Western Separation

[Riverwind]

Well, hypotheticals aren't really useful, but I would expect that Canada would seek out other means of negotiating a compromise. And I can't see how a UDI, if undertaken with the consent of the population in question, can be anti-democratic. Seems to me such a thing would be perfectly in line with the principles of democracy.

What do you mean by consent of the people? I don't consider 50%+1 'consent' for such radical changes yet most separatists do. That is why a UDI is such a dangerous tool and, like nuclear weapons, it something whose use should be rejected by all civilized peoples.

Negotiation within the current constitutional framework is the only legitimate avenue for change because the constitution says it is. That's a circular argument.

My argument is not based on what is in the constitution - it is based on broader principles about what is acceptable in civilized democratic societies.

National borders are not immutable. I don't accept the separatist argument for maintaining the current borders of Quebec, so I don't really accept your similar interpretation either.

The problem is not you or me - it is the separatists who universally insist on the integrity of the entity they define as their 'state'. Can you point to one seperatist that would accept that pieces of Quebec (or Alberta) could break away? The fact that seperatists insist on the integrity of their own state while undermining the state that the currently belong to is the one of the reasons why I believe that promoting seperation is the same as promoting violance.

[Black Dog]

What do you mean by consent of the people? I don't consider 50%+1 'consent' for such radical changes yet most separatists do. That is why a UDI is such a dangerous tool and, like nuclear weapons, it something whose use should be rejected by all civilized peoples.

I'll concede that its a complex issue, but I refuse to reject wholesale the notion that expression of self-determination can be so narrowly defined.

My argument is not based on what is in the constitution - it is based on broader principles about what is acceptable in civilized democratic societies.

But its a contradiction. On the one hand you say that a UDI is unacceptable in "civilized" society, on the other you accept violence as a recourse to remedy the situation. Not what I would call a "civilized" reaction.

The problem is not you or me - it is the separatists who universally insist on the integrity of the entity they define as their 'state'. Can you point to one seperatist that would accept that pieces of Quebec (or Alberta) could break away? The fact that seperatists insist on the integrity of their own state while undermining the state that the currently belong to is the one of the reasons I believe that promoting seperation is the same as promoting violance.

I recognize it as a logically inconsistent position, which is why I don't endorse it. However, I think the conclusion that "promoting seperation is the same as promoting violence" is a huge leap in logic. They are two different issues, though both are logically unsound.

[canadian_conservative]

Sorry to break it to you leaders circle but mad michael does have a job in politics i believe she stated that already to you when you rudely insulted her. Oh whats your job their LC mcdonalds makign miniumum wage? must be fun, must be fun.

As for the troll comment. I have been aroudn this forum today reading all the posts you have posted and your the only troll here you have provoked half the damn people in this forum leaders circle including mad michael and me, exept you gave up on her when she totaly ripped you dry of your dignity when you said she is mad and is a trol and knows nothing of politics you found out she has a political degree. You go around acusing other peopel of being trolls yet all you do is insinuate an arguement when sombody has a different oppinion than you do.

As I told your buddy arrogant argus whoes probably your brother or you as you think I am THELIBRAL. Who made you king of Canada to tell peole what they can believe and what they cant. You sure tell me you hate people like Kim Jong but yet your acting like jim your power hungary and you will bash people who disagree with you. As I have stated I have been to 2 different forums I still am at them Canadaka and canadian content and I have never met so many rude and arrgant people who snap at you when they dissagree with you just like you and argus and a couple others in this forum.

[Riverwind]

I'll concede that its a complex issue, but I refuse to reject wholesale the notion that expression of self-determination can be so narrowly defined.

The intrinsic human right to 'self determination' can be accommodated in many ways that do not require a sovereign state for each identifiable group. A UDI could be justified in cases were minorities are subject to persistent and egregious human rights violations at the hands of the majority, however, this is not the case in any western democratic society, therefore, no UDI is justified in these societies.

But its a contradiction. On the one hand you say that a UDI is unacceptable in "civilized" society, on the other you accept violence as a recourse to remedy the situation. Not what I would call a "civilized" reaction.

I did not advocate the use of force to maint the integrity of state either. However, a UDI completely undermines the legitimacy of the state that maintains social order and would likely trigger northern Ireland style terrorist violence. We may die of boredom discussing the niceties of 'distinct society' and 'triple-e' but with the social order intact there no reason to believe that terrorists groups will suddenly appear.

I recognize it as a logically inconsistent position, which is why I don't endorse it. However, I think the conclusion that "promoting separation is the same as promoting violence" is a huge leap in logic. They are two different issues, though both are logically unsound.

It is also a huge leap to say that US foreign policy caused the 9/11 attacks yet many people accept that argument. The people advocating a policy that leads to violence should not be absolved of responsibility because they did not intend it to happen.

[canadian_conservative]

That shut him up eh MM? Leaders circle is probably going to cower and cry, but he'll be back he just needs to tell his buddies argus and a few otehrs to come and back him up. He cant troll without other people watching him.

[Black Dog]

The intrinsic human right to 'self determination' can be accommodated in many ways that do not require a sovereign state for each identifiable group. A UDI could be justified in cases were minorities are subject to persistent and egregious human rights violations at the hands of the majority, however, this is not the case in any western democratic society, therefore, no UDI is justified in these societies.

Piffle. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in 1970 committed the idea of the right for self-determination to the body of international protocol. In essence, all people reserve the right to seek self-determination to address a lack of proper representation or oppression from any given government. So "persistent and egregious human rights violations" are not the sole criteria. I think there's an argument to be made that Alberta is not well represented by the current political arraingment. I won't be the one to make it, mind you.

I did not advocate the use of force to maint the integrity of state either. However, a UDI completely undermines the legitimacy of the state that maintains social order and would likely trigger northern Ireland style terrorist violence. We may die of boredom discussing the niceties of 'distinct society' and 'triple-e' but with the social order intact there no reason to believe that terrorists groups will suddenly appear.

Okay: you're pulling ths stuff out of your ass now. Terrorist violence? By who? Against whom? Frankl, the only way I see "terrorist violence" becoming an issue is if the federal state decides to suppress teh expression of self-determination by force, in which case resistance would be justifiable and responsibility for the violence would be with the aggressor.

It is also a huge leap to say that US foreign policy caused the 9/11 attacks yet many people accept that argument. The people advocating a policy that leads to violence should not be absolved of responsibility because they did not intend it to happen.

But it's not a huge leap. That opinion can be supported by, say, referencing Osama bin Laden's pronouncments about American policies. Your logical leap (again, that independence movements are equivilant to terrorists) is based on unprovable assumptions, starine dlogic and a complete disregard for social realities.

[Leader Circle]

Sorry to break it to you leaders circle but mad michael does have a job in politics i believe she stated that already to you when you rudely insulted her.  Oh whats your job their LC mcdonalds makign miniumum wage? must be fun, must be fun.

As for the troll comment.  I have been aroudn this forum today reading all the posts you have posted and your the only troll here you have provoked half the damn people in this forum leaders circle including mad michael and me, exept you gave up on her when she totaly ripped you dry of your dignity when you said she is mad and is a trol and knows nothing of politics you found out she has a political degree.  You go around acusing other peopel of being trolls yet all you do is insinuate an arguement when sombody has a different oppinion than you do.

As I told your buddy arrogant argus whoes probably your brother or you as you think I am THELIBRAL.  Who made you king of Canada to tell peole what they can believe and what they cant.  You sure tell me you hate people like Kim Jong but yet your acting like jim your power hungary and you will bash people who disagree with you.  As I have stated I have been to 2 different forums I still am at them Canadaka and canadian content and I have never met so many rude and arrgant people who snap at you when they dissagree with you just like you and argus and a couple others in this forum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thisiswhatreadingapostfromyouislikeccyouareanobvioustrollandneedtogoawaythanksan

haveaniceday!

[Leader Circle]

Sorry to break it to you leaders circle but mad michael does have a job in politics i believe she stated that already to you when you rudely insulted her.  Oh whats your job their LC mcdonalds makign miniumum wage? must be fun, must be fun.

As for the troll comment.  I have been aroudn this forum today reading all the posts you have posted and your the only troll here you have provoked half the damn people in this forum leaders circle including mad michael and me, exept you gave up on her when she totaly ripped you dry of your dignity when you said she is mad and is a trol and knows nothing of politics you found out she has a political degree.  You go around acusing other peopel of being trolls yet all you do is insinuate an arguement when sombody has a different oppinion than you do.

As I told your buddy arrogant argus whoes probably your brother or you as you think I am THELIBRAL.  Who made you king of Canada to tell peole what they can believe and what they cant.  You sure tell me you hate people like Kim Jong but yet your acting like jim your power hungary and you will bash people who disagree with you.  As I have stated I have been to 2 different forums I still am at them Canadaka and canadian content and I have never met so many rude and arrgant people who snap at you when they dissagree with you just like you and argus and a couple others in this forum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Canadian Troll, how did you know Mad Mikey is a woman? I did not know this.

[canadian_conservative]

Maybe you could learn how to read if you went to school like I did instead of flipping burgers all day and asking people if they would like fries with that.

I am sick of arguing with you and obviously you have run out of smart ass insults to me if all you could do now is insult my writing when it's crystal clear andnotbuncheduplikethis. Your just lazy.

So before we end this how am I the troll uh uh, before you answer that go back to the forum where we were talking about Kim Jong. All I did was state an oppinion and you opened up insult after insult on me, as you did to MM when you insulted her knowledge of politics when you did not agree with you. Just read it and you will see who the real troll is. If Greg smartens up and reads some of your posts which I have just sent him he will be telling me not to feed you the troll and hopefully will boot you and your buddy argus out of here. Make this forum a peacefull place again and just but out of any of my topics or just have a freindly debate without any insults.

By the way I am a History teacher not a english teacher so bugger off on the spelling comments burger boy.

[canadian_conservative]

By the way you just calling me a troll has just insinuated you as a troll becuase now your just provoking me grow up how old are you I am honestly wondering if you even have a job at mcdonalds or if your a immature 13 year old boy.

Answer to your question I guess i shoud'nt say mad micahael is a girl because it could be either. But still both of us are just trying to keep you the troll at bay under his bridge and not to jump out and eat people.

[Leader Circle]

By the way you just calling me a troll has just insinuated you as a troll becuase now your just provoking me grow up how old are you I am honestly wondering if you even have a job at mcdonalds or if your a immature 13 year old boy.

Answer to your question I guess i shoud'nt say mad micahael is a girl because it could be either.  But still both of us are just trying to keep you the troll at bay under his bridge and not to jump out and eat people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Greg has advised me to set you to ignore, so I will do so as has most here. Sorry that you have such a hate on for me. Hope things go well with your history teachings.

Lots of Love,

Leader

[Black Dog]

Can you lovebirds take your spat to PMs instead of bunging up the discussion? Thx.

[canadian_conservative]

Can you lovebirds take your spat to PMs instead of bunging up the discussion? Thx.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Love birds I would hardly call us that if you ahve read are posts. Anyways I ahve him on ignore and he has me on ignore so I think we are pretty much done with that.

Now I think I can finnaly resume talking on topic **sigh of relief**

[Leader Circle]

I think the are about 11 billion reasons to separate.

By this reasoning, Toronto alone has 20 billion reasons to separate.

...If Alberta has no debt, why should we held pay the national debt?

Because Alberta was legally incorporated under the Canadian Government - thus Albertans have a proportional share of said debts, incurred to the theoretical benefit of Albertans. Repudiation of said debts would turn Alberta into a banana republic.

It was started by Trudeau, why would we help anything that involved that loser?

You are showing your ignorance of actual facts here - which really calls into question the validity of your other statements.

We would get rid of the useless GST! Lets have elected officials that are forced to vote the way the people want them to. (there's a novel idea). 

If elected representatives were required to have a poll election or referendum in every riding of the country for every decision as you are suggesting here, I respectfully submit our governance would be worse (and far more annoying).

I am sure there are many more reasons for separation, but I don't want Alberta to separate if we can find an accountable government.

I'm still waiting for the first valid reason to be given. All hear so far is just whinging.

If the Liberals can be ousted in the next election, I would not support separation. If the Liberals make government after the next election, I will support separation as strongly as I can!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So long as that Alberta 'Reform' group controls the Conservative Party of Canada, there is no one else who can form a Government in Canada besides the Liberal Party and thus, endless Liberal election victories are foreseen as probable. Eventually Albertans might figure it out that they are the ones causing the Liberal majorities, not Ontario.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To reply to your earlier post Mikey,

Here is reasons to separate:

1 - Every taxpaying Albertan sends $9,000 more annually to Ottawa than they receive in benefits.

2 - Ottawa does NOT appoint elected Senators from Alberta / rather the

appointees are the Prime Minister's chosen ones.

3 - Alberta (with a population much greater than all of the Maritime

provinces) has 1/4 of the Maritime representatives in the Senate

and fewer Members of Parliament.

4 - Ottawa locks up Alberta farmers for selling their wheat to the

United States without an Ottawa bureaucracy's approval.

5 - Ottawa arrested and charged peaceful protestor's who were opposed to

federal government policies. (gun registry)

6 - Ottawa plans to implement environmental policies (Kyoto) that hurt Alberta while giving exemptions to Ontario businesses.

7 - Ottawa gives more grants to the Prime Minister's riding than all

the western provinces combined.

8 - The Prime Minister has total authority to appoint Judges to the

Supreme Court of Canada / these judges that decide the laws of Canada.

9 - The Prime Minister answers only to an Ethics Commissioner the Prime Minister appointed.

10 - Any attempt to have a Prime Minister elected from Alberta would be met with ridicule and contempt from Quebec and Ontario.

I stole this from another forum, but they sound like good reasons to me.

[Toro]

And Pierre Elliot Trudeau most certainly did not start the national debt in Canada - not even close.  If you are obsessed about who created debt in the country, the Administration of Brian Mulroney (which was strongly supported in Alberta I might add) accounts for by far the largest share of the Canadian national debt.

The structural deficits in Canada began under Trudeau, as did the rapid accumulation of debt. The last balanced budget, before Martin did it, was John Turner, in, I believe 1974. Mulroney inherited a bad situation, and didn't have the courage to tackle the issue, but every time they tried, one side of the political spectrum screamed and Mulroney's poll numbers dropped. Simply, the country wasn't ready yet. But Mulroney did balance the operating budget, i.e. excluding interest payments, in 1989 or 1990.

[Riverwind]

1 - Every taxpaying Albertan sends $9,000 more annually to Ottawa than they receive in benefits.

This number adds up to 27 billion/year which is nearly 3 times the annual budget of the government of Alberta and equal to the all the revenue generated by the GST. Your number is clearly bogus. I suspect the real number is a much less eye popping $900/year.

[Leader Circle]

1 - Every taxpaying Albertan sends $9,000 more annually to Ottawa than they receive in benefits.

This number adds up to 27 billion/year which is nearly 3 times the annual budget of the government of Alberta and equal to the all the revenue generated by the GST. Your number is clearly bogus. I suspect the real number is a much less eye popping $900/year.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah not real sure about that number, it sounds high to me too. I stole this from another forum, MadMikey was looking for reasons to separate.

[Argus]

Mikey, did Trudeau not start the national debt?

I consider that name to be insulting and therefore would request that you do not use it. It is not my name.

Is it okay if we just call you Mad for short?

And Pierre Elliot Trudeau most certainly did not start the national debt in Canada - not even close.  If you are obsessed about who created debt in the country, the Administration of Brian Mulroney (which was strongly supported in Alberta I might add) accounts for by far the largest share of the Canadian national debt.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting perspective. Where did you say that degree came from?

All available information is that the debt began under Pierre Trudeau. We've been over this before several times. There is no question that Trudeau began the debt. No one who has "a degree in political science and twenty years following Canadian politics" should be in any doubt of that unless he or she has allowed their political leanings to cloud their thinking so wildly that they are incapable of reading basic economic history.

Trudeau took power with virtually no debt at a time of great economic prosperity. He quadrupled spending and by the time he left the debt was up at $169 billion and the annual deficit was $33 billion. When Mulroney took power Canada was in the midst of a deep world-wide recession with escalating welfare and pogey payouts and decreasing taxes. During his time in office, with sky-high interest rates, his goverment paid $367 billion to service Trudeau's debt.

Deficit Yearly interest cost on accumulated debt in billions

1969 00.40 01.20 - 1st year of Trudeau

1983 41.02 16.9

1984 42.01 15.14 - last year of Trudeau

1985 38.32 22.44

1986 34.4 22.45

1987 30.73 26.66

1988 28.20 29.02

1989 28.95 33.18

1990 28.96 38.82

1991 30.68 42.54

1992 34.64 41.02

Without being able to pay down Trudeau's debt because of poor economic conditions, interest rates raised the amount of that debt every year by requiring the government to borrow to service that debt. Because of high interest rates in that period a $1 debt in 1984 would have been worth $2.16 by 1992. In other words, Trudeau's share of the debt would have been at about $367b. However, without those high servicing costs, Mulroney would not have had to borrow as much as he did for other programs either.

[Riverwind]

Okay: you're pulling ths stuff out of your ass now. Terrorist violence? By who? Against whom? Frankly, the only way I see "terrorist violence" becoming an issue is if the federal state decides to suppress the expression of self-determination by force, in which case resistance would be justifiable and responsibility for the violence would be with the aggressor.

Consider this very likely scenario:

Quebequers vote 52% in favour of a vague question promising sovereignty association. The PQ immediately declares an intention to make a UDI, however, gives the Canadian gov't a few months to table terms acceptable to the PQ. Negotiations break down fairly quickly because the PQ insists that Quebec's 'fair' share of Canada's debt is only 17% as opposed to the 23% that Canada feels is fair.

In the meantime, the Cree in northern Quebec vote 98% in their own referendum to become a self-governing territory within Canada and the various municipalities along the Ontario border vote 75%+ to join Canada. Canada accepts the UDI by Quebec but only for territory where a clear majority wish to be part of the new state.

Now we have a real conundrum but no one has died yet (lets ignore the economic chaos that will be destroying the future livelihood of millions of Canadians). What happens next? Will the PQ come to it senses and negotiate the partition of Quebec or will it attempt to use the hastily constructed Quebec army to assert control of the north and west? Who is the aggressor if the Quebec police walk into a Cree village and 'arrest' the leaders? Who is the aggressor if, at the the Mayor of Gatineau/Hull (backed up by a 80% vote in referendum) asks the Canadian government to station troops and police in Hull?

The scary thing is this scenario is extremely plausible and only someone who is willfully naive would deny that violence is a highly likely outcome. There is no precident. You can't use self-determination to resolve the issues because you have overlapping claims of self-determination. You cannot use the 'status-quo' argument because that would require Quebec to stay as part of Canada.

Utimately, national sovereignty over a piece of land is all about the ability to use force to exercise control over the land when there is a dispute. A UDI is a declaration that one gov't no longer has the ability to exercise its power of force and another gov't is taking over that power. A UDI can only be non-violent when all sides agree on boundaries of the new terrority. In the case of Quebec, there is no agreement and therefore violence is a very likely outcome.

That is why I say a UDI is unacceptable option in any civilized democratic country.

[Riverwind]

Trudeau took power with virtually no debt at a time of great economic prosperity. He quadrupled spending and by the time he left the debt was up at $169 billion and the annual deficit was $33 billion.

Although I agree with you that the debt inheirited from Trudeau tied Mulroney's hands, I don't think it is fair to use numbers that are not adjusted for inflation when comparing debt in 1969 to debt in 1982.

[canadian_conservative]

I dont mean to go off topic but you guys should check out this political forum I think its new: http://politics411.mywowbb.com/

[Guest eureka]

Mad Mikey!

The legalities of responsibility for the National Debt have been thoroughly discussed and there is no much disagreement.

If Quebec were to separate, amicably and by agreement even, it would not have any legal obligation to assume any share of the debt. It would be an entirely new entity and the responsibility is a Canadian one. Most of the leaders of the PQ have already agreed to the idea of paying a share of Canada's debt as part of negotiated terms. The problem is that they are not in agreement with Canada on what would constitute a fair share.

As you say, Quebec is the cause of more than a per capita share. Yet, that is the most it would assume. Then, there is disagreement about all the federal installations in Quebec. There, some Quebeckers argue that Quebec has paid its share of the costs and should get those gratis. That, of course, is not so. Quebec has far more than its share of those assets on its "territory."

The possibilities are endless and any negotiations that might take place would probably take ten years or more. Quebec also would be the weaker party to any negotiation and would likely end up even further behind due to its negotiated losses than your economic result, which, BTW, is well in line with what I have seen estimated.

Other than that, Sparhawk is right, in the main. This separation could not be accomplished without extreme violence and there would be no negotiated possibilities.

[Toro]

This separation could not be accomplished without extreme violence and there would be no negotiated possibilities.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Whoa. That's a very un-Canadian thing to say.

[shoop]

Mikey, did Trudeau not start the national debt?

I consider that name to be insulting and therefore would request that you do not use it. It is not my name.

And Pierre Elliot Trudeau most certainly did not start the national debt in Canada - not even close. If you are obsessed about who created debt in the country, the Administration of Brian Mulroney (which was strongly supported in Alberta I might add) accounts for by far the largest share of the Canadian national debt.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What a whiney biotch you are Mikey. Unfreakinbelievable that you can be such a freak and refer to separatists as whingers. This is a message board screen. Names exist for a reason. Or is Mad_Michael the name on your birth certificate?

A factually incorrect whiny biotch as well. Trudeau repeatedly admitted to driving the national to record levels. He never apologized for it or tried to downplay his role in creating the massive debt. Trudeau tried to argue that his, admittedly, expensive social programs were more important than the debt he was incurring.

You would think that someone with a wealth of experience gained from 'earning a degree in political science' and '20 years of following Canadian politics' would have a clue what they are talking about.

[Toro]

I consider it an insult if you do not refer to me as "Toro, Omniscient Lord of Being."

Sorry. Back to the discussion.