M. Bosclair clarifies his position

[fellowtraveller]

in case you were wondering, young Andre makes it pretty clear

In an interview with the all-news channel RDI to be aired Sunday, Andre Boisclair says independence is up to Quebecers only and he sees no reason to submit to the federal Clarity Act.

Boisclair argues that sovereignty is a not a legal decision, but a political one and that voters will have the last word.

He maintains the province's legislature has the authority to oversee the process.

I doubt that this will make any difference to the critical issue that consumes all of the time of all of our 'federalist leaders' - what day they will elect yet another ineffective government for the Rest Of Canada - but one can hope that they'll at least have some comment on these revelations.

[Leafless]

Re: "Andre makes it pretty clear"

I think Mr. Boisclair is immature and sees things through 'rose coloure glasses' if he thinks Quebec can simply politically separate from Canada.

How ludricous and naive!

[fellowtraveller]

Re: "Andre makes it pretty clear"

  I think Mr. Boisclair is immature and sees things through 'rose coloure glasses' if he thinks Quebec can simply politically separate from Canada.

How ludricous and naive!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Being dismissive of what is happening doesn't stop it from happening, I'm sure the PQ would be quite pleased if many Canadians take that approach.

What would stop him then? What will stop him from leading Quebec out of Canada?

I'll answer my own question. The PQ are conficdent they'll prevail. Their announcements of their strategy are mostly for Quebec consumption, though partly for the ROC. This gives him and them plenty of time to tailor their communications if anything comes unglued enroute.The Clarity Act won't make a whit of difference. It presumes that Ottawa will have some kind of offical review of the referendum question before the event, or that Quebec will negotiate much beforehand. Neither will happen.

He has to get past a provincial election, then a referendum, then a declaration of the New Rupublic in the National Assembly, then some international recognition.

IMO, the only real hurdle for him will be the election.

If he wins that, the PQ will move like a steamroller through the next phases.

[Riverwind]

What would stop him then?  What will stop him from leading Quebec out of Canada?

Ultimately, sovereignty depends on the willingness to use a gun to defend your claim. The PQ could hold their referendum on their terms and discover that many municipalities immediately vote to succeed from Quebec. At that point, the Quebec gov't faces the same dilemma that Canada does. They either have to use force to prevent the municipalities from separating or they have to let them go.

It is possible that Bosclair is being quite Machevillian on this point: he plans to thump his chest about the clairity act because it benefits him politically but fully intends to follow it because it is the best way to ensure Quebec achieves independence with the least amount of chaos.

[fellowtraveller]

I don't think force of arms will ever enter the picture, Canadians will not send troops to stop any independence movement or vote or to enforce the Clarity Act. What would be the point in creating martyrs, murdering people over exercising their democrtic rights to vote as they choose?

Municpalities leaving, fighting in the streets? Seems unlikely. I can see an exodus of economic refugees from the Republic, but the second prong of Bosclairs strategy is to soften the normal Francophone -only PQ nationalist protocol and become a gentler friendlier host for non -Francophones.

IMO, there is absolutely no way that Boisclair is bluffing about the Clarity Act. It would be utterly foolish for him to do so, it hinders his negotiating stance for him to even suggest it. He is part after all of the unanimous vote in 2001 in the Quebec National Assembly, including Jean Charest, that rejected the legitimacy of the Clarity Act.

Really, the Clarity Act is a sop for the ROC, it allows the easily deluded to think it will be some sort of barrier to independence. What is Ottawa going to do, get the Supreme Court to rule on the issue, then try to enforce a Canadian law on an independent nation after the fact? No jurisdiction by that time.

[August1991]

Ultimately, sovereignty depends on the willingness to use a gun to defend your claim. The PQ could hold their referendum on their terms and discover that many municipalities immediately vote to succeed from Quebec.

Sparhawk, can you name a municipality in Quebec where they would hold a referendum? (And why would they? The results of the Quebec-wide referendum will be known riding-by-riding.)

Incidentally, after repeated questioning on how he would respond to a Yes vote in 1980 during the first referendum, an exasperated Trudeau finally and famously answered: "Well, I guess someone would have to negotiate but it certainly wouldn't be me."

IMV, sovereignty ultimately depends on the willingness of people to recognize it.

The term used in French is rapport de force and it refers to the relative weight one brings to a negotiation. In Parizeau's view, a majority vote in a referendum would lead to negotiations with Canada which, if they failed, would trigger recognition by France. From this, Parizeau was to start negotiations between Quebec and other countries in North America: Canada and the US.

The strategy is arcane but believeable.

Sparhawk, your strategy seems to be that if a majority votes Yes, then municiplaities will hold their own referenda, win them and then, invite the Canadian army to defend their territory. I quite frankly don't see how this advances anything and I would be very surprised if anyone would order any Canadian troops in such a manner.

----

I'll add that these various scenarios have two purposes: one, they are legitimate ways to determine how to react in advance. Two, they are part of the various strategies in advance of a referendum. In this case, threats are unlikely to work if only because no one takes the Canadian army very seriously. There are Indian reserves in Canada where the police and army don't go.

I happen to think that a Quebec referendum should be seen in the context of Canadian history. Canada is about to go through a major reorganization. It has been long delayed but the signs are all too apparent.

[Leafless]

August1991

I think the point concerning municpalities having their own referendum is that Quebec does not have the power to force a municipality that does not want part of separation and if push comes to shove their could be bloodshed.

The Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled Quebec cannot separate unilaterally.

All this separation talk is soley coming out of Quebec with no federal input.

As far as Iam concerned it was a mistake allowing a Quebec separatist Party to be part of federal politics and anyone being part of a Quebec separatist movement should be charged with sediton.

[Riverwind]

Sparhawk, can you name a municipality in Quebec where they would hold a referendum?  (And why would they?  The results of the Quebec-wide referendum will  be known riding-by-riding.)

The James Bay Cree has their own referendum and voted 98% to not join an independent Quebec. In any case, voting no in a referendum on separation would not automatically imply that a municipality would vote yes to separate from Quebec so there would have to be a separate referendum.

IMV, sovereignty ultimately depends on the willingness of people to recognize it.

But the devil is in the details: there is no rule book that says the borders of Quebec the independent country will be the same as the Quebec the province. I believe violence will start shortly after any yes vote because Quebec nationalists are not willing to accept this reality. There will be hot heads on both side that will resort to terrorist like tactics and Montreal could quite quickly turn into Belfast. The only way this outcome could be avoided is if separatist leaders acknowledge that Quebec's borders are negotiable.

From this, Parizeau was to start negotiations between Quebec and other countries in North America: Canada and the US.

The strategy is arcane but believable.

This is where the clarity act is the really important. The Clarity Act and the supreme court reference basically says separation is legal but must follow certain rules. These rules are not onerous and are, in fact, quite reasonable to anyone except a separatist. Canada will use this to show the international community that it is the separatists that are acting in bad faith and therefore no recognition should be extended to Quebec. That is also why it is in the best interest of separatists to follow the Clarity Act to the letter.

On another note, Quebequers like to convince themselves that their aspirations are so noble that the rest of the world will be lining up to recognize Quebec. I believe nothing could be further from the truth: the vast majority of states (democratic and non-democratic) would not like the precident and will avoid the issue as long as possible (which means they would support the status quo).

I quite frankly don't see how this advances anything and I would be very surprised if anyone would order any Canadian troops in such a manner.

How would that differ from using the Quebec police to force people to recognize Quebec City as the legitimate gov't? Peaceful civil disobedience by enough people would make it impossible for the Quebec gov't to maintain soveriegnty without using force.

What if the Cree decide to create their own country - what would Quebec do to stop them? In fact, there may actually be treaty obligations that would require the Canadian gov't to assist them.

Citizenship will be the issue that turns any Quebec attempt to seperate into a nightmare. Canada cannot and will not allow Quebequers to keep their Canadian citizenship. Revoking the citizenship of people living in Quebec would likely require constitutional changes but these changes will be passed swiftly. This, in turn, would put huge pressure on Quebec because it would exacerbate the outflow of people and capital. It also means that more people will be inclined to demand that their municipality remain part of Canada.

[Bakunin]

One thing that was interesting in a recent documentary was that the liberal party was preparing to expel its quebec wing and even the prime minister in 1995. As for in 1980's, Trudeau made it clear that he was fighting for his seats, if he was losing, he would have quit the liberal party.

One thing is sure, with a quebec prime minister, the federalist camp will have either to find a new chief fast or call for an election, while they do that, the quebec government will have all the time to declare uniterally its independance and get recognition from france while the federal government reorganise itself.

Their only chance to invalidate the referendum is by keeping its quebec wing and by invalidating a winning referendum, it will be chaos.

This is why chretien wanted the clarity act, to prepare the possibility to invalidate a winning referendum.

however nobody know if he was ready to do it or if paul martin or someone else would be ready to do this because this would clearly mean allot more chaos than a winning referendum accepted.

[seabee]

Just a hypothesis!

In politics, timing is important. A federal election is almost inevitable in the next few months. Could it be that Mr. Boisclair's stance about law C-20 is a trap for the federalist parties, particularly the liberals, to make Québec's independance an important issue that might not have been there otherwise? That could please Mr. Duceppe no end.

Who says politics is boring?

[rbacon]

The Clarity Act is not a part of the Constitution, it is only a law enacted by Ottawa. No Province was allowed to vote freely to join, why would they need anyones permission to leave. I wish them well. The Clarity Act is just worthless words and is binding on no one. Quebec belongs to Quebecers.

[Bakunin]

Just a hypothesis!

In politics, timing is important. A federal election is almost inevitable in the next few months. Could it be that Mr. Boisclair's stance about law C-20 is a trap for the federalist parties, particularly the liberals, to make Québec's independance an important issue that might not have been there otherwise? That could please Mr. Duceppe no end.

Who says politics is boring?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think its the opposite, this is clearly what paul martin wants, he wants to talk about soverignty because he knows that alot of federalist in quebec simply won't go voting because of the frustration of gomery. The liberal are at their lowest and thei are deseperate to get more vote. What Paul martin wants is to revive the debate to rally the federalist vote wich has a potential of 50% of the vote. But the sovreignist won't bite. Im convince they won't reply exaclty like they did last election.

[August1991]

Sparhawk, you raise many points. I'll pick one:

Citizenship will be the issue that turns any Quebec attempt to seperate into a nightmare. Canada cannot and will not allow Quebequers to keep their Canadian citizenship.

This would be very difficult for Canada. Many, many Canadian citizens live outside of Canada and Canada accepts double citizenship. It would be simply impossible to enforce a measure stripping certain people of their Canadian citizenship.

A similar situation arises in the case of money: if Quebec wanted to, it could continue to use the Canadian dollar and there is nothing Canada could do about it that would not be harmful to Canada itself.

[Frankly, I suspect that many separatists would prefer to use US dollars and have a Quebec passport but that's neither here nor there.]

These points may have academic interest but I think they ignore the essential.

In your view Sparhawk, you would see Canada kept together by force of arms. That is, you envisage a scenario in which people in Quebec would be forced to stay in Canada by the threat of force. But why would ROC want to do that?

Rather, I see this as part of an ongoing negotiation and I simply don't see force being used or even threatened at any stage. There's no need for it. It is not in Quebec's interests nor ROC's interests. Canadian history doesn't work that way.

Here's another way of looking at this: Stanfield proposed Deux Nations, then Trudeau implemented bilingualism (and almost got agreement on an amending formula in Victoria) and then altered the Constitution by including a Charter of Rights. In response to Bourassa's list, Mulroney got agreement at Meech Lake. IOW, over the past 40 years, there have been various attempts to reform the Canadian federal structure. This is an ongoing process and a referendum should be seen in that light.

What I am saying is iconoclastic in Quebec independence circles, and in English Canada too I suspect. But ask yourself, in practical terms, what would happen the day following a successful referendum in Quebec?

[August1991]

Here's a pertinent quote:

"What will be the key, obviously, of this recognition is not only the vote made in Quebec but also the new political forces that will appear after a positive vote on sovereignty," he said.

"There's going to be a new political agenda and new political forces in Quebec after a Yes vote. Quebecers will stand more united than ever after a Yes vote on sovereignty. The ones that will be divided will be the ones in the House of Commons."

Boisclair cited a recent documentary on the 1995 referendum that suggested there was a planned revolt against then-prime minister Jean Chretien if the Yes side had won that referendum.

"From this political situation, a new reality will emerge and I think that Quebecers will be able to realize sovereignty and do it with the support we need from foreign countries."

Boisclair and Duceppe discussed separation strategy during their half-hour meeting. Boisclair said PQ members would support the Bloc in the event of a federal election, which could be called in the next few weeks.

Duceppe emphasized his friendship with Boisclair.

"We have the same fight, we want Quebec to become a sovereign country," Duceppe said. "We have a modern point of view on what Quebec will be. It's not against Canada, it's not against Canadians. Canada's a great country.

"We want to have and develop new relations, equal to equal."

Boisclair said "never has the sovereigntist movement been so strong and united." However, he said he won't seek a seat in the legislature right away because he has to reorganize the PQ.

But Duceppe said if any party is having problems now, it's the federal Liberals in the wake of the sponsorship scandal. Although Martin was absolved in the first Gomery report, a number of prominent Liberals were blamed for letting the national unity program go off the rails.

"Between Jean Chretien's fans and Paul Martin's supporters, it's not over and it won't be over," Duceppe said.

Ottawa Citizen

[Riverwind]

Citizenship will be the issue that turns any Quebec attempt to separate into a nightmare. Canada cannot and will not allow Quebequers to keep their Canadian citizenship.

This would be very difficult for Canada. Many, many Canadian citizens live outside of Canada and Canada accepts double citizenship. It would be simply impossible to enforce a measure stripping certain people of their Canadian citizenship.

The right to make the most arcane and discriminatory rules regarding who can be a citizen is one of the basic rights of a sovereign nation. Canada would likely simply revoke the citizenship of people residing in Quebec. People residing in other countries would not be affected. Dual citizenship between Quebec and Canada would also be prohibited for at least a generation - this could be done without affecting dual citizenships with other nations.

In any case, Canada has no choice. Having 5% of you population living and paying taxes in foreign country is not a big deal. Having 30% of population abroad raises serious questions. For example, what happens if these Quebec citizens decide they want to exercise their right to vote? If you think through the problem you will realize that Canadian citizenship for Quebequers is a non-starter for many extremely logical and pragmatic reasons.

A similar situation arises in the case of money: if Quebec wanted to, it could continue to use the Canadian dollar and there is nothing Canada could do about it that would not be harmful to Canada itself.

Quebequers could not physically convert their Canadian dollar assets to US dollars without causing the value of those assets to drop like a stone. Quebec is stuck with the Canadian dollar no matter what either side thinks of the deal. However, Quebec will not likely get any control over the Bank of Canada.

In your view Sparhawk, you would see Canada kept together by force of arms.

That is exactly the opposite of what I am saying. I have said that Quebec will only stay together by force of arms. If the separatists are willing to let Quebec be divided up into territories where 75%+ of the population ends up in the country of their choice then I believe there could be a quick and amicable separation.

What I am saying is iconoclastic in Quebec independence circles, and in English Canada too I suspect.  But ask yourself, in practical terms, what would happen the day following a successful referendum in Quebec?

I suspect the PQ will table all sorts of ridiculous terms which Canada will be forced to reject. At that point the PQ will use that as justification for a UDI and then all hell breaks loose.

A referendum is not a constitutional negotiating tactic - the disruptions to the economy in the entire country will be huge and Quebec will come out of the process a separate country nothing with more than a free trade agreement of some sort. In end Quebec and Canada will be much poorer places and it will take at least a generation to recover the losses created by the unnecessary crisis.

BTW: I strongly support your vision of incremental reform of the nation - I do not believe that Canada is a entity fixed in time that should never change. However, I also strongly beleive that the seperation debate has made reform impossible and a referedum is the wrong way to get reform.

In fact, Quebequers would likely already be achieving many of their aspirations if they elected a federalist party that could form a gov't coalition with the Conservatives.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

But ask yourself, in practical terms, what would happen the day following a successful referendum in Quebec?

Most multi-national business offices would pull out of Quebec, (as a some did last time when they thought the vote might be close) and divisive, inflammatory rhetoric would be flying left, right and centre.

Those from Quebec that would wish to leave and immigrate to 'Canada' might find it extremely difficult, they may have no idea what such a move might do to property values and to investments, and there would be calls to pull the CDN dollar out, forcing Quebec to create it's own country from the ground up. While such a move would be difficult, it isn't impossible, just as they could switch to the US currency if they wanted. However, that would make Quebec's a 'black market' economy, and would play havoc with any legitimate economy. It is not the citizens who issue money, but the banks. There would have to be a "Banque du Quebec' , and their own mint, as the banks in Quebec might legally be required cease disbursement of, and to collect and destroy 'CDN scrip'.

The worst thing about it all would be the uncertainty, which is the bane of business and investing. The consequences might be fatal to Quebec, but if not, would certainly be massively injurious.

[Leafless]

fleabag

Why attempt to educate ignorant people who have no idea or concern regarding the word 'consequences' or simply choose to ignore all rationale concerning this matter.

It astounds me how any Quebecer can support the likes of Mr.Boisclairs twisted strategy.

Even the prospect of France jumping into bed with Quebec after a referendum would show how wrong the federal government was for spending untold billions of tax payers dollars in that province only to make it an attractive place to possibly harbour Quebec after abandoning all concern for Quebec and it's population after it's defeat to the British.

[politika]

in case you were wondering, young Andre makes it pretty clear

In an interview with the all-news channel RDI to be aired Sunday, Andre Boisclair says independence is up to Quebecers only and he sees no reason to submit to the federal Clarity Act.

Boisclair argues that sovereignty is a not a legal decision, but a political one and that voters will have the last word.

He maintains the province's legislature has the authority to oversee the process.

I doubt that this will make any difference to the critical issue that consumes all of the time of all of our 'federalist leaders' - what day they will elect yet another ineffective government for the Rest Of Canada - but one can hope that they'll at least have some comment on these revelations.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with you. But his chances of becoming premier I think are prettyt low. His PQ followers as well as the Quebec people I think are alienated and dissapointed because of his use of cocaine. But I agree with your statement check this out http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...ader051120.html Boisclair is an idiot if he thinks he doesn't have to abide by the rules.

[Riverwind]

Boisclair argues that sovereignty is a not a legal decision, but a political one and that voters will have the last word.

Does that mean Bosclair fully supports the rights of voters to seperate from an independent Quebec?

[Guest eureka]

Sovereignty is a legal decision as well as a political one. Sovereignty is a legal concept not not merely an act of political will and needs legal structures and institutions. That is not very relevant thogh to the real situation.

I can't tell you what would happen the day after a referendum, August: nor can I tell you what would have happened the day after the 1980 referendum. I can tell you, though, what would have happened then the day The PQ tried to implement separation. There would have been thousands of armed Canadians on the streets and I would have been one of them.

I know that for a fact. The Canadian Army would then have been forced to enter Quebec to restore order. Quebec would have been put into trusteeship and we would have had a generation of violence.

It would have become something like the Basques in Apain.

Beyond that, Thelonius and Sparhawk are absolutely correct. Any negotiations, if they could be possible, would take a decade. You have no idea of the complexity though I could educate you in that if you wish. I have thought about it for a long time but don't give it much attention because it ain't going to happen.

Boisclair is a dlash in the pan. Hise "peccadilloes" may have gathered the faithful more firmly behind him, but PQ Party members are a small proportion of the population. The population at large will be less forgiving when he is exposed in an election - it will not come before an election.

He will lead the PQ to defeat.

[tml12]

Sovereignty is a legal decision as well as a political one. Sovereignty is a legal concept not  not merely an act of political will  and needs legal structures and institutions. That is not very relevant thogh to the real situation.

I can't tell you what would happen the day after a referendum, August: nor can I tell you what would have happened the day after the 1980 referendum. I can tell you, though, what would have happened then the day The PQ tried to implement separation. There would have been thousands of armed Canadians on the streets and I would have been one of them.

I know that for a fact. The Canadian Army would then have been forced to enter Quebec to restore order. Quebec would have been put into trusteeship and we would have had a generation of violence.

It would have become something like the Basques in Apain.

Beyond that, Thelonius and Sparhawk are absolutely correct. Any negotiations, if they could be possible, would take a decade. You have no idea of the complexity though I could educate you in that if you wish. I have thought about it for a long time but don't give it much attention because it ain't going to happen.

Boisclair is a dlash in the pan. Hise "peccadilloes" may have gathered the faithful more firmly behind him, but PQ Party members are a small proportion of the population. The population at large will be less forgiving when he is exposed in an election - it will not come before an election.

He will lead the PQ to defeat.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do not think he will lead the PQ to defeat against Charest.

[Bakunin]

Anyone remember what Jean Lapierre, quebec wing liberal lieutnant said when he joined the liberals ?

Although Martin says Lapierre is ready to help build Canada, Lapierre wanted to share other views with the media. He ridiculed the Clarity Act, which sets out the ground rules if there's ever another referendum on Quebec separation.

"It's useless because it wouldn't change anything. If there was a will in Quebec, a clear will to separate, they would not be able to stop a will like that by trying to have tricks."

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/02/05/lapierre040205

[August1991]

Most multi-national business offices would pull out of Quebec, (as a some did last time when they thought the vote might be close) and divisive, inflammatory rhetoric would be flying left, right and centre.

Thelonious, I suspect you live far from Quebec. Anybody who is afraid of sovereignty has long since left the place. People now shrug and federalists grumble, "Oh no, we're going to have go through all this again."

The worst thing about it all would be the uncertainty, which is the bane of business and investing. The consequences might be fatal to Quebec, but if not, would certainly be massively injurious.

The uncertainty has been ever-present as long as I can remember. It would be a relief to decide once and for all.

The right to make the most arcane and discriminatory rules regarding who can be a citizen is one of the basic rights of a sovereign nation. Canada would likely simply revoke the citizenship of people residing in Quebec. People residing in other countries would not be affected.

How would Canada do that? There is no way of knowing who is resident where. I suppose it could be done by voluntary declarations but is that what you mean?

Quebequers could not physically convert their Canadian dollar assets to US dollars without causing the value of those assets to drop like a stone. Quebec is stuck with the Canadian dollar no matter what either side thinks of the deal. However, Quebec will not likely get any control over the Bank of Canada.

Agreed.

Having 5% of you population living and paying taxes in foreign country is not a big deal. Having 30% of population abroad raises serious questions. For example, what happens if these Quebec citizens decide they want to exercise their right to vote?

I don't think it would be anywhere near 30%. Nor would there be a mass exodus.

----

Sparhawk, the media (and you) seem to see this in catastrophic terms. I don't. Let me try and use a different example to illustrate my viewpoint.

A long time ago, I came to the plainly obvious conclusion that Quebec is not a province like the others. (Yes, I know every province is different and I happen to know Newfoundland fairly well so I can appreciate this point. However, Quebec is very different.)

My example: Trudeau insisted that all Canadian provinces are straight but Quebec is obviously gay. For the past 40 years, everyone has been going around trying to pretend that Quebec is straight or denying that Quebec is gay. Quebec is trying to come out of the closet.

[i hate examples that reduce several million people down to one person but I guess I'm desperate.]

I didn't like Meech Lake because, IMV, it didn't go far enough but frankly, in retrospect, it would have probably done the job. Since English Canada rejected Meech, the question is moot anyway.

Following a positive referendum result, all English Canada need do is respond with a form of Meech. What would the "form of Meech" be? How about: Quebec no longer receives any equalization payments, it must continue to contribute to common Canadian expenses but the Quebec government has the sole authority to collect all taxes on Quebec's territory?

I dunno. You can probably imagine other less radical scenarios. What does English Canada want? That is, if we got rid of this nonsensical "we are the world, red-liberal-flag, Sheila-Copps, Liberal Party" fiction, what would Canada be? What do people in English Canada want?

It has always vaguely astonished me that no one in English Canada has ever responded seriously to the PQ. If someone did, and it was done credibly, all Hell would break loose and the PQ would quickly dissolve. Mulroney came the closest.

Canadian history stretching back several centuries and events of the past few decades suggest that we are ripe for a tectonic shift, but it will be peaceful and negotiated.

I can tell you, though, what would have happened then the day The PQ tried to implement separation. There would have been thousands of armed Canadians on the streets and I would have been one of them.

eureka, you're like the Pope. How many divisions do you have?

[Guest eureka]

As I once told you, August, my organisation took in a number who were planning to fight with guns no less. We persuaded them to be with us in legal and political action. Perhaps we were wrong and the guns then would have decided this. That, btw, included some Francophones.

You are so naive at times in trying to intellectualise this.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

The uncertainty has been ever-present as long as I can remember. It would be a relief to decide once and for all.

It seems that no matter how many times that "Non" might be voted, it will never be accepted as 'once and for all'.

Thelonious, I suspect you live far from Quebec. Anybody who is afraid of sovereignty has long since left the place. People now shrug and federalists grumble, "Oh no, we're going to have go through all this again."

Yes I do live far, Calgary actually. You are right, my finger is not on the pulse of the Quebec peoples. Nor Newfoundland, for that matter, but I have visited almost every province. (all but NFLD, and no territories). I liked all the Canadians that I met.

How would Canada do that? There is no way of knowing who is resident where. I suppose it could be done by voluntary declarations but is that what you mean?

(your response to Sparhawk's question) I don't think you grasp the gravity of having a new country. Borders become actual, guarded and monitored (such as they are). Currency is not shared by gov'ts. (With the exception of a few powerless 'protectorates')Trade and, in this case, language barriers go up. If Quebec wants to import something from another country, they will have to negotiate what language the labels and instructions come in (Nowadays, mind you, they come in several). French only? English and French? It will be up to Quebec, just as what type of currency and reserve they will proclaim.

To think otherwise would be like saying, "Dad, I decided to finally move out. Can I have your credit card?"