trying to say that 50%+1 would only mean handing more powers over to Quebec and not separation?

[WWWTT]

So you're trying to say that 50%+1 would only mean handing more powers over to Quebec and not separation?

Exactly!

However if the outcome of such a referendum in Quebec resulted in a high turnout of eligible voters(say 95%) voting over 90% in favor of separation then kiss Quebec goodbye.

WWWTT

[Bryan]

if Quebec insists 50% + 1 is good enough and they get that there's bugger all we can do about it we're not going to war to prevent it...

Why not? If traitors want to try to take part of our country away, they'd be the ones declaring war as far as I'm concerned. Taking up arms against them would be an act of defense of our nation.

[Newfoundlander]

Exactly!

However if the outcome of such a referendum in Quebec resulted in a high turnout of eligible voters(say 95%) voting over 90% in favor of separation then kiss Quebec goodbye.

WWWTT

What turnout does the Sherbrooke declaration say is needed?

Edited September 22, 2012 by Newfoundlander

[WWWTT]

What turnout does the Sherbrooke declaration say is needed?

Sorry do not know.

WWWTT

[WWWTT]

Why not? If traitors want to try to take part of our country away, they'd be the ones declaring war as far as I'm concerned. Taking up arms against them would be an act of defense of our nation.

Good luck with that one.

WWWTT

[punked]

What turnout does the Sherbrooke declaration say is needed?

If the Federalist side fails to vote that is no excuse even if you want to pretend it is. Not voting is as much a decision and vote as anything else sorry to tell you.

[TimG]

What people seem to be missing in this endless debate is Quebec wants to separate it needs to be able to demonstrate that it is effective sovereign of the territory that it claims. That means any vote must been seen to be democratically legitimate by the people living in Quebec that are expected to support this new state even if they voted against it. If Quebec fails to obtain this democratic legitimacy then Quebec will tear itself apart. A 50%+1 is NOT a democratically legitimate basis for separation in anyone but the mind of the most fevered separatist. This is not normal election where the results can be reversed at the next election - it is permanent change to the structure of society and that requires more than a simple majority.

Now if a vote is held and the no voters suddenly fully support the new government then I might change my mind. But I suspect the main discussion among Quebequers after such a vote will be how to divide up the province or how to expel the federalists who want to divide up the province.

Edited September 23, 2012 by TimG

[punked]

What people seem to be missing in this endless debate is Quebec wants to separate it needs to be able to demonstrate that it is effective sovereign of the territory that it claims. That means any vote must been seen to be democratically legitimate by the people living in Quebec that are expected to support this new state even if they voted against it. If Quebec fails to obtain this democratic legitimacy then Quebec will tear itself apart. A 50%+1 is NOT a democratically legitimate basis for separation in anyone but the mind of the most fevered separatist. This is not normal election where the results can be reversed at the next election - it is permanent change to the structure of society and that requires more than a simple majority.

Now if a vote is held and the no voters suddenly fully support the new government then I might change my mind. But I suspect the main discussion among Quebequers after such a vote will be how to divide up the province or how to expel the federalists who want to divide up the province.

We let Newfoundland vote until it got 50 percent plus 1 to join Canada. The same could be done for a sovereign Quebec I am not saying once they leave we would want them back but there is no reason they can't rejoin.

[Tilter]

Yes, this is all hypothetical. However, if the question pertained to whether or not the House of Commons was right to say some percentage wasn't a clear majority, the Supreme Court would refuse to answer, sin sectgion of the provincece the law is clear that the Commons decides what is a clear majority, not the court. The Supreme Court would be far out of bounds if it simply overruled a law that didn't violate the constitution.

None of trhis is a problem for Quebec----- if in doubt of the outcome just forget to allow the English speaking sections of the provincial electoral list as they did in the last referendumb

[TimG]

The same could be done for a sovereign Quebec I am not saying once they leave we would want them back but there is no reason they can't rejoin.

These are different times. If Quebec leaves it will be such a bitter and nasty affair that rejoining won't be an option. The biggest problem that separatists have is they think that they will simply dictate the terms of the separation and that they won't need to compromise to get a deal. Life does not work that way: especially since a geographically concentrated minority in Quebec can plausibly argue that Quebec should be partitioned. I think the first violence will come from Quebec security forces trying to assert its authority by killing a few anglos. If they are not willing to do that they will not be able to claim they have sovereignty over the bits of Quebec that want to leave. Edited September 23, 2012 by TimG

[Wild Bill]

If the Federalist side fails to vote that is no excuse even if you want to pretend it is. Not voting is as much a decision and vote as anything else sorry to tell you.

Ah punked, have we not established long ago that those that did not vote can be taken as having supported the side of the losers anyway?

You know, like with those arguments about how Harper hasn't got a mandate and his share of the popular vote doesn't represent a majority - and so on and so forth.

[punked]

Ah punked, have we not established long ago that those that did not vote can be taken as having supported the side of the losers anyway?

You know, like with those arguments about how Harper hasn't got a mandate and his share of the popular vote doesn't represent a majority - and so on and so forth.

Let's not act like Harper got a 50 percent plus 1 mandate.

[TheNewTeddy]

Sherbrooke calls for 50%+1 of Quebeckers.

People presume that means 50%+1 of voting Quebeckers

I've always presumed that means 50%+1 of registered Quebeckers