Super Genius
Posts: 1,103 
June 17th, 2004, 07:55 PM
Just a thought re an American 'invasion'.
A couple of years ago, I was in Poland on business.
A shrewd observer mentioned to me that the Germans no longer need bullets to invade Poland.
Nowadays, they use Deutschmarks and Euros.
While the analogy isn't perfect, it does have some merit.
Just a thought re an American 'invasion'.
A couple of years ago, I was in Poland on business.
A shrewd observer mentioned to me that the Germans no longer need bullets to invade Poland.
Nowadays, they use Deutschmarks and Euros.
While the analogy isn't perfect, it does have some merit.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,320
Location: Winnipeg
Location: Winnipeg
June 17th, 2004, 11:12 PM
That is what the US has been doing to Canada since at least the age of Mulroney, researchok.
With England and France comes the EU. That isn't just the influence of them, that's also because we are a generally well-liked country
We can also count on the support of many African, South American, and Asian countries. That's because we have backed them in intenational disputes (mostly not military) or they respect us as acting fairly in the past.
That's all a long-winded way of saying that Canada is a middle-power. We have friends and they will back us up.
If we elect Stephen Harper those friends will start to disappear.
That is what the US has been doing to Canada since at least the age of Mulroney, researchok.
Quote:
You missed the part where I pointed our allies who would take great umbrage at Canada being invaded, TenPenny. Canada has some buddies on this planet, that's part of being a multilateral nation.
I don't know why you think the fact that the US has no legal right to invade, or the fact that it would be in violation of international law would prevent the US from taking action.
Quote:
They will. I don't they'll do it for long though. When I was four the USA's own people stood on the streets of Chicago and chanted, "The whole world is watching," as men in uniform beat them. Now people the world over are saying the same basic thing while being beaten by American men in American uniforms. The whole world is still watching, but the absolute and total disgust at the actions of the US government is becoming palpable again. I doubt it will subside this time.
The US will do whatever they think is in the SHORT TERM interest of the US. To hell with everyone and everything else.
Quote:
They can only have that puppet if we agree to it.
That said, I don't think the US would invade Canada; why bother, when it is possible that they can have a puppet running Canada anyway?
Quote:
Yes they would, Thorshammer.
First of all they wouldnt be invading Canada anymore.
Quote:
It is extremely unlikely that Quebec would separate without some sort of sovereignty association. Considering the considerable economic might of Quebec, especially its hydro power in the emerging economy, Canada would have no choice.
Rremeber we are talking about after seperation where quebec would be cut off of the purse strings of the rest of Canadaas well as its money and military. Everything at that point would be up for grabs and new treaties and alliances would have to be formed. Any agreemets with Canada and the uS would not apply.
Quote:
There would be very little exodus of people and business. That already happened way back in the seventies. Those that were going are already gone. The rest have too much invested, regardless of their political leanings.
Second alo of the "takeoevers" would be finanacial. After seperation and the subsequent exodus of people and businesses, there would be and economic collapse for other reasons as well.
Quote:
I think everybody in Canada, except maybe Stephen Harper, would be extremely wary of any swooping.
This is when US would swoop in in the name of stability and offer economic bailouts as well as other protections. Who do think would protect Quebecs distinct culture and language rights more, Canada or US?
Quote:
England and France mostly, Voice. We belong to multilateral coaltions with them that the US does not. England is required to aid us by law, in fact. We are still an official part of the Empire.
You say Europe? Whom, and why? To poke a sharp stick in the eye of the Americans?
With England and France comes the EU. That isn't just the influence of them, that's also because we are a generally well-liked country
We can also count on the support of many African, South American, and Asian countries. That's because we have backed them in intenational disputes (mostly not military) or they respect us as acting fairly in the past.
That's all a long-winded way of saying that Canada is a middle-power. We have friends and they will back us up.
If we elect Stephen Harper those friends will start to disappear.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,065
Location: Montréal, Québec
Location: Montréal, Québec
June 18th, 2004, 07:38 AM
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-236-...e_quebec_libre
http://archives.radio-canada.ca/IDC-...e_quebec_libre
Anyways, our premiers still visit the french presidents every year. We also are an independant from Canada member of la Francophonie. And Québec has strong ties to many African countries and a few south american countries (like Cuba for example). Our friendly ways, go far, just like Canada.
Quoting
France for one, they have always supported our bid for independance. They still do to this day, though not as publicly as Charles de Gaulle did 40 years ago.
You say Europe? Whom, and why? To poke a sharp stick in the eye of the Americans?
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-236-...e_quebec_libre
http://archives.radio-canada.ca/IDC-...e_quebec_libre
Anyways, our premiers still visit the french presidents every year. We also are an independant from Canada member of la Francophonie. And Québec has strong ties to many African countries and a few south american countries (like Cuba for example). Our friendly ways, go far, just like Canada.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,172
June 18th, 2004, 06:10 PM
The United States, Canada, and an ever-extending list of Eurpoean Union members, are all, or nearly all members of NATO. Doesn't that fact supersede the variety of other multi-national coalitions several of you have mentioned? Call me cynical, but I suspect the existence of these other multi-national defense coalitions represent the statutory dedication of sums of national defense spending to members states' own domestic suppliers. I can't envision NATO breaking up over Quebec, when it didn't break up over the deployment of mobile cruise missiles in Britain, and the Pershing II missiles in the German Federal Republic--both of which ran roughshod over public opposition, and led to Thatcher and Schmidt being branded Quislings. There is a certain sense of proportion missing from this debate, in my opinion.
The United States, Canada, and an ever-extending list of Eurpoean Union members, are all, or nearly all members of NATO. Doesn't that fact supersede the variety of other multi-national coalitions several of you have mentioned? Call me cynical, but I suspect the existence of these other multi-national defense coalitions represent the statutory dedication of sums of national defense spending to members states' own domestic suppliers. I can't envision NATO breaking up over Quebec, when it didn't break up over the deployment of mobile cruise missiles in Britain, and the Pershing II missiles in the German Federal Republic--both of which ran roughshod over public opposition, and led to Thatcher and Schmidt being branded Quislings. There is a certain sense of proportion missing from this debate, in my opinion.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,103
June 18th, 2004, 08:23 PM
Any new entity would have to deal with those issues.
NATO is way down the list of priorities.
Quoting
Before NATO and oth erissues arise, there remains the pragmatic issues of currencies, treaties, trade-- free or otherwise, tax reciprocity with other states, etc.
I've never personnaly thought highlyn of NATO, thus why. But you you are right.
Any new entity would have to deal with those issues.
NATO is way down the list of priorities.
Member
Posts: 63
June 19th, 2004, 08:31 AM
This discussion is useless because Quebec separatism simply doesn't exist. The PQ does not promote the separation to the rest of Canada. Among the Québec political parties, only the RIN did promote pure independence back in the early 1960. But the party was soon disbanded and the PQ represents a moderate approach to politics.
Radical groups like the FLQ did promote the notion of separation, but it was only seen as a mere means to carry out the socialist revolution. All of that is long dead by now. Don't worry, don't expect any revolution for the next few decades as the Quebec population is getting older and that the youth are much attracted to the backward capitalist ADQ policies.
In the 1980 referendum, the parti Québécois suggested a souveraineté-association (soft approach) and in the 1995 a souveraineté partenariat (Mario Dumont, Lucien Bouchard and Parizeau agreed on the question just one month before the referendum)
Bernar Landry, now the PQ leader, is talking about a union confédérale, so that the idea of souveraineté has completely disappeared.
And Gilles Duceppe from the bloc is now attracting federalists in this election.
You see that the notion of separation is a nonsense in 2004 modern Quebec. Only in the ill-informed English Canada the notion is still debated, in Quebec we gave up decades ago.
This discussion is useless because Quebec separatism simply doesn't exist. The PQ does not promote the separation to the rest of Canada. Among the Québec political parties, only the RIN did promote pure independence back in the early 1960. But the party was soon disbanded and the PQ represents a moderate approach to politics.
Radical groups like the FLQ did promote the notion of separation, but it was only seen as a mere means to carry out the socialist revolution. All of that is long dead by now. Don't worry, don't expect any revolution for the next few decades as the Quebec population is getting older and that the youth are much attracted to the backward capitalist ADQ policies.
In the 1980 referendum, the parti Québécois suggested a souveraineté-association (soft approach) and in the 1995 a souveraineté partenariat (Mario Dumont, Lucien Bouchard and Parizeau agreed on the question just one month before the referendum)
Bernar Landry, now the PQ leader, is talking about a union confédérale, so that the idea of souveraineté has completely disappeared.
And Gilles Duceppe from the bloc is now attracting federalists in this election.
You see that the notion of separation is a nonsense in 2004 modern Quebec. Only in the ill-informed English Canada the notion is still debated, in Quebec we gave up decades ago.
Member
Posts: 63
June 19th, 2004, 10:27 AM
I'm saying that it has never been a issue. The issue put forward by the PQ was "la souveraineté-association". Only radical groups which have never been really active on the political level did promote the radical option of pure separation.
I'm saying that most Quebekers are moderate people who don't really want to make radical choices. Separation is a extremist option. On the other hand, souveraineté I guess is the idea that Quebec is politically autonomous while maintaining close economic and strategic ties with Canada. Back in the 1995 referendum, I remembered Lucien Bouchard saying that a souvereign Quebec would keep using Canadian currency and would negociate a plan to keep military ties with Canada. That's not what you call independence and rather implies lots a negociation.
The issue is dead since the Quebec issue became basically constitutional after the 1980 referedum (Back then, Levesque would refer to the renewal of federalism le "Beau Risque") Anyway, separation has never been fashionable in Quebec. Only revolutionary poets, singers and intellectuals would use this term while politicians and bureaucrats really engaged into politics would understand the need of a moderate and diplomatic approach and vocabulary.
Jean-François Lisée, the personal political adviser of Parizeau and Bouchard published a book two years ago saying basically that the souveraineté would not happened and he suggested that the next referendum should be about strengthening provincial jurisdictions.
What a shift!
Like I said, Now Landry's talking about a new confederation pact. Who knows what it means? I guess is the same old idea of souveraineté-association but coined in a way to be less scaring to soft nationalists.
The only way the radical separation could rise up again is that moderate people in the PQ get out to form a new leftist party and leave behing only the right-wing radical harliners in the party.
Next november, Françoise David is to found a new party that will bring together Greens, Progressives and probably a lot of former leftists PQ members, so that the provincial politics will be a struggle fought by four major parties (PQ, Lib, ADP, a the new one)
Maybe then the PQ will radicalize his discourse, I don't know. Nobody does. But for sure something important and big is happening in Quebec. It is quiet, but it is real. Politics is really something in Quebec, and complicated.
I'm saying that it has never been a issue. The issue put forward by the PQ was "la souveraineté-association". Only radical groups which have never been really active on the political level did promote the radical option of pure separation.
I'm saying that most Quebekers are moderate people who don't really want to make radical choices. Separation is a extremist option. On the other hand, souveraineté I guess is the idea that Quebec is politically autonomous while maintaining close economic and strategic ties with Canada. Back in the 1995 referendum, I remembered Lucien Bouchard saying that a souvereign Quebec would keep using Canadian currency and would negociate a plan to keep military ties with Canada. That's not what you call independence and rather implies lots a negociation.
The issue is dead since the Quebec issue became basically constitutional after the 1980 referedum (Back then, Levesque would refer to the renewal of federalism le "Beau Risque") Anyway, separation has never been fashionable in Quebec. Only revolutionary poets, singers and intellectuals would use this term while politicians and bureaucrats really engaged into politics would understand the need of a moderate and diplomatic approach and vocabulary.
Jean-François Lisée, the personal political adviser of Parizeau and Bouchard published a book two years ago saying basically that the souveraineté would not happened and he suggested that the next referendum should be about strengthening provincial jurisdictions.
What a shift!
Like I said, Now Landry's talking about a new confederation pact. Who knows what it means? I guess is the same old idea of souveraineté-association but coined in a way to be less scaring to soft nationalists.
The only way the radical separation could rise up again is that moderate people in the PQ get out to form a new leftist party and leave behing only the right-wing radical harliners in the party.
Next november, Françoise David is to found a new party that will bring together Greens, Progressives and probably a lot of former leftists PQ members, so that the provincial politics will be a struggle fought by four major parties (PQ, Lib, ADP, a the new one)
Maybe then the PQ will radicalize his discourse, I don't know. Nobody does. But for sure something important and big is happening in Quebec. It is quiet, but it is real. Politics is really something in Quebec, and complicated.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,103
June 19th, 2004, 10:40 AM
I read your post with great interest.
I must say, as an ex montrealais, I was struck with the of Bernard Landry's notion of a renewed comapct between the feds and Quebec.
Is he serious? Is the option serious? The negotiations would open doors we can't imagine-- not to mention the effect the negotiations would have on the the rest of the provinces!
I read your post with great interest.
I must say, as an ex montrealais, I was struck with the of Bernard Landry's notion of a renewed comapct between the feds and Quebec.
Is he serious? Is the option serious? The negotiations would open doors we can't imagine-- not to mention the effect the negotiations would have on the the rest of the provinces!
Member
Posts: 63
June 19th, 2004, 12:15 PM
I think he is serious, but is also getting old and PQ members are speculating as to who might succeed him.
Pauline Marois, who is seen as a potential candidate, did not rule out the possibility of pure independence.
At any rate, the PQ is looking for a convenient strategy to get the souveraineté project back on the agenda.
Gilles Duceppe is well respected. Maybe he is going to get involved on the provincial stage as PQ leader.
I am impatient to see what the political future will be in Canada and in Quebec a few years from now.
My feeling? As our societies are getting older, we will be more and more concerned with Health care and less and less concerned with constitutional debates.
I think he is serious, but is also getting old and PQ members are speculating as to who might succeed him.
Pauline Marois, who is seen as a potential candidate, did not rule out the possibility of pure independence.
At any rate, the PQ is looking for a convenient strategy to get the souveraineté project back on the agenda.
Gilles Duceppe is well respected. Maybe he is going to get involved on the provincial stage as PQ leader.
I am impatient to see what the political future will be in Canada and in Quebec a few years from now.
My feeling? As our societies are getting older, we will be more and more concerned with Health care and less and less concerned with constitutional debates.
