Cecession Referendums in Canada

[Barquentine]

On 5/31/2026 at 2:42 PM, CdnFox said:

So you're probably  a little young to remember this but as a result of that the gov't came up with the "clarity act".

I watched the moon landing on tv. When it happened!

[Michael Hardner]

7 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

I watched the moon landing on tv. When it happened!

Who didn't ?

[Benz]

6 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

What promises? What votes?

In 1980, Trudeau promised he would satisfy Quebec's change requests for the constitution. Requests that both sovereignists and nationalist federalists were asking. In 1981, he did the exact opposite and betrayed Quebec.

In 1995, at first Chretien said he won't change anything. Then few days before the referendum, he promised he would accept modifications like proposed in the Meech lake agreement. An accord that died in 1990.

2 times that the federal made promises that not only it did not keep, it rather did the exact opposite after.

[Barquentine]

32 minutes ago, Benz said:

Then you admit you do not respect democracy.

You show an ignorance of politics and history, and a severe lack of wisdom of how the world works.

4,671,008 voted in the 1995 Quebec referendum. Half of the would be 2,335,504.
What do you think would have happened if 2,335,505 had voted to separate and 2,335,503 had voted to stay? Civil war in Quebec or endless referendums that settled nothing? The "No" option carried by a margin of 54,288 and that wasn't enough for a lot of separatists.

And there are many instances of Democracies requiring more than 50%+1 for votes and referendums.

Edited 9 hours ago by Barquentine

[Barquentine]

The separatist questions are already weakening Canada, driving away investment. For what? So some politicians can enlarge their fiefdoms? So some disgruntled people can stick it to the man? If either Alberta or Quebec actually separated it would go down in history as one of the worst, most shortsighted political moves of all time.

And the way the Alberta story is being framed is not helping.  "We need a strong Alberta in a strong Canada..." Well Duh!!! We already have that and we need all provinces to be "Stronger in a stronger Canada". The way to do that is to drop provincial barriers, not increase them. The Feds are not the problem here, the provinces are.

 

[Benz]

Just now, Barquentine said:

You show an ignorance of politics and history, and a severe lack of wisdom of how the world works.

4,671,008 voted in the 1995 Quebec referendum. Half of the would be 2,335,504.
What do you think would have happened if 2,335,505 had voted to separate and 2,335,503 had voted to stay? Civil war in Quebec or endless referendums that settled nothing? The "No" option carried by a margin of 54,288 and that wasn't enough for a lot of separatists.

And there are many instances of Democracies requiring mare than 50%+1 for votes and referendums.

When you accuse someone, at least make your point. What do you think you have proven? You have proven MY POINT.

If the NO win by a small margin, you expect the losers to shut up and accept defeat. But if the YES win, you expect civil war. You call that wisdom? I call that snotty despot. If you think the federal can be repaired, then fix it instead of removing the people's right to choose for their future. Unless you have this deep desire to remove from us any remorse of kiling you in a your civil war.

"The "No" option carried by a margin of 54,288 and that wasn't enough for a lot of separatists."

Says who? Did any seperatists did engage Quebec into seperation despite the results? Nope!

As long as the status quo will be going on, separatists are legitimated to bring the question on seperation. Assume your mediocrity.

Regarding the instances requiring more than 50%+1, there are on specific matters of specific contexts. Most of the time, they are regarding a constitutional change. for instance, in a normal federation, the House of representatives is the representation of the global suffrage. But for a senate, it is rather a representation by regions to counter balance. That's also why a constitional change needs 50%+1 AND at least 7 out of 10 provinces. That rules is suppose to counter balance a too big province and avoid the so called tyrany of majority.

 

[Benz]

5 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

The separatist questions are already weakening Canada, driving away investment. For what? So some politicians can enlarge their fiefdoms? So some disgruntled people can stick it to the man? If either Alberta or Quebec actually separated it would go down in history as one of the worst, most shortsighted political moves of all time.

And the way the Alberta story is being framed is not helping.  "We need a strong Alberta in a strong Canada..." Well Duh!!! We already have that and we need all provinces to be "Stronger in a stronger Canada". The way to do that is to drop provincial barriers, not increase them. The Feds are not the problem here, the provinces are.

 

You do not address the problems and you try to picture them as "politicians' fiefdom". Therefore, YOU ARE the problem.

Fix the problems and referendum on seperations won't occur.

[Barquentine]

26 minutes ago, Benz said:

the federal made promises that not only it did not keep, it rather did the exact opposite after.

Meech Lake wasn't killed by the Feds.

[Barquentine]

7 minutes ago, Benz said:

But if the YES win, you expect civil war. You call that wisdom?

But if the NO win you want to have more referendums? You don't respect the majority vote?

I said in another thread that at least Quebec has an historical reason to want change. But do you actually think Quebec would be better off outside of Canada?

35 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Who didn't ?

Youngsters like CdnFox?

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

 Youngsters like CdnFox?

How do you know how old they are ?

[Barquentine]

9 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

How do you know how old they are ?

His excessive use of emojis. And I suspect he doesn't prefer the pronoun 'they'.

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

His excessive use of emojis. And I suspect he doesn't prefer the pronoun 'they'.

You're typecasting.  And I have them on ignore so I'll just play it safe with pronouns.  If someone can get me their pronouns and DM me I'd appreciate it thanks.

[Benz]

42 minutes ago, Barquentine said:

But if the NO win you want to have more referendums? You don't respect the majority vote?

We do not want more referendum because we lost, we want more refendum because you fail to keep up the promise and the situation is unacceptable.

 

Quote

I said in another thread that at least Quebec has an historical reason to want change. But do you actually think Quebec would be better off outside of Canada?

Compared to the status quo, YES, absolutely. That said, my preference would be that Canada becomes flexible and be a hybrid federalism. There are many different forms of possible federalisms. Right now Canada has a very centralised form where the central gov't can do almost anything it wans and puts its nose into provincial affairs. The central gov't is the sovereign. The opposite is a confederation where the members (usually called states) are sovereigns and the central gov't is defined by the members. They agree on its role and the central gov't can't change the rules or do anything besides its scope.

In Canada, we are still divided on those two visions but, there are no reasons why we could not have an hybrid system where a member can assume more autonomy and become a state rather than a province. Therefore, the federal would have to respect those states and could not interfere in their programs. Anytime the central gov't would create a program, a state could opt out and get its share with full compensation.

 

That would be a great Canada from which I wouldn't need to separate from.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Barquentine said:

I watched the moon landing on tv. When it happened!

Sure kid  

2 hours ago, Barquentine said:

His excessive use of emojis. And I suspect he doesn't prefer the pronoun 'they'.

LOL kid, the fact that i laugh at you so frequently isn't a sign of MY age, it's a comment on your own emotional and intellectual levels  

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

You're typecasting.  And I have them on ignore so I'll just play it safe with pronouns.  If someone can get me their pronouns and DM me I'd appreciate it thanks.

And yet you reply to a surprising number of my posts  

You only have me on 'ignore' when i make a strong argument you feel uncomfortable with.  And we both know you read this   

[Goddess]

1 hour ago, Benz said:

The opposite is a confederation where the members (usually called states) are sovereigns and the central gov't is defined by the members. They agree on its role and the central gov't can't change the rules or do anything besides its scope.

In Canada, we are still divided on those two visions but, there are no reasons why we could not have an hybrid system where a member can assume more autonomy and become a state rather than a province. Therefore, the federal would have to respect those states and could not interfere in their programs.

None of this will ever happen.

Ottawa bubble holds all the power and they know it.  They have given themselves even more power over the last decade.

They will never give any of it up.

Never.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Benz said:

The opposite is a confederation where the members (usually called states) are sovereigns and the central gov't is defined by the members. They agree on its role and the central gov't can't change the rules or do anything besides its scope.

 

I've never ever seen that happen for any length of time. That was the selling model for the united states by the way, and that was the real reason for the civil war. When the state's unionized the southern states were assured that they would retain autonomy and there would be a central government similar to what you just described.

But that never lasts. The centralized government always seeks to increase its power over the states or countries involved until you are eventually back to a centralized authority

We've been watching this with the European Union. That's one of the reasons Britain decided to leave. It will only get worse over time, considering how new that union is it's already undergone centralization to a great degree.

An economic union similar to the EU is about as close as you can get and as we just discussed even that's problematic and prone to centralization. But without a doubt it never works with states. You would literally have to break Canada up into 10 separate countries with their own sovereignty and then look at forming a union similar to the EU.

That would probably work considerably better for us but it'll never happen. Or at least not in our lifetime

[Benz]

13 minutes ago, Goddess said:

None of this will ever happen.

Ottawa bubble holds all the power and they know it.  They have given themselves even more power over the last decade.

They will never give any of it up.

Never.

That's why I want independence.

 

Now picture this. Quebec and Alberta both vote YES for independence and then both give an ultimatum to the federal. Accept this flexible federalism or we are out according to the mandate we received from the population. I bet Ottawa steps down and accept like an obediant dog. But if it does not, Canada collapses. Just too bad.

[Benz]

10 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I've never ever seen that happen for any length of time. That was the selling model for the united states by the way, and that was the real reason for the civil war. When the state's unionized the southern states were assured that they would retain autonomy and there would be a central government similar to what you just described.

But that never lasts. The centralized government always seeks to increase its power over the states or countries involved until you are eventually back to a centralized authority

We've been watching this with the European Union. That's one of the reasons Britain decided to leave. It will only get worse over time, considering how new that union is it's already undergone centralization to a great degree.

An economic union similar to the EU is about as close as you can get and as we just discussed even that's problematic and prone to centralization. But without a doubt it never works with states. You would literally have to break Canada up into 10 separate countries with their own sovereignty and then look at forming a union similar to the EU.

That would probably work considerably better for us but it'll never happen. Or at least not in our lifetime

There were major differences at stake for the US. Slavery for the south to name the most important one. The north was industrial, the south was rural. The north wanted full protectionism, the south wanted free trade. Most importantely, they both were ok on killing each others. Can you imagine yourself going at war against Albertans  and kill them if Carney asked you that? It is a different time also.

European Union works surprisingly fine considering they were all killing each others in the bloodiest war in human history just 85 years ago. However Europeans made some choices for their central gov't that they may regret now. It's new for them and they need adjustments.

UK does not considere it was smart to leave and many brittons think they should have stayed. In particular Scotland. A lot of scots considere leaving UK and joining EU.

One thing for sure, Canada cannot be reformed from within. Provinces like Québec and Alberta needs to get their sovereignty first. As long as the central government would still be the sovereign, it won't let it go. 

 

 

[Goddess]

6 minutes ago, Benz said:

Can you imagine yourself going at war against Albertans  and kill them if Carney asked you that?

There's already a fair number of Canadians frothing at the mouth to do just that.  

They've been taught to hate Albertans/Alberta for the last 11 years and that propaganda will increase as Alberta referendum goes forward.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Benz said:

There were major differences at stake for the US. Slavery for the south to name the most important one.

Not even a little bit. Slavery in and of itself wasn't the problem, the problem was who gets to make the rules. Slavery was perhaps the most major irritant in that issue but it was by far and away not the only one. In fact the war broke out because the south tried to kick out a federal military base that had been stationed on their land without permission essentially

1 hour ago, Benz said:

Most importantely, they both were ok on killing each others. Can you imagine yourself going at war against Albertans  and kill them if Carney asked you that? I

I can absolutely Envision Carney ordering the military to move in and seize key infrastructure and arrest politicians who claimed that they were separate. At that point the question is would albertans fight back and once the shooting starts it's done. The war is on. And it's not one that Alberta would likely win.

So actual separatism is really unlikely. What would be more likely is Alberta negotiating taking over some of the current federal powers but that would be by agreement and not constitution. Which means it only lasts so long

1 hour ago, Benz said:

European Union works surprisingly fine considering they were all killing each others in the bloodiest war in human history just 85 years ago.

It doesn't work that well at all. About the best you can say is that it works better than killing each other in the bloodiest wars in human history    From that perspective it's a major step up but economically it's not great, it creates massive problems with having a unified currency so no country can have its own fiscal policy, the regulation absolutely stifles the hell out of trade, one country has left and there is strains with a few of the others which may very well break off over time.

The best you can claim is it's better than nothing or war. But it's not a great solution. It's just better than a lot of the other ones

[Moonbox]

3 hours ago, Goddess said:

There's already a fair number of Canadians frothing at the mouth to do just that.  

They've been taught to hate Albertans/Alberta for the last 11 years and that propaganda will increase as Alberta referendum goes forward.

No, Karen, that's fantasy.  🤡

[Goddess]

No referendums for Canadians, but the government will provide funds and amenities for Khalistanis to hold a separation referendum, which is illegal in India.