Mulcair firms up NDP policy on Quebec sovereignty


mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
#1
Mulcair firms up NDP policy on Quebec sovereignty

That sums up the more demanding new position on a Quebec sovereignty referendum that Thomas Mulcair has taken, now that the election of a Parti Québécois government has made the question less hypothetical.

The official policy of Mulcair’s federal New Democratic Party, contained in the so-called Sherbrooke Declaration of 2005, is that Quebec has the right to “achieve sovereignty” on a referendum vote of 50 per cent plus one.

But in an interview broadcast on the Radio-Canada television program Les Coulisses du pouvoir on Sunday, Mulcair implied that the federal government would not necessarily have to agree to sovereignty after a simple-majority vote.

Asked about the Sherbrooke Declaration, the leader of the NDP official opposition in the House of Commons referred instead to the 1998 opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on Quebec secession.

Mulcair said that a majority of 50 per cent plus one meets the court’s “quantitative” standard for a “clear majority” to a referendum question.

And he said twice (in the second of the five segments of the online version of the program) that such a vote would give Ottawa an “obligation to negotiate” with Quebec.

But contrary to what his party’s Sherbrooke Declaration implies, Mulcair never mentioned an obligation to agree to sovereignty.

Even the obligation to negotiate, he said, would depend on whether the referendum majority also met the Supreme Court’s “qualitative” standard–that is, such conditions as “how is (the referendum) held, are the rules clear, is the question really about the subject.”

The Sherbrooke Declaration mentions no such conditions. On the contrary, it recognizes that the Quebec National Assembly is free to choose the question and Quebec voters are free to answer it.
And Mulcair implied that Ottawa could take a tough negotiating position in response to a weak referendum majority. ”If it’s a very narrow majority, that gives you what as negotiating strength?”

Mulcair firms up NDP policy on Quebec sovereignty | Montreal Gazette
 
Goober
Free Thinker
+1
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Mulcair firms up NDP policy on Quebec sovereignty

That sums up the more demanding new position on a Quebec sovereignty referendum that Thomas Mulcair has taken, now that the election of a Parti Québécois government has made the question less hypothetical.

The official policy of Mulcair’s federal New Democratic Party, contained in the so-called Sherbrooke Declaration of 2005, is that Quebec has the right to “achieve sovereignty” on a referendum vote of 50 per cent plus one.

But in an interview broadcast on the Radio-Canada television program Les Coulisses du pouvoir on Sunday, Mulcair implied that the federal government would not necessarily have to agree to sovereignty after a simple-majority vote.

Asked about the Sherbrooke Declaration, the leader of the NDP official opposition in the House of Commons referred instead to the 1998 opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on Quebec secession.

Mulcair said that a majority of 50 per cent plus one meets the court’s “quantitative” standard for a “clear majority” to a referendum question.

And he said twice (in the second of the five segments of the online version of the program) that such a vote would give Ottawa an “obligation to negotiate” with Quebec.

But contrary to what his party’s Sherbrooke Declaration implies, Mulcair never mentioned an obligation to agree to sovereignty.

Even the obligation to negotiate, he said, would depend on whether the referendum majority also met the Supreme Court’s “qualitative” standard–that is, such conditions as “how is (the referendum) held, are the rules clear, is the question really about the subject.”

The Sherbrooke Declaration mentions no such conditions. On the contrary, it recognizes that the Quebec National Assembly is free to choose the question and Quebec voters are free to answer it.
And Mulcair implied that Ottawa could take a tough negotiating position in response to a weak referendum majority. ”If it’s a very narrow majority, that gives you what as negotiating strength?”

Mulcair firms up NDP policy on Quebec sovereignty | Montreal Gazette

Cannot find where the SCoC states 50 % plus 1 meets the qualitative standard- also the courts ruling can be seen to state that Quebecs borders can be changed.

Other that what I stated earlier this is coming back to bite the NDP in thier ***.

Or sitting on a picket fence can be hard on the rectum.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+1
#3
I wonder if he realizes that if quebec separates he will not get a solid gold handshake from Canada?
Time for the NDP to take a clear stand. Are they in favor of quebec separating or not? And do the boarders have to remain as they are or can the natives opt out?
No ifs just yes or no.
 
Locutus
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

But contrary to what his party’s Sherbrooke Declaration implies, Mulcair never mentioned an obligation to agree to sovereignty.

Even the obligation to negotiate, he said, would depend on whether the referendum majority also met the Supreme Court’s “qualitative” standard–that is, such conditions as “how is (the referendum) held, are the rules clear, is the question really about the subject.”

Well I'm glad he's all 'firm' then.

Firm Thomas.
 
Colpy
Conservative
+2
#5
Quote:

Mulcair said that a majority of 50 per cent plus one meets the court’s “quantitative” standard for a “clear majority” to a referendum question.

Soooo....if 50% + 1 is a "clear majority" then what exactly is an unclear majority?????

Mulcair is an idiot.

God Forbid he ever get into government, especially with the PQ in Quebec.
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
#6
In plain English for those of you that need the explanation (which is all of you apparently) - the purpose of this is to show that the "quantitative standard" is not good enough to achieve sovereignty. Basically Mulcair is saying that Ottawa can still step in and flex some muscle to negotiate against a referendum with Quebec even if they get the 51%.

It's actually a step in the direction of the kind of federalism that all the Cons want.

But I wouldn't expect them to understand that, lol
 
BruSan
+2
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

In plain English for those of you that need the explanation (which is all of you apparently) - the purpose of this is to show that the "quantitative standard" is not good enough to achieve sovereignty. Basically Mulcair is saying that Ottawa can still step in and flex some muscle to negotiate against a referendum with Quebec even if they get the 51%.

It's actually a step in the direction of the kind of federalism that all the Cons want.

But I wouldn't expect them to understand that, lol

Cons? Here we go with that nonsense again.

CANADIANS will see this as Mulcair being **** scared to offend his Quebec pansies so hence the 50 + 1% being considered a majority and legitimate secession enabler. They will also see him waffling and deflecting towards the Federal Government being the bully or heavy in the melee by stepping into the fray with an objection. He does this knowing he will in all likelyhood not be in the lead chair or of any federal majority position to put him behind the eight ball himself. Lord knows he doesn't dare offend those Quebecers now since he's pissed off just about everybody else in Canada.

A snuffling waffler of the first order. One more example of a mealy-mouthed pol trying to weazle around a thorny bush without actually touching it himself.
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by BruSanView Post

Cons? Here we go with that nonsense again.

CANADIANS will see this as Mulcair being **** scared to offend his Quebec pansies so hence the 50 + 1% being considered a majority and legitimate secession enabler. They will also see him waffling and deflecting towards the Federal Government being the bully or heavy in the melee by stepping into the fray with an objection.

I was referring to the obvious candidates in this thread. If the majority of Canadians see this as how you've described it, then they are just as stupid and I can't help them either.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

In plain English for those of you that need the explanation (which is all of you apparently) - the purpose of this is to show that the "quantitative standard" is not good enough to achieve sovereignty. Basically Mulcair is saying that Ottawa can still step in and flex some muscle to negotiate against a referendum with Quebec even if they get the 51%.

It's actually a step in the direction of the kind of federalism that all the Cons want.

But I wouldn't expect them to understand that, lol


This is what Mulcair said.

Quote:

Mulcair said that a majority of 50 per cent plus one meets the court’s “quantitative” standard for a “clear majority” to a referendum question.

That is absolutely untrue.

Mulcair is dancing.

He also said:

Quote:

And he said twice (in the second of the five segments of the online version of the program) that such a vote would give Ottawa an “obligation to negotiate” with Quebec.

Which is absolute baloney.

Mulcair has a problem with English Comprehension.

Or he is being purposely deceptive.

Either way, his position flies in the face of Canadian law.
Last edited by Colpy; Sep 22nd, 2012 at 05:25 PM..
 
BruSan
+4
#10  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I was referring to the obvious candidates in this thread. If the majority of Canadians see this as how you've described it, then they are just as stupid and I can't help them either.

I won't, and I suspect neither will any other Canadian, lose any sleep over you not being able to help us.

As for the possible majority seeing it the same way I do being stupid; well, if being right equates to stupid, it'll be tough but I'll eventually learn to live with your negative endorsement.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

In plain English for those of you that need the explanation (which is all of you apparently) - the purpose of this is to show that the "quantitative standard" is not good enough to achieve sovereignty. Basically Mulcair is saying that Ottawa can still step in and flex some muscle to negotiate against a referendum with Quebec even if they get the 51%.

It's actually a step in the direction of the kind of federalism that all the Cons want.

But I wouldn't expect them to understand that, lol

So is Mulcair backing away from the 50 % plus 1 - And it is not just Cons that want that- It takes more than 50% plus 1 or 51 % or 54 % for Quebec to begin negotiations with the Feds and Prov Govts to leave Canada. They cannot leave unilaterally- against Federal ( Clarity Act) and International Law.

Next- The ruling also leaves Quebec's present borders open to adjustment. If anyone thinks that the ROC will let the present borders stand if Quebec left they should give their heads a shake.

Mulcair is still sitting on a picket fence.

I asked for the reference in the SCoC ruling that Quebec can begin secession on 50 % plus 1. Appears Mulcair referred to that. Do you have that handy.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+2
#12
If 50%+1 is a clear majority why is it that any test I have ever seen requires at least 70% to pass? 70% too tough for quebec?

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

In plain English for those of you that need the explanation (which is all of you apparently) - the purpose of this is to show that the "quantitative standard" is not good enough to achieve sovereignty. Basically Mulcair is saying that Ottawa can still step in and flex some muscle to negotiate against a referendum with Quebec even if they get the 51%.

It's actually a step in the direction of the kind of federalism that all the Cons want.

But I wouldn't expect them to understand that, lol

interesting spin.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

So is Mulcair backing away from the 50 % plus 1 - And it is not just Cons that want that- It takes more than 50% plus 1 or 51 % or 54 % for Quebec to begin negotiations with the Feds and Prov Govts to leave Canada. They cannot leave unilaterally- against Federal ( Clarity Act) and International Law.

Next- The ruling also leaves Quebec's present borders open to adjustment. If anyone thinks that the ROC will let the present borders stand if Quebec left they should give their heads a shake.

Mulcair is still sitting on a picket fence.

I asked for the reference in the SCoC ruling that Quebec can begin secession on 50 % plus 1. Appears Mulcair referred to that. Do you have that handy.

MF- Bump to you
 
DaSleeper
+4
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

MF- Bump to you

As far as I can find....a clear majority has never been defined for a referendum ...anywhere else it's 66%
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

MF- Bump to you

I'm just referencing this latest article for my rationale.

Think of this as somewhat analagous to the situation we have with getting rid of the gun registry. Despite the fact that there is a clear quantitative decision (based on the Con majority vote) we still have legal rumblings and squabbles from Quebec and Ontario delaying the process or possibly reverting the decision in time.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

I'm just referencing this latest article for my rationale.

Think of this as somewhat analagous to the situation we have with getting rid of the gun registry. Despite the fact that there is a clear quantitative decision (based on the Con majority vote) we still have legal rumblings and squabbles from Quebec and Ontario delaying the process or possibly reverting the decision in time.

So Mulcair does not yet have a firm policy. I undertsand he has to drag the NDP some by their peckers to the centre / middle of public opinion.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

So Mulcair does not yet have a firm policy. I undertsand he has to drag the NDP some by their peckers to the centre / middle of public opinion.

Mulcair would be lucky if he could just drag the left side of the NDP towards the right side. That would just put them around the far left of most of the thinking population.
 
WLDB
No Party Affiliation
#18
This is one issue I strongly disagreed with Jack Layton on. 50% plus one should not be enough. It takes more than that to change the constitution. It should be at least that hard for them to separate.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

This is one issue I strongly disagreed with Jack Layton on. 50% plus one should not be enough. It takes more than that to change the constitution. It should be at least that hard for them to separate.

From what I gather Mulcair really does not have a dyed in the wool policy on this. He better not wait to long to define where the NDP stand on this.

If it is a 50 plus 1 he will find it costly in every province that they hold seats in - Excepting Quebec of course.
 
mentalfloss
No Party Affiliation
#20
Besides the fact that the issue of sovereignty is the most bloated and irrelevent talking point that anyone could muster against the federal NDP..

Quebec will not separate.

So it really is a non-issue.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Besides the fact that the issue of sovereignty is the most bloated and irrelevent talking point that anyone could muster against the federal NDP..

Quebec will not separate.

So it really is a non-issue.

In your opinion it is a non issue- But you are being partisan in your opinion.

You cannot predict the future- while it is low at the present time what happens when they hit the fiscal cliff and head over it as they are now fast down that road- more spending by the PQ, tax and cuts to PS education tuition- a recession will do that very quickly- not counting their 250 Billion public debt. Over 8 Billion spent on interest.

Crying for more equalization - then it becomes as the PQ wants an emotional issue- Quebecois are not getting their fair share of Fed revenues.The ROC is disrespecting Quebecois.

Quebec will be after a boatload of cash at the next Fed-Prov meetings for setting equalization payments- that I believe is in 2014.

Have you looked down that road - because as sure as little green apples will give you the runs-It is not as low as some would think.
 
Fletch
+2
#22
Mulcair is the weakest politician we have seen to date. Its cleart in the above that he has NO position on Quebec.. He will only have a position when Steve Harper steps in to save Canada. Mulcairs position then will be the exact opposit of Harpers. Its a shame this sucker cant even find a spine to stand up for Canada
 
lone wolf
Free Thinker
+1
#23
Who CAN really have a position on Quebec. Quebec has to have a position in the first place. The one they (the powers that be - for they who seek to be offended) have changes every time they're appeased
 
DaSleeper
+1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by FletchView Post

Mulcair is the weakest politician we have seen to date. Its cleart in the above that he has NO position on Quebec.. He will only have a position when Steve Harper steps in to save Canada. Mulcairs position then will be the exact opposit of Harpers. Its a shame this sucker cant even find a spine to stand up for Canada

Why stand for Canada??? Isn't he also a french(France) citizen?????
 
Vancouverite
#25
I don't accept 50% plus one. I would require 50.1% on a clear question.
 
Nuggler
+1
#26
Mulclairs' policy is just like that of any other politician..............clear as mud, and subject to the whims of whatever electorate he chooses to listen to, including the voices in his head, probably driven by greed, but definitely in the pursuit of power.

They are all a detestable bunch of bastards.
 
Retired_Can_Soldier
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by NugglerView Post

Mulclairs' policy is just like that of any other politician..............clear as mud, and subject to the whims of whatever electorate he chooses to listen to, including the voices in his head, probably driven by greed, but definitely in the pursuit of power.

They are all a detestable bunch of bastards.

Oops I thought you said delectable.
 

Similar Threads

145
Is Quebec sovereignty on the rise?
by Vancouverite | Jul 8th, 2012
92
Tories and Quebec Sovereignty
by Jersay | Jun 28th, 2006
0
Quebec ad firms not equipped for war on terror
by Vincent_2002 | Apr 6th, 2004
no new posts