| View Poll Results: Should Quebec separate, what course should the Maritime provinces and NFLD & Lab follow? | |||
| Remain a part of Canada, geographically separate from the rest of the country. |    | 36 | 67.92% |
| Apply for statehood in the United States. |    | 7 | 13.21% |
| Form own independent and sovereign nation(s), either individually or collectively. |    | 10 | 18.87% |
| Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll | |||
Newbie
Posts: 1 
June 8th, 2005, 08:44 AM
my name is tyler and i am at school working on a project on quebec separation and came across this site by accident and i am glad i did because now i can hear what people say about quebec seperation. 
i just hope idiot red neck bush doesent blow them to kingdom come , well boo hoo, 
who cares about quebec if they leave this great country and starts their own little country. 
please write back... by :tyler 
my name is tyler and i am at school working on a project on quebec separation and came across this site by accident and i am glad i did because now i can hear what people say about quebec seperation. i just hope idiot red neck bush doesent blow them to kingdom come , well boo hoo, who cares about quebec if they leave this great country and starts their own little country. please write back... by :tyler 
Newbie
Posts: 1
June 26th, 2005, 04:04 PM
"What else can we do, chain 'em to the stove? If they want to go they will go. It isn't worth shooting people over...it isn't like they can go far."
This is a typically Canadian point of view. I have long believed that after two referendums, and a third on the horizon, that it is now time for Canada to consider military options.
The Civil War settled once and for all the question of slavery in the USA, The Revolutionary War also settled once and for all the question of the USAs position in the British Empire.
A Canada vs Quebec war would certainly settle the question of Quebec's position within Canada. If Quebec wins a war of independence as the Americans did, then they can leave and have their glorious French utopia.
If they lose the war, the question will also be settled and they will be a part of Canada, period end of story.
They want to have a country just by marking an "X" on a ballot? Way to easy, if they want out they'll have to fight their way out. When Quebec chose of it's own free will to join Canada in 1867 they gave up their right to be a separate country. Now if they want it back they'll have to fight for it.
Many will argue that Canada can do this break-up peacefully, and that's a pie in the sky option. We are assuming that just because we are Canadian we'll do it right, and only those third and second world countries have civil wars. This simply can not be guaranteed.
Quebec may very well end up with a terrorist group of English Canadians after a yes vote in a referendum. People opposed to an independent Quebec and loyal to Canada who will see the vote as a call to arms.
I have no problem supporting the rolling in of the tanks to Quebec, arrest the separatist leaders as traitors, put them on trial and then shoot them all. We did it to Louis Riel, we can do it again.
George.
"What else can we do, chain 'em to the stove? If they want to go they will go. It isn't worth shooting people over...it isn't like they can go far."
This is a typically Canadian point of view. I have long believed that after two referendums, and a third on the horizon, that it is now time for Canada to consider military options.
The Civil War settled once and for all the question of slavery in the USA, The Revolutionary War also settled once and for all the question of the USAs position in the British Empire.
A Canada vs Quebec war would certainly settle the question of Quebec's position within Canada. If Quebec wins a war of independence as the Americans did, then they can leave and have their glorious French utopia.
If they lose the war, the question will also be settled and they will be a part of Canada, period end of story.
They want to have a country just by marking an "X" on a ballot? Way to easy, if they want out they'll have to fight their way out. When Quebec chose of it's own free will to join Canada in 1867 they gave up their right to be a separate country. Now if they want it back they'll have to fight for it.
Many will argue that Canada can do this break-up peacefully, and that's a pie in the sky option. We are assuming that just because we are Canadian we'll do it right, and only those third and second world countries have civil wars. This simply can not be guaranteed.
Quebec may very well end up with a terrorist group of English Canadians after a yes vote in a referendum. People opposed to an independent Quebec and loyal to Canada who will see the vote as a call to arms.
I have no problem supporting the rolling in of the tanks to Quebec, arrest the separatist leaders as traitors, put them on trial and then shoot them all. We did it to Louis Riel, we can do it again.
George.
jimmoyer
Posts: 4,910 
Location: Winchester Virginia
Location: Winchester Virginia
June 26th, 2005, 04:46 PM
One thing that most American History scholars know is that if the South became independent during the civil war, most scholars think that America would have at least split into 4 or 5 countries instead of just two, and that some sort of alliance between some of the 4 countries would have occurred during WWI and WWII.
If the first province successfully splits, the precedent will seriously embolden the others to consider an option they thought was distant.
Whether this is good for Canada, I do not know.
One thing that most American History scholars know is that if the South became independent during the civil war, most scholars think that America would have at least split into 4 or 5 countries instead of just two, and that some sort of alliance between some of the 4 countries would have occurred during WWI and WWII.
If the first province successfully splits, the precedent will seriously embolden the others to consider an option they thought was distant.
Whether this is good for Canada, I do not know.
Newbie
Posts: 23
July 16th, 2005, 05:24 PM
I live in the Maritimes and I have never even considered the separation of Quebec as a viable happening. To my knowledge, Quebec wants to continue getting goodies from Canada whilst being separate from Canada. I can't see Canada allowing for that and I can't see Quebec being able to stand separate totally on her own with no help from Canada. Quebec is being a renegade and I hope no one puts up with it.
Perhaps I am way out in left field but I sure hope it is a temper tantrum that will grow up and go away.
I live in the Maritimes and I have never even considered the separation of Quebec as a viable happening. To my knowledge, Quebec wants to continue getting goodies from Canada whilst being separate from Canada. I can't see Canada allowing for that and I can't see Quebec being able to stand separate totally on her own with no help from Canada. Quebec is being a renegade and I hope no one puts up with it.
Perhaps I am way out in left field but I sure hope it is a temper tantrum that will grow up and go away.
Member
Posts: 246
July 16th, 2005, 05:44 PM
Quebec,at this point,gets back far more,in federal transfer dollars,than it contributes to Ottawa.
The same is true for the Maritime provinces.
So,financially,Quebec would be a poor country.
The United states helped to finance the St Lawrence Seaway,and depends on it for shipping...no way the U.S. would allow Quebec to "take" that part of the Seaway.
I think those wishing to separate just like to keep the pressure on the feds...they certainly get a lot of mileage and a lot of perks for their 'separatism" rhetoric.
Quebec,at this point,gets back far more,in federal transfer dollars,than it contributes to Ottawa.
The same is true for the Maritime provinces.
So,financially,Quebec would be a poor country.
The United states helped to finance the St Lawrence Seaway,and depends on it for shipping...no way the U.S. would allow Quebec to "take" that part of the Seaway.
I think those wishing to separate just like to keep the pressure on the feds...they certainly get a lot of mileage and a lot of perks for their 'separatism" rhetoric.
Bright Spark
Posts: 453
Location: Province perdue du Canada, Louisian
Location: Province perdue du Canada, Louisian
September 7th, 2005, 09:42 PM
Great idea, lets have blood in the street and see who wins! What happens when bush and the boyz get involved? Bad enough we got our Armed Forces tied up with Iraq, now you propose a little tit-a-tat in Montreal! I lives 70 Kms southwest of New Orleans and keep hearing the horror stories over the Scanner, commercial radio & TV (filtered) and the Ham Radio Set, now you want to rumble?
Let's keep quebec where it is, a part of Greater Canada and nobody will have to worry about warfare on NORTH AMERICAN SOIL bad enough having katrina visit!
Keep it managable, 2 countries North of the Rio Grand!
No civil wars here since 1865, lets keep up the record.
Quoting
Gee, George,
"What else can we do, chain 'em to the stove? If they want to go they will go. It isn't worth shooting people over...it isn't like they can go far."
This is a typically Canadian point of view. I have long believed that after two referendums, and a third on the horizon, that it is now time for Canada to consider military options.
The Civil War settled once and for all the question of slavery in the USA, The Revolutionary War also settled once and for all the question of the USAs position in the British Empire.
A Canada vs Quebec war would certainly settle the question of Quebec's position within Canada. If Quebec wins a war of independence as the Americans did, then they can leave and have their glorious French utopia.
If they lose the war, the question will also be settled and they will be a part of Canada, period end of story.
They want to have a country just by marking an "X" on a ballot? Way to easy, if they want out they'll have to fight their way out. When Quebec chose of it's own free will to join Canada in 1867 they gave up their right to be a separate country. Now if they want it back they'll have to fight for it.
Many will argue that Canada can do this break-up peacefully, and that's a pie in the sky option. We are assuming that just because we are Canadian we'll do it right, and only those third and second world countries have civil wars. This simply can not be guaranteed.
Quebec may very well end up with a terrorist group of English Canadians after a yes vote in a referendum. People opposed to an independent Quebec and loyal to Canada who will see the vote as a call to arms.
I have no problem supporting the rolling in of the tanks to Quebec, arrest the separatist leaders as traitors, put them on trial and then shoot them all. We did it to Louis Riel, we can do it again.
George.
This is a typically Canadian point of view. I have long believed that after two referendums, and a third on the horizon, that it is now time for Canada to consider military options.
The Civil War settled once and for all the question of slavery in the USA, The Revolutionary War also settled once and for all the question of the USAs position in the British Empire.
A Canada vs Quebec war would certainly settle the question of Quebec's position within Canada. If Quebec wins a war of independence as the Americans did, then they can leave and have their glorious French utopia.
If they lose the war, the question will also be settled and they will be a part of Canada, period end of story.
They want to have a country just by marking an "X" on a ballot? Way to easy, if they want out they'll have to fight their way out. When Quebec chose of it's own free will to join Canada in 1867 they gave up their right to be a separate country. Now if they want it back they'll have to fight for it.
Many will argue that Canada can do this break-up peacefully, and that's a pie in the sky option. We are assuming that just because we are Canadian we'll do it right, and only those third and second world countries have civil wars. This simply can not be guaranteed.
Quebec may very well end up with a terrorist group of English Canadians after a yes vote in a referendum. People opposed to an independent Quebec and loyal to Canada who will see the vote as a call to arms.
I have no problem supporting the rolling in of the tanks to Quebec, arrest the separatist leaders as traitors, put them on trial and then shoot them all. We did it to Louis Riel, we can do it again.
George.
Great idea, lets have blood in the street and see who wins! What happens when bush and the boyz get involved? Bad enough we got our Armed Forces tied up with Iraq, now you propose a little tit-a-tat in Montreal! I lives 70 Kms southwest of New Orleans and keep hearing the horror stories over the Scanner, commercial radio & TV (filtered) and the Ham Radio Set, now you want to rumble?
Let's keep quebec where it is, a part of Greater Canada and nobody will have to worry about warfare on NORTH AMERICAN SOIL bad enough having katrina visit!
Keep it managable, 2 countries North of the Rio Grand!
No civil wars here since 1865, lets keep up the record.
Bright Spark
Posts: 453
Location: Province perdue du Canada, Louisian
Location: Province perdue du Canada, Louisian
September 7th, 2005, 09:48 PM
To say there isn't nationalism in either country is wrong, here it is blind patriotism, in Canada, it is a sense of belonging.
Quoting
What I think the message he doesn't understand is that "Nationalism" in the USA is just the feeling of "Being an American" which means USA whereas Canada has more of National Sense of Purpose centered around "LAW, ORDER and PUBLIC GOOD"
'There's no nationalism in the USA"...I can't believe you said that.That's like saying you'll still respect me in the morning.
To say there isn't nationalism in either country is wrong, here it is blind patriotism, in Canada, it is a sense of belonging.
Bright Spark
Posts: 453
Location: Province perdue du Canada, Louisian
Location: Province perdue du Canada, Louisian
September 7th, 2005, 09:50 PM
Quoting
Gee, does 1755 ring a bell? Let's send'em to Louisiana to join their cousins.
Let em leave Canada, fine. Here's an idea...Let them actually leave Canada. 
No blood has to be shed, but Canada doesn't have to sign over their land. The choice would then be left to Quebec...
No blood has to be shed, but Canada doesn't have to sign over their land. The choice would then be left to Quebec...
Knows Too Much
Posts: 2,017
Location: swirling in the abyss of nowhere la
Location: swirling in the abyss of nowhere la
September 16th, 2005, 06:43 PM
P.E.I will NEVER become a part of the US...don't even kid about it
Quoting
Wow, rev., I always wanted to live in PEI but forgo leaving the US, you mean I might get to have my cake and eat it too?? 
P.E.I will NEVER become a part of the US...don't even kid about it
Member
Posts: 70
Location: st.john's
Location: st.john's
November 3rd, 2005, 08:15 AM
I don't think any of the atlantic proviences would chose to become a state in the US. I do think that it is possiple for them to separate as well and become a country together. loseing Quebec would mean Isolation from Ontario and the rest of Canada. that would be a mojor blow to the atlantic proviences but they could still probbably remain in Canada. My reasons are Britain was able tol maintian an empire over the world so why woouldn't Canada be able to keep control over the atlantic proviences
I don't think any of the atlantic proviences would chose to become a state in the US. I do think that it is possiple for them to separate as well and become a country together. loseing Quebec would mean Isolation from Ontario and the rest of Canada. that would be a mojor blow to the atlantic proviences but they could still probbably remain in Canada. My reasons are Britain was able tol maintian an empire over the world so why woouldn't Canada be able to keep control over the atlantic proviences
Member
Posts: 86
November 3rd, 2005, 05:48 PM
i belive that it is hard to tell what would happen. also what are the terms of the separation. what they did last quebec referendum was not that they would completly separeate they would think about there separation way in a confrence or something. but i do not think they actualy would have completly separated i think they would have done what canada did with britan slowly completly separate.
but anyway i have no idea how it would effect newofundland or the other atlandtic provinces. i do not know enough about there exporting and imports to know. also how exports and imports would be affected. i think that they are where our decesion would lie.
also i think we would not do it anyway.
i belive that it is hard to tell what would happen. also what are the terms of the separation. what they did last quebec referendum was not that they would completly separeate they would think about there separation way in a confrence or something. but i do not think they actualy would have completly separated i think they would have done what canada did with britan slowly completly separate.
but anyway i have no idea how it would effect newofundland or the other atlandtic provinces. i do not know enough about there exporting and imports to know. also how exports and imports would be affected. i think that they are where our decesion would lie.
also i think we would not do it anyway.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 4,291
Location: Saint John N.B.
Location: Saint John N.B.
November 3rd, 2005, 06:34 PM
Watching a bit of the show on CBC last night on the last Quebec referendum and the actions of the native groups were mentioned as a major problem for Quebec if they did separate. The Mohawks wouldn't stand for much from Quebec.
Watching a bit of the show on CBC last night on the last Quebec referendum and the actions of the native groups were mentioned as a major problem for Quebec if they did separate. The Mohawks wouldn't stand for much from Quebec.
Member
Posts: 149
Location: Toronto
Location: Toronto
November 3rd, 2005, 06:36 PM
Take any country- territorial continuity is essential. You can't have a country where citizens cannot move from one section to the next without going through another nation. That's the crux of the issue with Israel & Palestine, and was a contributing factor to the end of East & West Pakistan. There's a word for a nation separated by nations in the middle of it- bantustan.
Quoting
The tone of your statement, "Is Canada will abandon them?", is quite rich. It implies that we're leaving them behind in a selfish manner. Aren't you abandoning them and the rest of Canada? in which case where do you get off with a holier than thou attitude?
Why can't they remain in Canada? Is Canada will abandon them? Why doesn't unity have to depend on geographical position?
Yes there is a lot of French there, and I know some. Those that I know envy our independance project and would be willing to join us! But my guess is that it's not the majority.
Yes there is a lot to do after a separation. But what an exciting adventure!
Yes there is a lot of French there, and I know some. Those that I know envy our independance project and would be willing to join us! But my guess is that it's not the majority.
Yes there is a lot to do after a separation. But what an exciting adventure!
Take any country- territorial continuity is essential. You can't have a country where citizens cannot move from one section to the next without going through another nation. That's the crux of the issue with Israel & Palestine, and was a contributing factor to the end of East & West Pakistan. There's a word for a nation separated by nations in the middle of it- bantustan.
Member
Posts: 149
Location: Toronto
Location: Toronto
November 3rd, 2005, 06:43 PM
As a person with Newfie relatives, I'm aware of the fact that Newfoundland already had a vote on whether or not to enter economic union with the United States and they shot it down.
In the referendum leading up to union with Canada in 1949, Newfoundlanders were given the option of economic union with the U.S. or union with Canada. They chose Canada (it would be interesting to see by what margin- I have no idea what the stats are). I believe the U.S. would be just as unpopular a choice now as before, though if they had to leave Canada they might opt for an option like that Puerto Rico has, if offered.
As a person with Newfie relatives, I'm aware of the fact that Newfoundland already had a vote on whether or not to enter economic union with the United States and they shot it down.
In the referendum leading up to union with Canada in 1949, Newfoundlanders were given the option of economic union with the U.S. or union with Canada. They chose Canada (it would be interesting to see by what margin- I have no idea what the stats are). I believe the U.S. would be just as unpopular a choice now as before, though if they had to leave Canada they might opt for an option like that Puerto Rico has, if offered.
