Secession of Quebec from Canada

[Goofball]

The problem with your nice disertation Goofball, is that the Assemblée Nationale du Québec dont recognize that Clarity Act. Wich is in my opinion bullcrap(that Clarity Act).

How is that a problem for Canada? That's only a problem for seperatists. Canada has set out the legal standard under which a seperation vote would be legitimate. If the seperatists don't recognize that, it's their problem, not ours. They can pose and vote on all the misleading, watered down referendum questions they want, but none of them will legally allow them to leave Canada no matter what the result of the vote.

You say trying to fool, we dont have more stupid people than anyone else.

I made no comment about the stupidity or intelligence of Quebeckers. I simply stated that the seperatist leaders were trying to fool them by presenting a very misleading picture of what would happen if Quebec did indeed vote to seperate. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that the majority of Quebeckers voted "non" means that the majority of them were too intelligent to be fooled by the lies of the seperatists.

It was clear to everyone that if the Referendum pass, they had (the PQ) to negociate with Canada to stay in the Confederation before anything else.

No, that was not clear to everyone. If everyone believed that, then the "oui" side would have won. But if you believed that, then you were apparently among those who were fooled by the seperatist lies.

But i'm pretty sure they would not have negociated of good faith. They wanted a governemtn equal to the Federal governement. Simple as that.

If it was as simple as that, why didn't they put that simple question to the vote instead of asking a question meant to allay fears among more moderate Quebeckers and lull them into voting oui?

And wait a minute. A minute ago you said the first priority after a "Oui" vote would be to try to negotiate a way to stay in Canada (utterly silly, by the way, as you are already in Canada), but now you say the only thing they really wanted was their own government equal in authority to that of Canada. To achieve that, they would have to leave Canada.

You're performing mental gymnastics in order to be dishonest with yourself.

Of course that would not have work with the Chrétien and his thiefs at the helm.

And you talk of the separatist being dishonest, when its your Liberal governement who have cheated and lied. They cheated with our money and are still arrogant. Its their fault if the separatism isnt dying a slow death.

They are not "my" Liberal government. I have voted Conservative in every federal election since I was old enough to vote. So slam the Liberals all you want, it makes no difference to me. I know they are a bunch of liars who have been bad for Canada and Quebec, and I'm rubbing my hands together with glee in hopes that they get the boot on the 23rd.

You are trying to make them pass for the crooks, when they have done more for social justice than any governement on any level in that country.

You'll have to back that statement up, because I don't believe it.

Having said that, the little I know about them indicates to me that they have done a good job with other areas of governing the province of Quebec, and I won't dispute that with you. But they should stick with making Quebec the best province it can be within Canada, rather than trying to rip apart one of the best countries in the world.

[Goofball]

And to inject a little levity into the thread, a little joke:

How come Newfoundland wants Quebec to leave Canada?



















































Because then it would only be a half-hour drive to Toronto.

[Divinus Arma]

Goofball: You are a conservative in Canada? Does that mean the liberals are communists or that the terminology is the opposite of American definitions?

[Beirut]

Funny. There was more intidation and illegal fraud coming from the Federal and the Liberals scums in the last referendum than any fraud coming from the Sovereignist in ten years.

The federal fraud you speak of was nothing more than cash being pumped into add agencies and plane and bus tickets being bought for people who wanted to come to Quebec for the big Love In in Montreal. No votes were affected.

What the separatists did was orchestarte a banana republic referendum with outright vote fraud. Old people were kept standing in line for hours, asked for endless pieces of ID, and misdirected to the wrong polls. Many, many English people and immigrants of all ages were given a very hard time by over zelous voting scrutinizers. Not to mention some 80,000 NO votes that were deemed to have been thrown out for no good reason at all.

If there was no vote fraud, why didn't the PQ call for a judicial recount after they lost by 1% of the vote. Nobody losses by 1% and doesn't have a recount. Except when they know that a recount will expose a massive fraud. Also, why did the PQ fight like rabid dogs in court for years and years to deny anyone the right to open the ballot boxes and examine the votes after the election? once again, they knew that a judicial review would have exposed the same massive fraud.

Beirut when you talk about the Quebec and Canada, we can see your red shirt and underwear glowing through the screen.

Thank you! I wear them with great pride.

[Krypta]

No need to be so snappy, Krypta.
I simply thought that since it is British Acts of Parliament which unite all of Canada, these acts would have to be amended.

I think your mixing your centuries up. Canada hasn't had to consult Britain constitutionally on anything, for like 70 years man, you do realise this, right?

[Goofball]

Goofball: You are a conservative in Canada? Does that mean the liberals are communists or that the terminology is the opposite of American definitions?

No, it just means that our Conservatives focus on the important aspects of conservatism, and pay less attention to the silly ones. A few examples:

1) They believe that citizens are more qualified to decide how to spend their money than the government is.

2) They believe that more business = more money for everybody = good

3) They don't believe that we should make national policy decisions because of what the Bible says we should do.

4) While some in the party are not entirely comfortable with homosexuality or gay rights, they realize that it is a personal issue and will allow all members of parliament to vote their consciences if the issues are ever raised, which would allow the true will of Canadians to be done, rather than the will of the party hierarchy.

5) They believe that our military has been sadly neglected, and would like to do something about it.

6) They believe that property rights should be enshrined in our Constitution.

7) They are free-traders who are against protectionism.

In a nutshell, we Canadian conservatives don't really care if gays want to marry each other, but we really don't want the government taking any more money away from us than is absolutely necessary for the running of the country.

The Republicans (recently anyway) have discarded just about all of the solid economic principles which are important to real conservatives, and have made a point of focusing only on trying to instill as much Old Testament as possible into everyday life in America. Think how much more they could accomplish if they just stayed the hell out of peoples' bedrooms and library records, and focused on running the damn country properly.

Sad really...

[Beirut]

So, politically, what are the leaning of the sovereignists compared with the Federalists? Meaning, who is economically conservative/liberal and who is socially conservative/liberal? Are they essentially the same with the only dividing issue being constitutional sovereignty?

I know that Canada is far more socialist than the U.S., is that the case with both the sovereignists and the federalists?


Also, is all of Quebec freezingly miserable? Is there anywhere that is even close to a temperate climate?

Thanks.

The Quebec separatists are very left wing. Huge government, huge amount of government employees, huge social programs, and huge taxes. It's not all bad, we have some first rate social programs, but the paper work this province puts out would stun even an American lawyer.

Our right wing federalists are close to your right-leaning Democrats. Our Liberals are left-leaning Democrats. Our left wingers, NDP, Green party, Bloc Quebecois, make Jesse Jackson look like Louis Farrakhan.

All of Quebec is cold in the winter. We get the most bizarre and horrid weather imaginable. From +10 to freezing rain ice storms to -20 and back to rain within a day or two. never boring.

In the summer it can hit 90+ with humidity that sucks the life right out of you.

[Don Corleone]

Maybe we need to convince some Canadian conservatives to move to America and run for office. Our conservatives have caught that nastiest of diseases 'success'. We have a more bloated budget now (even without the war) then at any time under Clinton. $400 billion so grandpa gets his constitutionally mandated free Viagra? Hello? Which party are you in? I can't tell any more...

[drone]

Maybe we need to convince some Canadian conservatives to move to America and run for office. Our conservatives have caught that nastiest of diseases 'success'. We have a more bloated budget now (even without the war) then at any time under Clinton. $400 billion so grandpa gets his constitutionally mandated free Viagra? Hello? Which party are you in? I can't tell any more...

No doubt. This Sunday's Doonesbury pretty much says it all:


http://images.ucomics.com/comics/db/2006/db060108.gif

EDIT->Damn you imageshack, damn you to hell. Where did my pic go?

[Divinus Arma]

Goofball, you surprise me because most of the time I hear you siding with Tribesman and AdrianII. I thought you were a leftist?!?!

I thought I remembered you espousing the wonders of socialist economic policy, such as nationalized health care. Also, being a "conservative" and pro-military, one would conclude that you would naturally tend to support the ongoing global war against terrorism and the campaign in Iraq.

[lars573]

No need to be so snappy, Krypta.
I simply thought that since it is British Acts of Parliament which unite all of Canada, these acts would have to be amended.

I know you know but I'm gonna tell you anyway. That hasn't been true in almost 24 years. The amendments to the BNA in 1982 patriated the BNA. It removed the need to have all our acts of parliment approved by London before they recieved Royal accent from the GG. We were followed in this by New Zealand and Austrailia 5 or 6 years later.

No, it just means that our Conservatives focus on the important aspects of conservatism, and pay less attention to the silly ones

The Republicans (recently anyway) have discarded just about all of the solid economic principles which are important to real conservatives, and have made a point of focusing only on trying to instill as much Old Testament as possible into everyday life in America. Think how much more they could accomplish if they just stayed the hell out of peoples' bedrooms and library records, and focused on running the damn country properly.

While I can't say your wrong I will say that only the conservative who aren't from Alberta are as you say. Alliance people have the social ideas that is permiating the Republicans. Which is why I will never trust Harper as our PM.

[Goofball]

Goofball, you surprise me because most of the time I hear you siding with Tribesman and AdrianII. I thought you were a leftist?!?!

But if you look back, that's usually only with respect to social issues. Just go back and have a look at some of the downright nasty exchanges Tribesman and I have had over Israel in the past.

I thought I remembered you espousing the wonders of socialist economic policy, such as nationalized health care.

You can't judge a Canadian's "rightness" or "leftness" by looking at his views on nationalized health care. We are almost universally in favor of it, and don't view it as socialist economic policy at all, but as something any civilized nation would offer to its citizens.

You have to look at the nuances. For example, I am in favor of allowing private, "for profit" medical clinics in Canada, operating alongside and outside of our national healthcare system, for the use of people who don't want to wait in line, but don't mind footing the bill themselves. Beirut, on the other hand, thinks I am a traitor to the Canadian way of life for even suggesting such a thing.

Also, being a "conservative" and pro-military, one would conclude that you would naturally tend to support the ongoing global war against terrorism and the campaign in Iraq.

I am very pro-military (as a matter of fact, I have my Regimental Board Interview on Feb 4 to be admitted back into the army as a reserve infantry 2nd john). And I'm all for fighting terrorism. But I find that being in favor of those two things has very little to do with being in favor of the war in Iraq. Frankly, as a former (and soon to be current) soldier, I don't really understand how any soldier can support the war in Iraq. In my opinion your Commander in Chief has spent the lives of his soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen needlessly and carelessly.

I supported (and still do) the invasion of Afghanistan. I think that Iraq took resources needlessly away from that more important theater of operations.

Quite frankly, I think the invasion of Iraq was a Godsend for the Islamic terrorist movement and has only increased the threat of future terrorism against the U.S.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Our left wingers, NDP, Green party, Bloc Quebecois, make Jesse Jackson look like Louis Farrakhan.

Eh, I consider Louis Farrakhan, convicted on two counts of torture against two women, and a racist and anti-semite, to be worse than Jesse 'Love Child' Jackson. Did you think that JJ was worse?

Crazed Rabbit

[Beirut]

You have to look at the nuances. For example, I am in favor of allowing private, "for profit" medical clinics in Canada, operating alongside and outside of our national healthcare system, for the use of people who don't want to wait in line, but don't mind footing the bill themselves. Beirut, on the other hand, thinks I am a traitor to the Canadian way of life for even suggesting such a thing.

Good Lord, not a traitor at all; merely one more fortunate individual ready to enjoy true enlightenment with regards the benefits of socialized medicine and then the challenge of helping to perfect its implementation in Canada.

[GoreBag]

Ugly, are alright? You seem to be taking this discussion pretty personally.

And as a Maritimer living in Ontario, I think it's fair to say that if the Atlantic provinces were swallowed by a sea monster, Ontario would sit up and notice. There are more ex-Newfies living in Toronto than there are still living Newfoundland, after all.

Aaand interestingly enough, who can tell me when and where the first separatist movement in Canada started?

[Divinus Arma]

Why would anyone want to live in Canada instead of the U.S.?

[lars573]

Hmm I can't rightly remember. But I think it's some where east of Quebec. I think that Ugly is taking this pretty well.

[GoreBag]

Hmm I can't rightly remember. But I think it's some where east of Quebec. I think that Ugly is taking this pretty well.

Getting warmer.

DA, don't be a bumnut.

[Divinus Arma]

DA, don't be a bumnut.

No No, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I am just trying to see what the impetus to move to Canda would be. I mean, aside from country loyalty of course, why would one choose Canada over the U.S.?

I hear alot about Canadians moving South, but not so much the other way around. I remember looking at some property that was cheap but it looked colder than a caribous arse.

[GoreBag]

I imaginge caribou arse is pretty warm, actually. Where was the property, and have you ever been up north?

[Divinus Arma]

I imaginge caribou arse is pretty warm, actually. Where was the property, and have you ever been up north?

I thought it was in Quebec. It was a long time ago. I remember that it was near a rather large body of water, as it appeared to be on a beach.

And no I have never been to Canada. I'm plenty curious though.

[Beirut]

No No, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to be sarcastic. I am just trying to see what the impetus to move to Canda would be. I mean, aside from country loyalty of course, why would one choose Canada over the U.S.?

Honestly, as a nation, we're simply more relaxed. It's who we are. And that's what some people seek.

I think part of what makes you guys so techologicaly and militarily progressive is that you're pretty wound up. You worry about keeping your place in the world and proving that your way of life is the right one. That might make you the superpower, economicaly and militarily, but it does not make for a relaxed society.

I hear alot about Canadians moving South, but not so much the other way around. I remember looking at some property that was cheap but it looked colder than a caribous arse.

Scientific test conducted in Manitoba, which gets cold enough to freeze a Siberian, showed that caribou fur made the warmest clothes, better than all the polar fleece and hollowfill combined. So it's my guess that the caribou's arse is mighty warm indeed.

[Duke Malcolm]

I know you know but I'm gonna tell you anyway. That hasn't been true in almost 24 years. The amendments to the BNA in 1982 patriated the BNA. It removed the need to have all our acts of parliment approved by London before they recieved Royal accent from the GG. We were followed in this by New Zealand and Austrailia 5 or 6 years later.

Thanks for clearing this little bit up for me. I knew the act in 1982 stopped the British government signing Acts of the Canadian Parliament and stopped the British parliament amending the British North America Act 1867 (although I don't think such a thing is constitutional in the UK...). I'm not entirely sure what patriated means, however. But there are other acts concerning Quebec being owned by the British, and concerning boundaries? The Union Act, I think... Or were these also patriated?

[InsaneApache]

Very interesting stuff.

Just a couple of queries.

If the Quebequoise do secede on a referendum would that still require the Queens assent?

If the above is possible would the 'rest' of Canada allow one of it's richest and developed provinces to leave?

If they don't feel inclined to, is there really a possibilty of civil war?

And last but not least. Having read posters from Canada, some type in English English and some in American English, which one is correct for Canada. ( My ££££s are on English English)

thnx.

[Beirut]

Very interesting stuff.

Just a couple of queries.

If the Quebequoise do secede on a referendum would that still require the Queens assent?

If the above is possible would the 'rest' of Canada allow one of it's richest and developed provinces to leave?

If they don't feel inclined to, is there really a possibilty of civil war?

And last but not least. Having read posters from Canada, some type in English English and some in American English, which one is correct for Canada. ( My ££££s are on English English)

thnx.

- No. At least not in any way that would have any relevance.

- Yes and no. The democratic right exists, but that right is interpreted differently by both parties. Quebec thinks it walks away with everything intact. The federal government does not.

- Yes and no. More widespread civil disobedience and unrest than actual war. But there would doubtlessly be shots fired somewhere. There are millions of people and millions of guns in this province and the issue is very emotional.

- English English. It is neighbour, not neighbor. And never, ever will it be nite or lite. It is night and light.

[InsaneApache]

Thanks Beirut.

[King Henry V]

As we are all experienced RTW players, I think we know what happens when somewhere decides to stage a bit of civil revolt...*sharpens axe blade*.
I think 80,000 seperatists crucified along the motorway between Quebec and America would be quite a touritst attraction .
Where is General Wolfe when you really need him?

[lars573]

Thanks for clearing this little bit up for me. I knew the act in 1982 stopped the British government signing Acts of the Canadian Parliament and stopped the British parliament amending the British North America Act 1867 (although I don't think such a thing is constitutional in the UK...). I'm not entirely sure what patriated means, however. But there are other acts concerning Quebec being owned by the British, and concerning boundaries? The Union Act, I think... Or were these also patriated?

I'm not entirely sure but I believe it means that in 1982 the BNA became the Canadian constitution. Those other acts on Quebec could be dealing with the city when it was taken by the Brits in 1759 (I need more details). Quebec the province didn't exist until 1867, neither did Ontario. In the 1860's when Sir John A MacDonald (a Scotman born and bred) drafted the BNA the 4 BNA provinces in this new union were Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Upper and Lower Canada, these were the French names for the territories that the Brits kept using. Canada however was the name chosen for the whole nation. So upper Canada became Ontario, and lower Canada Quebec (after the city). But as I said we didn't have our own constitution we just used yours until 1982.

[Duke Malcolm]

Ah, okay. The Quebec referred to before 1867 must be the entirety of New France, which the British took in at about 1760...

[lars573]

My north american history is spotty in some places but if I remember my junior high history New France was all the territories belonging to France in North america. Basically snaking along the St. Lawrence in the north through the great lakes and down the mississipi river to the delta. But usually the northern parts are Canada, the parts that are now the USA mid-west are New France and the Mississpi delta are Louisiana.

Many firsts for Europeans in the new world were French in what is now Canada. For example the first road and first social club were all built by the French in Acadia in like 1605.