Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

None the less, it is only the British Crown which defends and upholds a Clarity Act.

It is only Elizabeth Windsor who offers an opt out clause, most ethnic minorities live under an iron fist of repression, it is only the British Monarchy who defend Quebec's right to be French.

If Canada was a republic, it would make war upon the Quebecois for trying to succeed, it is the House of Windsor which stands between the Ottawa Federalists imposing their will on l'Assemblée nationale du Québec

Like all Canadian provinces, Quebec has a direct relationship with Buckingham Palace, and Buckingham Palace says that Quebec has the right to peaceful democratic self determination, no matter what the rest of the provinces have to say about it.

Actually Britain isn’t in this anymore.  All political decisions for the country are made by Parliament and Senate, signed off as constitutional by the court, and given the Governor General’s signature.  The UK has zero political authority over Canada.  Crown land is provincial.  Were Canada to end as a country, there is no guarantee of responsibility for any treaty obligations, transfer payments, upkeep/support of federal infrastructure, etc.  Were any jurisdiction to succeed from Canada, there is no guarantee that any federally owned and operated infrastructure would be handed over, and certainly not if the succeeding entity expected the feds to pay for it.  

The reality is that most of our PM’s have been from Quebec, which is at the heart of Canada.  Ontario was once part of Quebec.  Quebec has its own provincial pension and legal system, and has been declared a nation within Canada.  It has been a consistent recipient of transfer payments from other provinces.  Its language and culture is funded heavily through federal programs and Radio-Canada.  Also, billingual Canadians ( most of whom are Québécois) have a distinct advantage getting federal government and civil servant jobs, teaching jobs, and work in the head offices of private businesses.  Any advantages Anglo-Canadians once had are long gone.  

Health money usually comes from the feds without strings attached because the provinces want additional money for health from the feds.  I agree that health care should be provincially determined except in ensuring that the provinces don’t fall below certain minimum standards.

What can be frustrating for the rest of Canada is that sometimes Quebec doesn’t seem to want to contribute to shared projects that would help other provinces and the country as a whole.  When Albertans talk about being frustrated about not being able to build pipelines that would make Canada more energy independent and environmentally friendly (with fewer diesel trucks and trains transporting oil), Quebec doesn’t seem to see the desperation in Alberta’s economy, even though it takes transfer payments.  This is always the challenge for Canada, keeping everyone happy.  Quebec isn’t alone in this either.  BC opposes pipelines too.  

If the issue is the oil sands and environmental concerns, fair enough, but if we don’t have a reasonable middle ground between environmental protection and resource development, the provinces will struggle economically, within or outside Canada.  The federal government tries to find that middle ground.  Not easy.

Our federal government is essentially there to grease the wheels and make it easier for the provinces and territories to work together for mutual benefit.  

In terms of the Indigenous, the challenge there is that for some time the Indigenous were disenfranchised.  While there are some very successful reserves, many require major infrastructure support because they haven’t all functioned as self-funded and self-administered entities.  I hope they get there.  The Canadian public supports that as long as it doesn’t just become about more money, because there’s a legitimate concern when one segment of the population is largely tax exempt yet relies on funding from taxpayers.  That equation needs to change because taxpayers will only transfer so much of their income to Indigenous affairs, especially if they don’t see accountability and improved outcomes.  

In terms of culture, most Canadians including myself really like Quebec.  All parts of the country have a variety of interesting traits.  I’d love to visit the far north one day.  Canada is becoming more billingual and has become more harmonious.  We’re certainly less politically polarized than our southern neighbors, less violent too.  There is much to be proud of and worth protecting in Canada.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Posted
10 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

in terms of culture, most Canadians including myself really like Quebec.  Al parts of the country have a variety of interesting traits.  I’d love to visit the far north one day.  Canada is becoming more billingual and has become more harmonious.  We’re certainly less politically polarized than our southern neighbors, less violent too.  There is much to be proud of and worth protecting in Canada.  

We're still gonna take this Confederation down, in fact, it's going to tear itself apart for us, and it's going to be the ivory tower academics like you who incite it.

We just need to get a few votes in a tiny number of Quebec ridings, Clarity Act, 50 + 1

So doable.  It's gonna happen.  The Debt bubble will pop, there will be hard times, the Pequistes will rise again.

Then we're gonna dance on Canada's grave. Good riddance.

Posted
12 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

We're still gonna take this Confederation down, in fact, it's going to tear itself apart for us, and it's going to be the ivory tower academics like you who incite it.

We just need to get a few votes in a tiny number of Quebec ridings, Clarity Act, 50 + 1

So doable.  It's gonna happen.  The Debt bubble will pop, there will be hard times, the Pequistes will rise again.

Then we're gonna dance on Canada's grave. Good riddance.

You won’t find enough support.  You’re basically an anarchist because you have no idea what to replace Canada with...oh yeah, the US.  How any province could be better positioned on its own with the US next door is beyond me, unless your idea is to join the US, which hasn’t been chosen by our people.  Remember democracy?

Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

You won’t find enough support.  You’re basically an anarchist because you have no idea what to replace Canada with...oh yeah, the US.  How any province could be better positioned on its own with the US next door is beyond me, unless your idea is to join the US, which hasn’t been chosen by our people.  Remember democracy?

Ontario is $750 billion GDP with over thirteen million people, we don't need Canada.

It's gonna happen.  We are going to win. 

It's gonna be like Trump and the Brexit, your side is going to dismiss it as no threat, you're gonna be overconfident,  but you're gonna lose this time,  and then it will be over and too late to put it back together again.

Edited by Dougie93
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Ontario is $750 billion GDP with over thirteen million people, we don't need Canada.

It's gonna happen.  We are going to win. 

It's gonna be like Trump and the Brexit, your side is going to dismiss it as no threat, you're gonna be overconfident,  but you're gonna lose this time,  and then it will be over and too late to put it back together again.

If it gave us better outcomes I’d support it.  I don’t see the upside.  Perhaps Ontario would keep more of its money in the short-term, but acting alone as a scaled down entity would be harder.  

Brexit isn’t going well.  Johnson is waking up to the fact that Europe won’t give him a better deal than May got, one the Parliament won’t support.  Yet the Parliament likely won’t support a no-deal Brexit. If Johnson barrels through a no-deal Brexit, Ireland border issues heighten and Scottish separatism enflames.  

Is a border in Ireland, a disenchanted Scotland and Northern Ireland, huge separation payments to Europe, and loss of the freedom to live and work anywhere in Europe really better than what they have now?  Without European membership I’m not sure the UK will be as attractive.  Brits will decide their fate and Canadians will decide Canada’s.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Posted
4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

If it gave us better outcomes I’d support it.

I'm not naive to think that it's going to have widespread support in Ontario, no doubt the Guardians of Confederation will cling to their corrupt and corrupting Confederation til the end.

It will simply be dropped on Ontario, fait accompli, Ontario is a spectator, Quebec will simply opt out while Ontario watches and worries about it.

This vote will not be Quebec vs Ontario, this will be Montreal vs the rest of Quebec.

Posted
1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

I'm not naive to think that it's going to have widespread support in Ontario, no doubt the Guardians of Confederation will cling to their corrupt and corrupting Confederation til the end.

It will simply be dropped on Ontario, fait accompli, Ontario is a spectator, Quebec will simply opt out while Ontario watches and worries about it.

This vote will not be Quebec vs Ontario, this will be Montreal vs the rest of Quebec.

I know some think Canada would be easier to run without Quebec.  The vast majority of Canadians want to keep all members in the country.  Ultimately the provinces can decide whether to stay subject to the Clarity Act.  So far so good.  

Posted
16 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

None the less, it is only the British Crown which defends and upholds a Clarity Act.

It is only Elizabeth Windsor who offers an opt out clause, most ethnic minorities live under an iron fist of repression, it is only the British Monarchy who defend Quebec's right to be French.

If Canada was a republic, it would make war upon the Quebecois for trying to succeed, it is the House of Windsor which stands between the Ottawa Federalists imposing their will on l'Assemblée nationale du Québec

Like all Canadian provinces, Quebec has a direct relationship with Buckingham Palace, and Buckingham Palace says that Quebec has the right to peaceful democratic self determination, no matter what the rest of the provinces have to say about it.

You don't know the Americans then, because they do not want to add anybody else to America, it's not the 19th century, the Americans are not looking for more states, they wouldn't swallow you, they don't want you anymore than they want the Mexicans.

It would be no different than it is now, Canada doesn't protect you from the Americans anyways, Ottawa is a puppet of the Americans.

Zeitgeist is a typical Federalist, he will say everything is doomsday without Confederation, that's their routine.

When Quebec separates, Quebec will work with France and the EU more, the Americans won't care, the Americans are no threat to you.

Tell that to the Acadians and their experience with the Grand Dérangement. Explain them how much they were protected by the crown all that time.

The only reason why the british were giving candies to Quebec and appease their aspirations, is because they were afraid that the USA would win the jackpot and fetch they colonies. For english Canadians, Quebec was an excuse of not being american. When we look at what is our southern neighbor today, it was a wise choice.

House of windsor has not much to do with the "protection" of the french since 1982. Quebec tried to stop that patriation because the english Canada changed the constitution without Quebec's consent. The Queen never gave a damn about it. So much for the "direct relatioship".

So the americans don't want anyone. Then why they keep pushing for another referendum in Porto Rico, one after another until they win? Why they just do not let them go? What is the other one again, virgin islands? If Canada collapses and all provinces become independants, you can bet the americans will build a plan to swallow them, one by one, under their conditions by taking all means and indirect pressures to accomplish it. For the last ones who would resist, they are going to use the traditional "national security" excuse. They will pretend that terrorists could use those indies just as much as they said they were WMD in Iraq. Or maybe not. Maybe they will not add any of them, but they will sure benefit from that division more than they do right one when canadians are united. On a geopolitical angle, there is more to benefit for canadians to stay united, but not at all cost. The actual federal system is living on borrowed time. That, Zeitgeist better realizes it before it is too late.

 

 

Posted
7 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

If it gave us better outcomes I’d support it.  I don’t see the upside.  Perhaps Ontario would keep more of its money in the short-term, but acting alone as a scaled down entity would be harder.  

Brexit isn’t going well.  Johnson is waking up to the fact that Europe won’t give him a better deal than May got, one the Parliament won’t support.  Yet the Parliament likely won’t support a no-deal Brexit. If Johnson barrels through a no-deal Brexit, Ireland border issues heighten and Scottish separatism enflames.  

Is a border in Ireland, a disenchanted Scotland and Northern Ireland, huge separation payments to Europe, and loss of the freedom to live and work anywhere in Europe really better than what they have now?  Without European membership I’m not sure the UK will be as attractive.  Brits will decide their fate and Canadians will decide Canada’s.  

The Brexit is a good example that if one wants to seperate, it is totally legitimated and can do so, but you better do it for the good reasons. The British thought they could play a silly game with EU and now they realize that it is turning against them. For now, EU is firm but, still playing nice. Once the Brixit is completed, I bet EU will offer more than a nice smile to Scotland that will attempt again a new referendum. The British are perfectly aware that the EU has that joker in their handle.

Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Benz said:

Tell that to the Acadians and their experience with the Grand Dérangement. Explain them how much they were protected by the crown all that time.

The only reason why the british were giving candies to Quebec and appease their aspirations, is because they were afraid that the USA would win the jackpot and fetch they colonies. For english Canadians, Quebec was an excuse of not being american. When we look at what is our southern neighbor today, it was a wise choice.

House of windsor has not much to do with the "protection" of the french since 1982. Quebec tried to stop that patriation because the english Canada changed the constitution without Quebec's consent. The Queen never gave a damn about it. So much for the "direct relatioship".

So the americans don't want anyone. Then why they keep pushing for another referendum in Porto Rico, one after another until they win? Why they just do not let them go? What is the other one again, virgin islands? If Canada collapses and all provinces become independants, you can bet the americans will build a plan to swallow them, one by one, under their conditions by taking all means and indirect pressures to accomplish it. For the last ones who would resist, they are going to use the traditional "national security" excuse. They will pretend that terrorists could use those indies just as much as they said they were WMD in Iraq. Or maybe not. Maybe they will not add any of them, but they will sure benefit from that division more than they do right one when canadians are united. On a geopolitical angle, there is more to benefit for canadians to stay united, but not at all cost. The actual federal system is living on borrowed time. That, Zeitgeist better realizes it before it is too late.

My people are the people who ethnically cleansed the Acadians off the land in Nova Scotia and have lived on that land ever since.

But I'm not saying the Crown can protect you from the English, what I'm saying is you only have the option to leave Confederation;  because Canada is a monarchy.

Ottawa would never let you leave if they could stop you.  They would do what the Spanish are doing to the Catalans

The thing that prevents them from stopping you, is that Canada is a federation of the British Crown and not a unitary republic.

The Clarity Act basically says that Quebec has a direct relationship with the Queen, and if Quebec tells the Queen that Quebec is leaving, the Queen must obey Quebec and let them go,  and there's nothing Ottawa can do about it.

That's the constitution of Canada, the Queen is the country, despite what the Liberals and their apparatchiks might claim

Edited by Dougie93
Posted
2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

My people are the people who ethnically cleansed the Acadians off the land in Nova Scotia and have lived on that land ever since.

But I'm not saying the Crown can protect you from the English, what I'm saying is you only have the option to leave Confederation;  because Canada is a monarchy.

Ottawa would never let you leave if they could stop you.

The thing that prevents them from stopping you, is that Canada is a federation of the British Crown and not a unitary republic.

The Clarity Act basically says that Quebec has a direct relationship with the Queen, and if Quebec tells the Queen that Quebec is leaving, the Queen must obey Quebec and let them go,  and there's nothing Ottawa can do about it.

That's the constitution of Canada, the Queen is the country, despite what the Liberals and their apparatchiks might claim

The Supreme Court has made a decision about it and I don't recall they mentionned anything like it. They rather relied on the constitution. Can you point out to me the part where it supports your assertion please?

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Benz said:

The Supreme Court has made a decision about it and I don't recall they mentionned anything like it. They rather relied on the constitution. Can you point out to me the part where it supports your assertion please?

No, I'm not going to bother going round and round with you about it because I don't think you have a fundamental grasp of how the British North America Act works, so I'd be wasting my time. 

If you don't believe me, that's fine, I have no desire to prove anything to you, I don't care what Canadians think anymore, I am dissident to Canadians now.

I just talk to the Americans now, I don't waste my time trying to convince Canadians of anything, Canadians are delusional, they are beyond convincing.

Canadians live in a monarchy,  yet think that Canada is a republic somehow, when people are so divorced from the reality of their constitution, they are beyond help.

Hence why Canada is a police state, docile Canadians will never demand their rights, they just sit and watch the CBC propaganda arm to tell them what to think and do.

I wash my hands of Canada, Canada is a lost cause.  If you want to read the BNA Act, you're welcome to, if not, I don't care.

The Queen is my country, House of WIndsor, the Post National State of Canada can burn in Hell for all I care.

Edited by Dougie93
Posted
1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

No, I'm not going to bother going round and round with you about it because I don't think you have a fundamental grasp of how the British North America Act works, so I'd be wasting my time. 

If you don't believe me, that's fine, I have no desire to prove anything to you, I don't care what Canadians think anymore, I am dissident to Canadians now.

I just talk to the Americans now, I don't waste my time trying to convince Canadians of anything, Canadians are delusional, they are beyond convincing.

Canadians live in a monarchy,  yet think that Canada is a republic somehow, when people are so divorced from the reality of their constitution, they are beyond help.

Hence why Canada is a police state, docile Canadians will never demand their rights, they just sit and watch the CBC propaganda arm to tell them what to think and do.

I wash my hands of Canada, Canada is a lost cause.  If you want to read the BNA Act, you're welcome to, if not, I don't care.

The Queen is my country, House of WIndsor, the Post National State of Canada can burn in Hell for all I care.

Look, I am not saying what you state is wrong. I knew it moreless because although I read the BNA act long time ago, I can't say I remember all the details. I know the natives are actually using that specific argument and playing that card for their claims. What I am rather saying is, the actual constitution of Canada have a weight that might diminish alot the scope of BNA act. Before, the Queen was the effective sovereign of Canada. Now it is rather Canada making the choice to keep the Queen as symbolic sovereign. Canada could easily say that it retires that position to the Queen and there is nothing she can do about it. So for me, playing the BNA act card is not promising. The natives are playing it because they have nothing else.

As for your feelings regarding the canadians, I understand. I got my share a desapointment as well. I am avoiding defaitism, but I am not building any hope as well. Confusious said, "your son is not your son, he is the son of his time". It's not impossible that after few generations, the game can change and have new people thinking differently. But when? in 300 years?

I think that as long as Quebec remains a simple province, nothing will change in Canada. It's a ciment. If the people of Québec says YES to its sovereignty, the game becomes totally differently. Because then, Canada would have something to lose of doing nothing. If the people in western Canada play their cards well, it would be a good opportunity to try and reshap the political structure of the country. But they will always need to consider the others as well. They will never rule Canada. Québec claims are often similar or in the same direction of what the westerners want, but they always been the one to fail us. So I am not very sensible to their complaints. I tell them come back to me when you have more maturity and when you really stand for what you want instead of blaming me for all your problems.

In clear, what do you really what for the provinces. Do you want them to be all independant countries? Bound only be an economical agreement like free trade or something?

Posted
1 minute ago, Benz said:

 Now it is rather Canada making the choice to keep the Queen as symbolic sovereign

That is not the case, nothing in the Canada Act 1982 removed the Queen as the Sovereign, Head of State, and Commander-in-Chief.

Says so right on page one of the Canada Act, in black and white, the Executive authority of Her Majesty is not altered.

The Canada Act does not replace the British North America Act, the Canada Act is part and parcel of the BNA Act.

 

Posted
8 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I know some think Canada would be easier to run without Quebec.  The vast majority of Canadians want to keep all members in the country.  Ultimately the provinces can decide whether to stay subject to the Clarity Act.  So far so good.  

Clarity act has no legitimity. You cannot be the judge and the party of a cause like this. Someone independant, or simply the U/N/ could decide whether the question is clear or not. Québec has nothing to win of having an unclear question, because after that, the other countries will not recognize the result. I wouldn't either in their place. But the english Canada is not the one to decide what is clear or not. In particular the case of Quebec. Because Quebec has been kicked out of the constitutional commity in 1981 despite it is the only one not english province. No other provinces are as legitimated than Quebec to leave. The federal is responsible for that and is not the one who gets to decide of the clarity.

 

 

Posted

And I personally have invoked the authority of Her Majesty to overrule the Government of Canada.

I have in the military declined an unlawful order under the authority of the Commander-in-Chief.

And I was not charged, I was not punished, once it was investigated I was vindicated and then we just carried on.

Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Benz said:

Clarity act has no legitimity. You cannot be the judge and the party of a cause like this. Someone independant, or simply the U/N/ could decide whether the question is clear or not. Québec has nothing to win of having an unclear question, because after that, the other countries will not recognize the result. I wouldn't either in their place. But the english Canada is not the one to decide what is clear or not. In particular the case of Quebec. Because Quebec has been kicked out of the constitutional commity in 1981 despite it is the only one not english province. No other provinces are as legitimated than Quebec to leave. The federal is responsible for that and is not the one who gets to decide of the clarity.

I agree with you, but I am bound by oath to the British Crown.

Though I personally would not impose any clarity upon you, I would be happy for you to just go to the UN and declare independence fait accompli.

That being said, the Federalists trapped themselves by passing the Clarity Act, because in doing so they formalized the process for secession even by the rule of the Crown.

They wrote the law which makes it legal for Quebec to leave where no such law existed before.

So even as a Loyalist, I can now advocate for secession, because according to the Clarity Act, Her Majesty defends the right.

Edited by Dougie93
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Benz said:

Clarity act has no legitimity. You cannot be the judge and the party of a cause like this. Someone independant, or simply the U/N/ could decide whether the question is clear or not. Québec has nothing to win of having an unclear question, because after that, the other countries will not recognize the result. I wouldn't either in their place. But the english Canada is not the one to decide what is clear or not. In particular the case of Quebec. Because Quebec has been kicked out of the constitutional commity in 1981 despite it is the only one not english province. No other provinces are as legitimated than Quebec to leave. The federal is responsible for that and is not the one who gets to decide of the clarity.

 

 

The Clarity Act was created to ensure that people voting in a referendum know what they are voting for.  It's a protection for both federalists and separatists.  Was Chretien, a Quebecois federalist PM of Canada, trying to protect Canada's interests by implementing it?  Yes, but the federal government's interests are to protect the integrity of the country.  Many Quebecers are federalists.  I realize Quebec didn't sign on to the 1982 Constitution, but I think few today would argue that being more beholden to the British monarch and not having protections like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a better situation than what we have today.  Quebec always demands asymmetrical federalism, which it actually has (pensions, Code Civil, exclusive language laws opposed to bilingualism).  What Quebec pushed for was more of it, which other provinces would never go for.  So, we could either do the best we could to fix the situation at the time or do nothing, which would have been worse.  Subsequent governments, especially Mulroney's, realized that reopening constitutional debates is a losing proposition because there simply is no further consensus, at least not in the foreseeable future.  I would say that right now Alberta is more fired up about lack of support than Quebec.  Ontario is simply the giving tree.  Some, like Dougie, would say that Ontario is constantly getting screwed by Confederation.  Most Canadians like Canada and want to keep it despite the compromises we all make to keep it going.  It's not perfect, but most would say it's the best option there is.  Notice that J. Trudeau has not gone head to head with Quebec over an Energy East pipeline.  Alberta has a hard time with that.  I think a pipeline is worth building anyway as far as Ontario.  We can refine it and distribute it to central Canada, which is still a huge market for Western oil without direct pipeline access to the Atlantic.

Edited by Zeitgeist
Posted (edited)

Chretien was panicking, they came a hairs breadth away from losing the referendum and the Liberals were spooked, so they passed the Clarity Act without thinking of the unintended consequences of a formalized process for secession written into law.

With crisis comes opportunity.  Chaos is a ladder.  The Clarity Act is not a wall, it's a door.  An escape hatch in fact.

The Federalists are hoisting themselves on their own petards, don't try to stop them, keep feeding them rope to hang themselves with.

Vote Liberal; to bring this Confederation down by its own hand.

Edited by Dougie93
Posted
39 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Chretien was panicking, they came a hairs breadth away from losing the referendum and the Liberals were spooked, so they passed the Clarity Act without thinking of the unintended consequences of a formalized process for secession written into law.

With crisis comes opportunity.  Chaos is a ladder.  The Clarity Act is not a wall, it's a door.  An escape hatch in fact.

The Federalists are hoisting themselves on their own petards, don't try to stop them, keep feeding them rope to hang themselves with.

Vote Liberal; to bring this Confederation down by its own hand.

What I find most amusing about your anti-Confederation, anti-Canada stance, is that you think something great would come out the other side.  It would simply make a mess of a good country.  When we did finally salvage what we could, we'd still have to find away to reduce interprovincial (state?) barriers, deal with the complexity of the various Indigenous cultures within our provinces, and find common ground where possible.  The vulnerable would be the most screwed.  Ontario, Alberta, and BC would likely have the most to gain financially.  Quebec would be culturally isolated.  The Maritimes and Newfoundland would be stranded.  The North, and I won't get into the many Inuit, Cree, and other groups impacted, would be totally abandoned.  Toronto and Vancouver would likely devolve into city states like Hong Kong, Vancouver for its beauty and climate, Toronto for its dynamism.  Montreal might manage as the French enclave.  The rush to cities would only increase.  It's no way to develop the potential of Canada.  Of course the vulnerability of all these places makes them easy fodder for the US, which is an Anglophone cultural monolith.  The Melting Pot won't cut much slack to Multiculturalism, Francophone Quebec, French Acadia (or English Acadia for that matter).  Newfoundland?  Newfoundland?  Don't even think about it.  Our real estate and resources would be what counts the most, and the values represented by our Canadian federal government would be subsumed within a much larger and indifferent U.S.  Expect more violence and political polarization and less made in Canada cultural productions.  

If what people on both sides of the border want is more opportunity for investment, jobs, residential options, etc., simply allow greater freedom of residence and employment between Canada and the US and retain everything else that we already have.  Dismantling the country is not the way to solve our problems. 

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

What I find most amusing about your anti-Confederation, anti-Canada stance, is that you think something great would come out the other side. 

Not necessarily, might not be great, but I am going to find out what it will be, no matter how many Federalists try to bar my way.

A leap of faith into the unknown, as anything is better than standing idly by while Canadian Confederation becomes a Bolshevist police state upon my neck with no restraint as to how far it may go.

Doesn't protect me, doesn't protect my rights, doesn't protect my property, quite the opposite in fact, and they just make shit up as they go, there is no limits to what they can do.

No fears on earth, but that doesn't mean I don't want to die free.

Edited by Dougie93
Posted
3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The Clarity Act was created to ensure that people voting in a referendum know what they are voting for.  It's a protection for both federalists and separatists.  Was Chretien, a Quebecois federalist PM of Canada, trying to protect Canada's interests by implementing it?  Yes, but the federal government's interests are to protect the integrity of the country.  Many Quebecers are federalists.  I realize Quebec didn't sign on to the 1982 Constitution, but I think few today would argue that being more beholden to the British monarch and not having protections like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a better situation than what we have today.  Quebec always demands asymmetrical federalism, which it actually has (pensions, Code Civil, exclusive language laws opposed to bilingualism).  What Quebec pushed for was more of it, which other provinces would never go for.  So, we could either do the best we could to fix the situation at the time or do nothing, which would have been worse.  Subsequent governments, especially Mulroney's, realized that reopening constitutional debates is a losing proposition because there simply is no further consensus, at least not in the foreseeable future.  I would say that right now Alberta is more fired up about lack of support than Quebec.  Ontario is simply the giving tree.  Some, like Dougie, would say that Ontario is constantly getting screwed by Confederation.  Most Canadians like Canada and want to keep it despite the compromises we all make to keep it going.  It's not perfect, but most would say it's the best option there is.  Notice that J. Trudeau has not gone head to head with Quebec over an Energy East pipeline.  Alberta has a hard time with that.  I think a pipeline is worth building anyway as far as Ontario.  We can refine it and distribute it to central Canada, which is still a huge market for Western oil without direct pipeline access to the Atlantic.

When you want to protect the integrity of a country, you do not piss off a nation like Quebec like that. If Chretien really wanted to preserve the integrity, he should have repaired the betrayal of 1981 patraited in 1982. As long as he refuses to do so, whatever he wants regarding Canada is irrelevent. Trudeau and him are the greatest sponsors of seperation ever. They have no credibility of what-so-ever regarding any kind of clarity. Quebec did not trust any of them.

"I think few today would argue that being more beholden to the British monarch and not having protections like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a better situation than what we have today"

hmm, no. I never heard anything like this in my life. The Quebecois do not seek any kind of support from the monarchs. They were not against the principle of having the Charter or Rights and Freedoms. They were against the current version and needed few amendements. When english Canada said "we do not care about your opinion, we set the rules without you", they doomed Canada. It is just a matter of time before it collapses. Canada with 10 provinces is living on borrowed time just because of that.

I see you are not aware of what Quebec is asking. Yes we ask for asymmetrical federalism but, you have enumareted only the points that are ok with us. Not the ones we do not agree. So you do not iknow and understand why we did not sign in 1982 and why we still can't sign today. How can you think you could ensure the sustainability of Canada if you do not know why we want to break free from it?

You are wrong about Mulroney. He said it many times and still say it today. Canada should have signed the Meech accord. The status quo is food for separatism.

Of course the other provinces do not see the need to change the constitution. It is their constitution. They choosed it. In their point of view, if it is not broke, don't fix it. But it is broke for us. We are excluded of its design. And it is for us a major reason to quit. So it is broken. They just wait until Quebec really breaks it to do any move. They wait until it is too late. Alot think that Quebec is just black mailing and will never do it. Even after they got a victory by a tiny margin by cheating. So it is pretty clear that Quebec will never find an open mind from the ROC and sovereignty is the only solution. Right now the sovereignist leaders are trying to repair many mistakes did in the past but, it is just a matter of time before that subject comes back to a greater importance. Because the issue is still the very same.

You are talking about Energy east... but in the case of Quebec, this is a different topic. The seperatism in Quebec and the one in Alberta per se, have very different basis. For Alberta, it is motivated by money. Their feelings about it vary or is proportional to the ratio of what they get or give to the federal government. There is no such things as Alberta nationalism. They do not feel Alberta is a nation. They feel different from the maritimes as much as Californians feel different from New Yorkers. Unlike Quebec, where the people identify thenselve to the Quebec nation and see Canada only as a federation. Canada is a civic space, Quebec is home nation. People of alberta see their land as a province. People of Quebec see their land as a nation state. Sure there are also few economic reasons why Quebec wants to split, but they are rather the results of unfair rules and too centralized government that has too much power. Quebec tends to assume its choices and its situation. Quebec never got any money from the federal to develop its energy industry. Unlike Ontario and Alberta in nuclear and oil industry. Quebec respects the rules, when Quebec are part of the decision about what are the rules. Some other provinces don't care much about the definition of the rules, but they complain after when it's not going the way they would like.

So our observations of the canadian dynamic can be resumed in one phrase. It's "one for all and all against one".

One more thing, you say the ROC would never go for... it is important to remind you that in 1981, almost all provinces were on the side of Quebec concerning the claims. Until they turn their coat and betray us. Yet, they are still complaining of the outcome. Same for Meech 1987-90. The provinces and the federal were in agreement with Quebec. Until few traitors like Trudeau, Chretien and others managed to sabotage the proccess with the complicity of Clyde Wells and elijah Harper. Instead of solving the issue, the ROC turned their back on Quebec again and the accord died. Basically, what it means, is the ROC would be open for that, but it is always the bash Quebec group that win at the arrival line. That part, is in your hands. 

Posted
26 minutes ago, Benz said:

When english Canada said "we do not care about your opinion, we set the rules without you", they doomed Canada. It is just a matter of time before it collapses. Canada with 10 provinces is living on borrowed time just because of that.

Hear, hear!

 

Posted

And here's the thing, Quebec doesn't even have to have a referendum, Quebec could legitimately claim independence fait accompli

Reason being, the Founding Families of Nouvelle France were never allowed self determination, a right which they now have under international law, thanks to Woodrow Wilson.

The 60,000 Quebecois in Nouvelle France were never given a choice, they were signed over the the British Crown as a prize of war in the Treaty of Paris 1763.

Same day and same way India was signed over to the British Crown.  Canada and India were taken by the British in one fell swoop, birthing the British Empire.

The Quebecois are not bound to ask the British for permission to be a republic anymore than India had to ask the British permission.

The Viceroy can withdraw from Quebec just as Louis Mountbatten sailed away home from the British Raj in India, no referendum required.

Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Benz said:

When you want to protect the integrity of a country, you do not piss off a nation like Quebec like that. If Chretien really wanted to preserve the integrity, he should have repaired the betrayal of 1981 patraited in 1982. As long as he refuses to do so, whatever he wants regarding Canada is irrelevent. Trudeau and him are the greatest sponsors of seperation ever. They have no credibility of what-so-ever regarding any kind of clarity. Quebec did not trust any of them.

"I think few today would argue that being more beholden to the British monarch and not having protections like the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a better situation than what we have today"

hmm, no. I never heard anything like this in my life. The Quebecois do not seek any kind of support from the monarchs. They were not against the principle of having the Charter or Rights and Freedoms. They were against the current version and needed few amendements. When english Canada said "we do not care about your opinion, we set the rules without you", they doomed Canada. It is just a matter of time before it collapses. Canada with 10 provinces is living on borrowed time just because of that.

I see you are not aware of what Quebec is asking. Yes we ask for asymmetrical federalism but, you have enumareted only the points that are ok with us. Not the ones we do not agree. So you do not iknow and understand why we did not sign in 1982 and why we still can't sign today. How can you think you could ensure the sustainability of Canada if you do not know why we want to break free from it?

You are wrong about Mulroney. He said it many times and still say it today. Canada should have signed the Meech accord. The status quo is food for separatism.

Of course the other provinces do not see the need to change the constitution. It is their constitution. They choosed it. In their point of view, if it is not broke, don't fix it. But it is broke for us. We are excluded of its design. And it is for us a major reason to quit. So it is broken. They just wait until Quebec really breaks it to do any move. They wait until it is too late. Alot think that Quebec is just black mailing and will never do it. Even after they got a victory by a tiny margin by cheating. So it is pretty clear that Quebec will never find an open mind from the ROC and sovereignty is the only solution. Right now the sovereignist leaders are trying to repair many mistakes did in the past but, it is just a matter of time before that subject comes back to a greater importance. Because the issue is still the very same.

You are talking about Energy east... but in the case of Quebec, this is a different topic. The seperatism in Quebec and the one in Alberta per se, have very different basis. For Alberta, it is motivated by money. Their feelings about it vary or is proportional to the ratio of what they get or give to the federal government. There is no such things as Alberta nationalism. They do not feel Alberta is a nation. They feel different from the maritimes as much as Californians feel different from New Yorkers. Unlike Quebec, where the people identify thenselve to the Quebec nation and see Canada only as a federation. Canada is a civic space, Quebec is home nation. People of alberta see their land as a province. People of Quebec see their land as a nation state. Sure there are also few economic reasons why Quebec wants to split, but they are rather the results of unfair rules and too centralized government that has too much power. Quebec tends to assume its choices and its situation. Quebec never got any money from the federal to develop its energy industry. Unlike Ontario and Alberta in nuclear and oil industry. Quebec respects the rules, when Quebec are part of the decision about what are the rules. Some other provinces don't care much about the definition of the rules, but they complain after when it's not going the way they would like.

So our observations of the canadian dynamic can be resumed in one phrase. It's "one for all and all against one".

One more thing, you say the ROC would never go for... it is important to remind you that in 1981, almost all provinces were on the side of Quebec concerning the claims. Until they turn their coat and betray us. Yet, they are still complaining of the outcome. Same for Meech 1987-90. The provinces and the federal were in agreement with Quebec. Until few traitors like Trudeau, Chretien and others managed to sabotage the proccess with the complicity of Clyde Wells and elijah Harper. Instead of solving the issue, the ROC turned their back on Quebec again and the accord died. Basically, what it means, is the ROC would be open for that, but it is always the bash Quebec group that win at the arrival line. That part, is in your hands. 

Quebec is recognized as a nation in a loose federation.  If it’s about greater autonomy, in what specific areas would Quebec want greater autonomy than it already has?  Keep in mind that economics do play a role and other provinces require the same economic opportunities, and if even one of them deems it unfair (as in Meech), the same autonomy.  What we have now is asymmetrical federalism, with Quebec having more control than other provinces.  Is it everything Quebecers want?  Perhaps not, but Alberta certainly isn’t getting everything it wants and has contributed a great deal to transfer payments of which Quebec has been a recipient.  I don’t deny that there are Quebecers who want change, including yourself, but all parts of Canada want changes and it’s impossible to meet all of the interests of one province without creating issues elsewhere.  It’s a matter of compromise.  We all give up a few things because the whole has more advantages than the sum of its parts.  We achieve more together.  No one part of the country is better than another part.  I will tell you that the people of Nunavut consider themselves no less a people than the people of Quebec.  Newfoundlanders have similar pride.  

Quebec is s treasured part of Canada and no one is making Quebec or any other part of the country remain in Canada. The people of each province decide.  The people of Quebec have so far decided to remain in Canada.  You can say that the process of a referendum wasn’t fair or perfect.  I know many federalists felt that the referendum question was misleading because it mentioned things that might not actually happen in a yes vote.  For example there is no guarantee of sovereignty association, use of the same passport, currency, etc.  Again, I’m sure separatists disagree. The important thing is that unless and until a referendum occurs which takes Quebec out of Canada, we should do our best to make Canada work.  Everyone agrees on that and there has been some progress, I think.  Canadians probably have more to worry about from Alberta right now, which is getting very impatient with Quebec and B.C.  

Edited by Zeitgeist

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.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...