Tories and Quebec Sovereignty

[Jersay]

Now as i was sitting in the Lounge of my local DND unit, waiting to do some paperwork I read the Globe and Mail and about Conservative federalism.

Now, they are prepared to give some power to the provinces. However, with regards to Quebec they are nt even planning to run a defence against the seperatists. They believe it is a provincial matter.

It gets better, and if the seperatists win the referendum, even by a majority the Conservatives will not abide by it because, they didn't take part in the referendum.

They will then allow the court process to work, where they believe the Supreme Court will side with the seperatists forcing the government to start negotiations with the seperatists.

And get this, the COnservatives will get into negotiations with the seperatists, as long as sovereignty is off the table.

And if the seperatists unilaterally seperate, the rebuilt Canadian forces, will be sent in and civil-war at the worst.

That is the plan, look it up on Wednesday's Globe and Mail.

I couldn't believe it.

 

[FiveParadox]

Unbelievable!

The Conservative Party of Canada needs to rethink such a strategy, in my opinion; war is not an acceptable option.

 

[Toro]

RE: Tories and Quebec Sov

Link?

Harper is willing to devolve power to Quebec, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[FiveParadox]

A devolution of power and failing to prevent secession are two entirely different things.

 

[Toro]

RE: Tories and Quebec Sov

They sure are.

But Quebec is less likely to separate if power is devolved from Ottawa IMHO.

 

[FiveParadox]

That, or it could give them the power to do it.

Double-edged sword, but I understand your point, Toro.

 

[the caracal kid]

Harper's plan is going to fail. He is playing right into separation in his interests of giving more powers to his buddy ralphy-boy.

take a look at www.bloc-harper.com for the general idea of what happens when power is handed over without the proper counter-balance to maintain stability.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Tories and Quebec Sovereignty

Unbelievable!

The Conservative Party of Canada needs to rethink such a strategy, in my opinion; war is not an acceptable option.

Wrong.

A unilateral declaration of independence, without negotiation of borders on the basis of the vote, is a declaration of war.

No nation would allow a huge chunk of its territory to be torn from them, nor should they.

I'm all for self-determination, and would allow a territory called Quebec to leave after a strong majority on a clear question, and after negotiation to create new borders on the basis of the wishes of the people that live there.

But I would not allow the nation to be torn apart on anything less.

War is the practise of diplomacy by other means. In this case, to defend Canadian citizens that do NOT want to be Quebecois.

 

[FiveParadox]

I wasn't saying that Canada should honour a unilateral declaration of independence; to separate from Canada, the consent of the House of Commons and the Senate are required, in addition to the consent of at least seven Legislative Assemblies of the Provinces, representing at least a majority of the population of Canada in those Provinces; in addition, the consent of the Governor General of Canada is required — also, technically speaking, the Queen of Canada would have the authority to veto an Act to Separate within two years of its passage. It's not an easy task to secede from Canada.

A referendum, in particular one issued by a Government of a Province rather than the Government of Canada is not a binding instrument for independence — the Supreme Court of Canada has told us so.

 

[sanch]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...60125/IBBITSON25/TPNational/?query=federalism

...and what he'll do
By JOHN IBBITSON

Wednesday, January 25,


Those who believe Quebeckers must be coaxed, not coerced, into staying inside Confederation, will warn that such an extreme position could deliver a Yes vote in the next referendum, followed by a unilateral declaration of independence. Carried to its extreme, they warn, Mr. Harper's obduracy could lead to civil war.

The article seems to be saying that the one of the outcomes of the policy may be civil war according to a certain group. It does not even imply that Harper intends to send troops into Quebec if they decide to seperate.

Quebec has its own immigration department so it has already been given quite a bit of autonomy. They have two parts to their immigration program. One is they want to attract French speakers or those who are willing to learn French. The other is aimed at resolving their demographic and skills crisis. They have zero population growth and so are relying on immigration. Interestingly enough there is no stipulation that prevents anyone who immigrates to Quebec from immediately heading out to another province. My interpretation of this is Canada remains a draw for Quebec immigration and that even with losses to other provinces Quebec still comes out ahead. Remove Canada and what happens to Quebec immigration? I don’t think it is to their advantage to separate. Of course politics is not that rational sometimes.

 

[Colpy]

Re: RE: Tories and Quebec Sovereignty

I wasn't saying that Canada should honour a unilateral declaration of independence; to separate from Canada, the consent of the House of Commons and the Senate are required, in addition to the consent of at least seven Legislative Assemblies of the Provinces, representing at least a majority of the population of Canada in those Provinces; in addition, the consent of the Governor General of Canada is required — also, technically speaking, the Queen of Canada would have the authority to veto an Act to Separate within two years of its passage. It's not an easy task to secede from Canada.

A referendum, in particular one issued by a Government of a Province rather than the Government of Canada is not a binding instrument for independence — the Supreme Court of Canada has told us so.

I agree whole-heartedly.

But what happens if the Quebec governmen does make a UDI? Which they would probably do, it is what they planned in 1995 with 50% + 1.

I'm not quite the war-monger I sound. The world slipped into war twice this last century because one side, or both, didn't understand where the lines in the sand were. And there has to be lines.

My point is, let's make the lines very clear.

 

[the caracal kid]

i agre colpy, the "lines" need to be clear.

however, if a "province" such as quebec, which began as upper canada could vote to join, it can also vote to leave. No "federal" government can stop that.

 

[FiveParadox]

No, no federal Government can stop that.

Unless you abide by the law, the Constitution, and silly things like that.

 

[The Gunslinger]

If Quebec does decide to secede then what happens? Do you think the Liberal stronghold of Montreal will want to secede? Or the natives of the north? What about the half the country that doesn't want to secede, what happens to them (I'm assuming the 50%+1)? Or the federal property in Qubec? There are dozens of issues that will crop up. A Quebec secession will take a long time to sort out.

 

[Toro]

RE: Tories and Quebec Sov

Its all open to negotiation.

 

[Numure]

Re: RE: Tories and Quebec Sovereignty

Wrong.

A unilateral declaration of independence, without negotiation of borders on the basis of the vote, is a declaration of war.

Correct, and lets hope it doesnt come to that. But if we get 50%+1, and the federal government refuses to negotiate on the basis of the Clarity Act, expect a UDI to be an option.

No nation would allow a huge chunk of its territory to be torn from them, nor should they.

Exactly why the Québec Nation wont allow partition in the event of Seperation. And not one single Québécois Fédéralist Politician supports partition in the event of Souvrainté. Not Jean Charest, or anyone of significance in his party.

I'm all for self-determination, and would allow a territory called Quebec to leave after a strong majority on a clear question, and after negotiation to create new borders on the basis of the wishes of the people that live there.

Democracy is 50%+1. It won't change because Ottawa said so. This was imposed by Ottawa. Provincial Fédéralist don't agree with it, either. And the end, wether you agree with it or not, its a Provincial matter.

But I would not allow the nation to be torn apart on anything less.

War is the practise of diplomacy by other means. In this case, to defend Canadian citizens that do NOT want to be Quebecois.

And they are a minority, actually mostly Anglophones. Québec leaves as is, with its territory in full, minus the small native communities in the north. And the land they own isnt all the north, just small spots of it here and there.

 

[Numure]

Re: RE: Tories and Quebec Sovereignty

i agre colpy, the "lines" need to be clear.

however, if a "province" such as quebec, which began as upper canada could vote to join, it can also vote to leave. No "federal" government can stop that.

Nail on the head.

 

[Numure]

Re: RE: Tories and Quebec Sovereignty

I agree whole-heartedly.

But what happens if the Quebec governmen does make a UDI? Which they would probably do, it is what they planned in 1995 with 50% + 1.

And everyone in the National Assembly agreed to a UDI in the event of the Federal government refusing to negotiate. Including the Liberals and ADQ(They we're in the Yes camp anyways). I remember one liberal MP resigning over that issue.

I'm not quite the war-monger I sound. The world slipped into war twice this last century because one side, or both, didn't understand where the lines in the sand were. And there has to be lines.

My point is, let's make the lines very clear.

The lines won't be clear as long as Ottawa imposes.

Good thing is, Conservatives are in town now. And their view of Confederation is more in lined with what Nationalists (Hint not per say Seperatists), believe.

 

[MMMike]

Re: RE: Tories and Quebec Sovereignty

No nation would allow a huge chunk of its territory to be torn from them, nor should they.

Exactly why the Québec Nation wont allow partition in the event of Seperation. And not one single Québécois Fédéralist Politician supports partition in the event of Souvrainté. Not Jean Charest, or anyone of significance in his party.

The same rationel that is used to justify Quebec separation can be used to justify separation of parts of Quebec. If Canada is divisible; Quebec is divisible.

 

[Numure]

Re: RE: Tories and Quebec Sovereignty

No nation would allow a huge chunk of its territory to be torn from them, nor should they.

Exactly why the Québec Nation wont allow partition in the event of Seperation. And not one single Québécois Fédéralist Politician supports partition in the event of Souvrainté. Not Jean Charest, or anyone of significance in his party.

The same rationel that is used to justify Quebec separation can be used to justify separation of parts of Quebec. If Canada is divisible; Quebec is divisible.

Then Québec can be divisable after the establishement of Québec as a country, its Québec Tradition and you won't find support, other then from anglophones to do it other wise. Not before or during negotiations. You cannot impose partition.

Canada is divisable as a Country. Québec is divisable as a Country, too.