Canada/US/Quebec

[jdobbin]

you asked for ONE example. I bothed the bangledesh example but all of my other one's were valid as is the Slovak/Chech replublic one is.

Admitting when you are wrong is a sign of maturity.

I would also take issue with PQ not essentially being a semi-autonomous province within Canada. It has a different legal system for one. (Code vs/ common)

So I think it CAN be said of provinces within Canada.

You're other examples each had episodes of violence associated with independence movements. Their separations were not painless velvet affairs.

Quebec has never been a republic. Nor has any of the provinces.

We once saw violent nationalist expression of separation in Quebec. It is not out of the question that we might see it again.

My issue with many of the separation people is that would be impossible for it to happen in Canada. You think it is impossible? There is absolutely no way that this could end in violence?

[White Doors]

Nope, never said impossible. Check back. I merely said it was possible that it may not.

You implied that it was impossible that it wouldn't end in violence which is ridiculous.

[jdobbin]

Nope, never said impossible. Check back. I merely said it was possible that it may not.

You implied that it was impossible that it wouldn't end in violence which is ridiculous.

I never implied impossible. I asked you to name one country where the separation went peacefully.

Liam was the only one who mentioned Czechoslovakia. All of the rest of the countries you mentioned had some form of violence in their goal to be independent.

And even Czechs and Slovaks were killed in 1968 as they tried for independence as a whole.

But let's bring this to Quebec. Can Quebec separate peacefully? Well, only if there was overwhelming support for it. So far, there hasn't been.

[Leafless]

I would also take issue with PQ not essentially being a semi-autonomous province within Canada. It has a different legal system for one. (Code vs/ common)

I would agree that Quebec could separate from Canada relatively painlessly if:

1) An overwhelming majority of the population of Quebec and Canada (65%+) supported the idea

2) No groups inside or outside Quebec had any interest in seeking the partition of Quebec.

Both of these conditions were true in Czechoslovakia. These conditions are not true in Canada/Quebec and will likely never be true. This makes violence a very likely outcome.

Even if Quebec did separate peacefully (based on a study by the Fraser Institute) their outstanding debt to Canada would be $143.9 Billion and that was back in 1995.

http://oldfraser.lexi.net/media/media_rele...atted/PR26.html

The other major problem is who on the world stage after separation would lend Quebec $$$$ to fuel their economy?

Quebec can't separate unless we continue to support them and that's considering Riverwind's item's 1 & 2.

Quebec wouldn't even be able to it violently.

[jdobbin]

Quebec can't separate unless we continue to support them and that's considering Riverwind's item's 1 & 2.

Quebec wouldn't even be able to it violently.

I've not seem anywhere near the majority they would need to separate anyway. Likewise, Alberta and any other would be provinces don't have anywhere near 50% of the population of their respective province's population interested in separation.

All I've seen are individuals who have threatened to hold their breath because they are disgruntled.

[White Doors]

I've not seem anywhere near the majority they would need to separate anyway. Likewise, Alberta and any other would be provinces don't have anywhere near 50% of the population of their respective province's population interested in separation.

All I've seen are individuals who have threatened to hold their breath because they are disgruntled.

Correct which is why it is important for the ROC to call their bluff. and if they decide to do it anyways, make it clear that they will have to concede land, pay debt etc etc.

[jdobbin]

Correct which is why it is important for the ROC to call their bluff. and if they decide to do it anyways, make it clear that they will have to concede land, pay debt etc etc.

I think it is clear that there would be costs to any separation. It is probably why most Quebecers reject it.

I don't know how the provincial Liberals are doing under Charest but hopefully, they are performing stronger than they did in the last year or so. It's too bad that the options for Quebecers are between nationalism or federalism when choosing provincial parties.

[Leafless]

Correct which is why it is important for the ROC to call their bluff. and if they decide to do it anyways, make it clear that they will have to concede land, pay debt etc etc.

I think it is clear that there would be costs to any separation. It is probably why most Quebecers reject it.

No kidding!

[jbg]

Correct which is why it is important for the ROC to call their bluff. and if they decide to do it anyways, make it clear that they will have to concede land, pay debt etc etc.

I think it is clear that there would be costs to any separation. It is probably why most Quebecers reject it.

No kidding!

The next time some idiot schedules a "Separation Referendum" the ROC should make clear a few things:

1. If Canada's divisible so is Quebec (and many English speakers there would want no part of an incompetent socialist government likely to arise;
   
2. Quebec will have to pay, in full and in cash, for the value of Federal assets transferred to them; and
   
3. The subsidies will stop, immediately. No allowance, no use of the Canadian (or US) currency, etc. Let them have the Euro.
   

[jdobbin]

The next time some idiot schedules a "Separation Referendum" the ROC should make clear a few things:

1. If Canada's divisible so is Quebec (and many English speakers there would want no part of an incompetent socialist government likely to arise;
   
2. Quebec will have to pay, in full and in cash, for the value of Federal assets transferred to them; and
   
3. The subsidies will stop, immediately. No allowance, no use of the Canadian (or US) currency, etc. Let them have the Euro.
   

I think that is what the Clarity Act was all about.

The key points of the draft included the following elements.

* Giving the House of Commons the power to decide whether a proposed referendum question was considered clear before the public vote;

* Specifically stating that any question not solely referring to secession was to be considered unclear;

* Giving the House of Commons the power to determine whether or not a clear majority has expressed itself in any referendum, implying that some sort of supermajority is required for success;

* Stating that all provinces and the First Nations were to be part of the negotiations;

* Allowing the House of Commons to override a referendum decision if it felt the referendum violated any of the tenets of the Clarity Act;

* The secession of a province of Canada would require an amendment to the Constitution of Canada.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act

It basically set about the conditions and to make it so that was unambiguous what separation would mean.

[jbg]

It basically set about the conditions and to make it so that was unambiguous what separation would mean.

That addresses none of the practical issues, such as use of currency, purchase of federal assets, assumption of pro rata portion of federal debt. Oh, and one other thought. If independent People's Republic of Quebec defaults on its pre-secession debt, will investors sue Canada?

[jdobbin]

That addresses none of the practical issues, such as use of currency, purchase of federal assets, assumption of pro rata portion of federal debt. Oh, and one other thought. If independent People's Republic of Quebec defaults on its pre-secession debt, will investors sue Canada?

There was quite a lot of debate surrounding how debt would be assessed as well as the practical issues of separation. The general agreement was that not only Canada but the world would hold Quebec responsible for any debt upon separation and would not allow a default without exacting some severe punishment.

Other issues regarding who gets passports, who gets Canadian citizenship and the like were also talked about.

It all starts with the clarity of what was the question is first. The answers to what would follow would be within that question.

[jbg]

There was quite a lot of debate surrounding how debt would be assessed as well as the practical issues of separation. The general agreement was that not only Canada but the world would hold Quebec responsible for any debt upon separation and would not allow a default without exacting some severe punishment.

As a lawyer, if I represented bondholders of the former Belle Provence, now People's Republic of Quebec, I would hold Canada legally responsible for any pre-secession Quebec debts. A private agreement among debtors to "pass the buck" among them doesn't absolve either debtor of liability.