Your thoughts on official unilingualism?

[Benz]

And on the point about federalism, though it is true that we can't blame federalism per se for the oppression of indigenous and French people...

That is exactly what you do regarding the republic. You are trying to build a link between the oppression of the minorities under a certain republic government, with the brainstorming of the Années Lumières. That is a fallacy. I dare you to quote the intellectual(s) of the Années Lumières who said such thing or encouraged that course.

[cybercoma]

The way you describ it, the state owns the nation(s). That's not republican for sure. You do not look very familiar with the Années Lumières and the concept of sovereignty of the people to the people. I bet you think it is totally normal to have a crown like the current british queen.

Canada has its own legally distinct sovereign. We are not under the "current british queen." Though the role is shared by the same person across 15 monarchies, our queen is the Queen of Canada, not the "British Queen."

[Benz]

Vetos for very subgroup are generally a bad idea because it opens the door to extortion.

How will you convince me that I am a subgroup of you? My nation is NOT a subgroup of you. PEI is a subgroup of English Canada. Not Quebec. But the way the structure actually is, it makes you think that you can dispose of us as you wish and that is what we do not agree. We are going to get the respect of a sovereign nation. With or without you. Either you adapt the Canada in a way that we can share it, or we go independent. I am fine with both. As long as the status quo is ended.

i.e. Quebec might not care about a change that the rest of the country wants but chooses to block it in order to extort concessions on other matters.

I understand and I agree to your concern. Québec must not behave like that. Usually, such attitude can only turn against ourselve because it also means that you will not allow us to get what we want. It's called, negotiation. Such system does not give us an advantage over you. It places us on the same level. You want something, we want something, let's find a way to come to an agreement. That's the way it should be.

IOW giving Quebec a legal veto over constitutional changes requires that we trust that Quebec politicians are always willing to act in good faith. History tells us that we cannot assume that. I realize that by not having veto we are expecting Quebec to trust the rest of Canada to act in good faith and not seek to overrule the objections of Quebec on issues of particular relevance to Quebec. However, there is no middle ground compromise and we must put the power on one side or the other. From a game theory perspective, the 7/50 rule is much more likely to encourage the good faith compromise needed to make changes than any rule that gives everyone a veto.

I dare you to prove it. I dare you to show me where in the history that we were not in good faith. On the contrary, it is easy for me to demonstrate that YOU were not in good faith. The 1981's betrayal that even the federalist in Québec are still mad at you. The death of Meech. Charlottetown 1992. Social Union 1999. So many other backstabbing also occurs before I was born. Let's concentrate on the recent ones. Every time, Québec is trying to negotiate in good faith and every time, you betray us. Every single time. You are blaming us for something YOU do.

In 1981, René Lévesque has proposed something that alot of independentists did not like. He proposed to let go the veto and in exchange, the federal would allow an opt out with full compensation from a federal program. Lévesque thought that the english canada was on the same page and that they would never allow the federal to break that principle. He was wrong. The other provinces did betray us and allowed the federal to gain more power at their own expense. What is their excuse? They were mad that Lévesque wanted to convince them that it was a good idea to use a referendum to make the constitution accepted by the population. I blame directly your leaders of that time and all your leaders now that are not trying to correct this stupid decision. It also explains why, we no longer trust you and why even the federalists in Québec want a veto for Québec. Because there is no more room for another knife in our back. Because you don't even have respect for yourself and you allow the federal to treat your provinces like whores who can exchange their powers for money.

[Machjo]

That is not waht I said. You seemed to suggest that the Age of Enlightenment solved all problems, so I pointed out that was not the case. I might have misunderstood you. Fair enough.

[Benz]

Canada has its own legally distinct sovereign. We are not under the "current british queen." Though the role is shared by the same person across 15 monarchies, our queen is the Queen of Canada, not the "British Queen."

Is she canadian?

[Benz]

That is not waht I said. You seemed to suggest that the Age of Enlightenment solved all problems, so I pointed out that was not the case. I might have misunderstood you. Fair enough.

Stop the fallacy Machjo. It's like blaming the democracy for Hitler getting the power in Germany. You are mixing up the concept. The Age of enlightenment DID NOT lead to the oppression of those people. Otherwise, tell me who is the intellectual of that time that has at least suggest it.

[Machjo]

Is the Queen Canadian? What does that have to do with anything. She's the Queen of Canada. People are people.

[Machjo]

I did not blame the ageof enlightenment for the oppression of minorities, but rather that it did not prevent such oppression.

[Benz]

I did not blame the ageof enlightenment for the oppression of minorities, but rather that it did not prevent such oppression.

Of course it did not. How could it be? Where did I could possibly said something that would suggest that?

[Machjo]

One solution that I could see would be the following:

1. Parliament is elected by the population of the state.

2. The Senate is elected by each nation. This means that English Canada would elect one senator, French Canada one senator, and each indigenous people one senator. One additional senator would represent the Deaf community and one all other communities.

3. Either house can abrogate laws that had been adopted prior to this system, but not any law that is adopted after it.

4. Each house need a simple majority with no vote against for a law to pass.

Such a system would allow either house to abrogate past colonial laws, but adopting new laws would be extremely difficult. This would promote a comparatively libertarian system overall, with any law being one that would require significant consensus for it to pass.

[Benz]

Is the Queen Canadian? What does that have to do with anything. She's the Queen of Canada. People are people.

Cybercoma is deyning my sentense "under the british queen". I did not say under a british crown. She is british, she is our queen. What I said is true.

I was also asking if it is normal that she is the sovereign of Canada. How did she got that function? The people elected her?

I am totally against the principle that a person can get a role based on its blood and genetic. Especially when it is such an important role. It's very monachist to think it's normal.

The Queen of Canada is British, not Canadian.

[cybercoma]

Is she canadian?

Of course she's Canadian. She literally is Canada.

[Benz]

Of course she's Canadian. She literally is Canada.

Is she god as well?

[cybercoma]

That's a silly question.

[Machjo]

Cybercoma is deyning my sentense "under the british queen". I did not say under a british crown. She is british, she is our queen. What I said is true.

I was also asking if it is normal that she is the sovereign of Canada. How did she got that function? The people elected her?

I am totally against the principle that a person can get a role based on its blood and genetic. Especially when it is such an important role. It's very monachist to think it's normal.

The Queen of Canada is British, not Canadian.

The ideal system exploits the strengths of a monarchy and those of a republic. While we can graft a republic onto a monarchy, we cannot so easily graft a monarchy into a republic.

The Commonwealth might be able to establish an elective monarchy for example.

An international monarch also presents some international advantages.

[Benz]

That's a silly question.

She is not Canada. Canada gives her a role. Canada has the possibility to get rid of her but, it's not doing it.

[Benz]

An international monarch also presents some international advantages.

What advantage Canada has with a Queen over France and USA?

[TimG]

She is not Canada. Canada gives her a role. Canada has the possibility to get rid of her but, it's not doing it.

Monarchy vs. Republic is like choosing between a Toyota or a Ford. Technically they both get you where you need to go and if you have a Toyota that works it does not make sense to trade it in for a Ford.

[TimG]

How will you convince me that I am a subgroup of you? My nation is NOT a subgroup of you.

As I explained above: Canada is the vehicle and english and french canada are passengers. IOW english canada is a subgroup too and should not have a veto either. The fact that current demographics mean English Canada has a democratic majority does not mean much when you consider how English canada is divided across regions with different priorities. IOW english canada is not a monolithic entity that speaks with one voice (neither is french canada for that matter).

I understand and I agree to your concern. Québec must not behave like that. Usually, such attitude can only turn against ourselve because it also means that you will not allow us to get what we want. It's called, negotiation. Such system does not give us an advantage over you. It places us on the same level. You want something, we want something, let's find a way to come to an agreement. That's the way it should be.

What we want are structures that encourage good faith compromise and negotiation. I think we agree on that. No good comes from one group dictating terms to other groups. I take the position that vetos discourage compromise because the groups holding the vetos can block any change as long as they can live with the status quo. The 7/50 formula means that no player can be intransigent because if they are they get left out of the consensus. This means good faith negotiation and compromise is more likely under the 7/50 rule than under the veto rule. The veto rule is only useful for people who think the constitution is perfect and never needs any future changes because the veto ensures there won't be any. Edited September 26, 2016 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

Monarchy vs. Republic is like choosing between a Toyota or a Ford. Technically they both get you where you need to go and if you have a Toyota that works it does not make sense to trade it in for a Ford.

Interesting analogy, as neither are Canadian.

[?Impact]

Interesting analogy, as neither are Canadian.

Would you prefer Campanga and Intermeccanica? Would could also go with Dynasty and HTT Automobile.

If you would like some history, McLaughlin acquired Chevrolet motors and merged them into General Motor Company of Canada. Let us not forget Bricklin.

[cybercoma]

She is not Canada. Canada gives her a role. Canada has the possibility to get rid of her but, it's not doing it.

Canada does not get rid of the sovereign because it's not as simple as you think. Do you know what the reserve powers are and why they exist?

[Benz]

No, actually, it is easy. All Canada has to do is saying "you are not my queen anymore". It's that easy.

[Smallc]

A bit more involved than that....

[cybercoma]

No, actually, it is easy. All Canada has to do is saying "you are not my queen anymore". It's that easy.

Then you clearly don't understand at all our government nor the monarchy.