Marois says independent Quebec would use dollar, request Bank of Canada seat


Machjo
#1
Yahoo News Canada - Latest News & Headlines

I'd place at least the following conditions on this:

1. The governments of Canada and Quebec must eliminate their respective debts before Quebec can separate while sharing a common currency,
2. The Bank of... er... the Canadas?... would adopt a strict policy of currency stability, promoting neither inflation nor deflation, and would be politically independent, with its determination of inflation being based on the overall rate of inflation of both Canadas combined since that would be the Bank's jurisdiction, and
3. Neither government would be allowed to borrow without the consent of the other as long as they share a common currency.

Anything less, and I'D be wary of two nations sharing a common currency. Yes, sharing a common currency has its advantages in principle in that it eliminates the overhead cost of the money-trading middle-man, but we also don't want to trade that advantage in for some disadvantage. Some other agreement might be reasonable too, but where would you stand on this?
 
El Barto
#2
marois is saying anything right now without any facts ....like going through tons and tons of negotiations not knowing if the rest of Canada would agree to such a deal...... hell the separatist were harping in the past that Quebec never got back all the money they gave Ottawa.... seems they are not pounding on that nail anymore.


Her and her husbands name has came up in the Charbonneau commission to which they will have to answer to some dubious dealings with the FTQ union.
 
DaSleeper
#3
So the FTQ got the upper hand?
When I worked in Quebec in '75, the FTQ were in a tussle with two other organizations, and we had to vote which organization was preferred, and the operating engineers' union was strongly recommending an FTQ vote.....
 
captain morgan
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

1. The governments of Canada and Quebec must eliminate their respective debts before Quebec can separate while sharing a common currency,

The potential poor financial practices of Quebec is NOT my problem.. Hell, it is ultimately an excellent opportunity for myself or others to buy-up assets in that nation at a steep discount.

Fact is, Que has a struggling economy at present and a secession from Canada would effectively transform them into a 3rd world entity... Canada is oresently having to formulate very long term plans to pay down the debt, but is at least able to draw off of a GDP that is in the trillions. Que doesn't have that opportunity

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

2. The Bank of... er... the Canadas?... would adopt a strict policy of currency stability, promoting neither inflation nor deflation, and would be politically independent, with its determination of inflation being based on the overall rate of inflation of both Canadas combined since that would be the Bank's jurisdiction, and

Non-starter.

Que either wants to be a sovereign nation or just wants to move-in with their girlfriend and play house... Have at 'er as far as I'm concerned but not on my dime.

Time to start wearing your big-boy pants. Get your own currency, passports, military, etc.

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

3. Neither government would be allowed to borrow without the consent of the other as long as they share a common currency.

Who in their right mind would agree to that?
 
BornRuff
+1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

1. The governments of Canada and Quebec must eliminate their respective debts before Quebec can separate while sharing a common currency,
2. The Bank of... er... the Canadas?... would adopt a strict policy of currency stability, promoting neither inflation nor deflation, and would be politically independent, with its determination of inflation being based on the overall rate of inflation of both Canadas combined since that would be the Bank's jurisdiction, and
3. Neither government would be allowed to borrow without the consent of the other as long as they share a common currency.

None of these are remotely plausible.

Canada is never going to eliminate it's debt. It has no interest in doing so.

We also have no interest in abandoning our 1-3% yearly inflation target.

And we sure as hell are not going to let Quebec decide if we can borrow money or not.

"Marois's remarks reiterated the PQ's long-held position that Quebec would continue to use the Canadian currency if it secedes. She pointed out that European countries share the euro even though they are independent."

Has she followed the Euro Zone at all over the last few years? This is not a strong argument.
 
Machjo
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

None of these are remotely plausible.

Canada is never going to eliminate it's debt. It has no interest in doing so.

We also have no interest in abandoning our 1-3% yearly inflation target.

And we sure as hell are not going to let Quebec decide if we can borrow money or not.

"Marois's remarks reiterated the PQ's long-held position that Quebec would continue to use the Canadian currency if it secedes. She pointed out that European countries share the euro even though they are independent."

Has she followed the Euro Zone at all over the last few years? This is not a strong argument.

The euro was not the problem; it's management was.
 
BornRuff
+1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

The euro was not the problem; it's management was.

Well, that is the problem. It is near impossible to properly manage a single currency in the best interests of economies as different as Germany and Greece at the same time.
 
Locutus
+1 / -1
#8


quebec
 
Machjo
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

Well, that is the problem. It is near impossible to properly manage a single currency in the best interests of economies as different as Germany and Greece at the same time.

Not a problem at all. How do we manage the Canadian dollar from coast to coast to coast? Simple, by maintaining the stability of the currency. It doesn't matter where in the world it is, the main concern is to maintain the overall stability of the currency. Sure there could be inflation in one area and deflation in another, as long as the currency is stable overall.
 
BornRuff
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

Not a problem at all. How do we manage the Canadian dollar from coast to coast to coast? Simple, by maintaining the stability of the currency. It doesn't matter where in the world it is, the main concern is to maintain the overall stability of the currency. Sure there could be inflation in one area and deflation in another, as long as the currency is stable overall.

In Canada we have distinct regions, but they are all under the same fiscal policy. The central bank has one government to deal with. When you have multiple autonomous governments with sometimes very different fiscal policies, the central bankers have a much tougher job.

The Euro Zone works great until someone has a problem, like in Greece. With separate currencies, the problem would largely be contained to the country where it happened. They would devalue their currency to pay back debts, there would be some pain, but they would get through it.

With the Euro zone, they can't do that because their currency is also the currency of everyone else and they have no interest in devaluing their currency. But they also don't want a member to completely default on their loans. It forces very drastic and far reaching choices.
 
Machjo
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by BornRuffView Post

In Canada we have distinct regions, but they are all under the same fiscal policy. The central bank has one government to deal with. When you have multiple autonomous governments with sometimes very different fiscal policies, the central bankers have a much tougher job.

The Euro Zone works great until someone has a problem, like in Greece. With separate currencies, the problem would largely be contained to the country where it happened. They would devalue their currency to pay back debts, there would be some pain, but they would get through it.

With the Euro zone, they can't do that because their currency is also the currency of everyone else and they have no interest in devaluing their currency. But they also don't want a member to completely default on their loans. It forces very drastic and far reaching choices.

That's why I'd proposed that they'd have to agree that the central bank's job would be to maintain the stability of the currency arms lengh from any government and neither government would be allowed to take on debt. Are those the fiscal and monetary policies you're talking about?

If two quasi-sovereign entities can agree to a common fiscal policy and and a common monetary policy, then where's the issue?
 
captain morgan
#12
The EU agreed to just that... No one followed the policy.

Now, everyone's screwed
 
El Barto
+2
#13  Top Rated Post
global news interview focus montreal robert leckey on separation


I am trying to do a research on my minimal connection. Robert Leckey did an interview on what would actually be on the table for negotiation if Quebec separates. Many issues were quickly brought up. Hearing them I thought the Separatist are very clueless of what they would get into.


Reminds me a line I heard of a line the Joker said .... I am like a dog chasing a car , I wouldn't know what to do with it if I caught one.
 
captain morgan
#14
The underlying consideration in a group's decision to gain independence should be based on the ability to move forward in an independent manner. In the simplest of terms, that will be founded on the capacity to operate an economy that will support the populace and community.

As far as I can tell, Que is not in that position
 
Machjo
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

The underlying consideration in a group's decision to gain independence should be based on the ability to move forward in an independent manner. In the simplest of terms, that will be founded on the capacity to operate an economy that will support the populace and community.

As far as I can tell, Que is not in that position

They could be if they were willing to strip their resources bare I suppose, but I don't think they're willing to do that. I do agree with that position in principle, but then they also have to live within their means. If you want to live on the hog, then you have to be prepared to do what Alberta does, strip your resources bare.
 
captain morgan
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

They could be if they were willing to strip their resources bare I suppose, but I don't think they're willing to do that.

Then it's clear that they can't go it alone..... So what's the point in trying?

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

I do agree with that position in principle, but then they also have to live within their means.

That's the easy part, assuming they (or anyone) has the discipline

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

If you want to live on the hog, then you have to be prepared to do what Alberta does, strip your resources bare.

What are you saving it for?

That logic is no different than letting your mortgage go into default and lose the house because you don't want to spend any money earned.
 
SLM
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by El BartoView Post

global news interview focus montreal robert leckey on separation


I am trying to do a research on my minimal connection. Robert Leckey did an interview on what would actually be on the table for negotiation if Quebec separates. Many issues were quickly brought up. Hearing them I thought the Separatist are very clueless of what they would get into.


Reminds me a line I heard of a line the Joker said .... I am like a dog chasing a car , I wouldn't know what to do with it if I caught one.

You're not wrong. The sole focus of the separatists is to divide, that's how they gain traction and control. But that is the antithesis of what is needed in order to really separate, they need the ability to unify. I think they may think they are doing that, but they are far from it. While they may succeed in separating, they will ultimately fail at it.

At least given the power plays that I've witnessed coming from the separatist camp. There doesn't seem to be any balance there.
 
El Barto
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

You're not wrong. The sole focus of the separatists is to divide, that's how they gain traction and control. But that is the antithesis of what is needed in order to really separate, they need the ability to unify. I think they may think they are doing that, but they are far from it. While they may succeed in separating, they will ultimately fail at it.

At least given the power plays that I've witnessed coming from the separatist camp. There doesn't seem to be any balance there.

Exact , the PQ have a tendency to spit out their leaders when they fail.
 
Machjo
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by El BartoView Post

Exact , the PQ have a tendency to spit out their leaders when they fail.

Like when there's a slip of the tongue and they start talking about the 'vote ethnique'? Apparently a few PQ candidates have failed to sensor their anti-Muslim rhetoric recently too.
 
SLM
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by El BartoView Post

Exact , the PQ have a tendency to spit out their leaders when they fail.

In their zeal for their cause they've lost sight of the need to be unified in their cause.
 
Machjo
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

In their zeal for their cause they've lost sight of the need to be unified in their cause.

You bring up a good point here. I'm sure even some sovereignists-in-principle are probably saying their vision of a sovereign Quebec is very different from Marois'.
 
El Barto
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

In their zeal for their cause they've lost sight of the need to be unified in their cause.

The PQ have elements of the right and of the left and as you have seen the debate we have on this site between the two it is never agreeable

Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

You bring up a good point here. I'm sure even some sovereignists-in-principle are probably saying their vision of a sovereign Quebec is very different from Marois'.

Marios doesn't have a vision, nor do I think any separatist. There is to my knowledge no clear plan , non publically shown. Marois was selling her idea of a white book on the subject ... much easier to sell if you don't know the real content of it. Peladeau was the one being upfront about it.


I have a feeling that those who are truly behind the push for separation are actually doing so because it is a money scheme.
 
Machjo
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by El BartoView Post

The PQ have elements of the right and of the left and as you have seen the debate we have on this site between the two it is never agreeable

But in this case it's not just a left-right divide, which is one some sovereignists have been able to put aside for 'a greater cause', but the issue of identity politics. For instance, some sovereignists, regardless of their left-right position, categorically reject the 'Values Charter', which is neither left nor right but more a vision of an open vs closed society.
 
SLM
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by El BartoView Post



I have a feeling that those who are truly behind the push for separation are actually doing so because it is a money scheme.

I think it's more of a power scheme, which equates to money really. It's politics, divide and conquer. But they seem to be dividing themselves as much as Quebec from the rest of the nation.

I don't know, I don't spend an awful lot of time on any level of politics, because it's all game playing really, there is often too little substance. But that continues to be the impression that I get.
 
Machjo
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by El BartoView Post

Marios doesn't have a vision, nor do I think any separatist. There is to my knowledge no clear plan , non publically shown. Marois was selling her idea of a white book on the subject ... much easier to sell if you don't know the real content of it. Peladeau was the one being upfront about it.


I have a feeling that those who are truly behind the push for separation are actually doing so because it is a money scheme.

She has a vision, but it's just a very ugly one behind the 'Values Charter'. Other sovereignists have a different one. I doubt very much money is involved seeing that there would be no financial benefit overall, more a matter of ethnic identity, which has its own problems.
 
SLM
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

But in this case it's not just a left-right divide, which is one some sovereignists have been able to put aside for 'a greater cause', but the issue of identity politics. For instance, some sovereignists, regardless of their left-right position, categorically reject the 'Values Charter', which is neither left nor right but more a vision of an open vs closed society.

See with the Values Charter, I'd pay good money that the play is going to be what it always seems to be for the PQ. They will play the anti-Federalist card (because this will go to the SCC and that's where I bet the PQ will make their stand) and will completely miss the boat in the terms of the divide it creates within the people they claim to represent. It's like they're sacrificing the cause for the goal.
 
El Barto
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

But in this case it's not just a left-right divide, which is one some sovereignists have been able to put aside for 'a greater cause', but the issue of identity politics. For instance, some sovereignists, regardless of their left-right position, categorically reject the 'Values Charter', which is neither left nor right but more a vision of an open vs closed society.

Yes I agree... the Values Charter was the only thing I was for , mind you not as radical as they proposed.


IMO the underlining issue that is not mentioned here is that Religion is too strong. You are paid to be a government worker you leave your religion behind.... do it on your own time.
 
Machjo
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by El BartoView Post

Yes I agree... the Values Charter was the only thing I was for , mind you not as radical as they proposed.


IMO the underlining issue that is not mentioned here is that Religion is too strong. You are paid to be a government worker you leave your religion behind.... do it on your own time.

But then the problem I have is with the hypocricy behind it all: how can the government defend a crucifix in the National Assembly, a cross on the flag, and public schools following a Christian holiday calendar, all of which represent the religion of the state itself, while then telling a public servant to take off a personal?

Should the government lead by example or adopt a 'do as I say not as I do' policy?

And even if the government removed all its religious symbols, I'd still oppose it, but the hypocricy just makes it worse.
 
El Barto
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by MachjoView Post

But then the problem I have is with the hypocricy behind it all: how can the government defend a crucifix in the National Assembly, a cross on the flag, and public schools following a Christian holiday calendar, all of which represent the religion of the state itself, while then telling a public servant to take off a personal?

Should the government lead by example or adopt a 'do as I say not as I do' policy?

And even if the government removed all its religious symbols, I'd still oppose it, but the hypocricy just makes it worse.

It is definitely a double standard , that cross should come down... Try taking away those holidays, even if you are not religious you would be upset if they were no more.
 
Machjo
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by El BartoView Post

It is definitely a double standard , that cross should come down...

But should the cross come down off the NA wall and the flag before or after we take hijabs off of public servants' heads?

Also, is it the place of a secular state to decide if the hijab is Muslim or not (there is an irony in that)? What if a non-Muslim chooses to wear hijab owing to partial baldness, a scar, etc. and doesn't like whigs?


Quote:

Try taking away those holidays, even if you are not religious you would be upset if they were no more.

Actually, not necessarily. When you consider how many people work weekends and holidays, you could immagine some parents preferring to send their children to a school that follows a different holiday calendar from the Christian one. You're looking at it from a exclusively Christian perspective.
 
no new posts