Of course Quebec can separate... (Quebec Separate)


CDNBear
+1
#1
I'm all for supporting Quebec's bid to go it alone.

Just a few minor details to hammer out first.

1, Get own currency.
2, Pay off their share of the debt, within 10 years.
3, Make no claim to the territory, 100kms north of the St. Lawrance, from Sainte Regis to, Brador.
4, Make no claim to the entirety of Ruperts Land.
5, Concede that all Crown Reservations remain Canadian territory, left unmolested, and given rights of free passage.
6, They must make Celine Dion return to Quebec, and keep her their, in silence.

Have I missed any?
 
gerryh
#2
agree with everything except Celine, she should automatically retain her Canadian citizenship.
 
CDNBear
+1
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

agree with everything except Celine, she should automatically retain her Canadian citizenship.

There is absolutely no way you can convince me, using sound logic and reason, that that would be a good idea.
 
no color
#4
There is the issue of partitioning Quebec which will surely come up in the event the separatists win. The logic here is if Quebec can vote to separate from Canada, then cities like Montreal can vote to separate from Quebec. A Montrealwide referendum to remain in Canada will most certainly result in Montreal being partitioned from Quebec. Since the vast majority of the 800,000 or so English speaking Quebeckers reside in Montreal, any separatist government would need to respect the results of a Montrealwide referendum to seperate from Quebec. Otherwise we'd be looking at Civil unrest on the streets of Montreal. It'd be very similar to what occured in Belfast.
 
CDNBear
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by no color View Post

There is the issue of partitioning Quebec which will surely come up in the event the separatists win. The logic here is if Quebec can vote to separate from Canada, then cities like Montreal can vote to separate from Quebec. A Montrealwide referendum to remain in Canada will most certainly result in Montreal being partitioned from Quebec. Since the vast majority of the 800,000 or so English speaking Quebeckers reside in Montreal, any separatist government would need to respect the results of a Montrealwide referendum to seperate from Quebec. Otherwise we'd be looking at Civil unrest on the streets of Montreal. It'd be very similar to what occured in Belfast.

Montreal would be found in that territory 100kms north of the St. Lawrence, from Sainte Regis to Brador.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#6
There is a troubling thought here though that throws a monkey wrench into the whole thing.
Its one of those Canadian things you know, something we agreed to nearly a century ago
and the issue would still be valid today.
In and around 1912 when Canada and the others expanded the territory of Quebec to now
include much of the Area around the Hudson Bay region, we signed onto a document with
the Denni People, that we would protect their right to be Canadian and their lands in the
event something like this were to happen. I maintain it would then be incumbent upon us
to go in and protect the rights of Canadians that we signed an agreement with all those years
ago. After all we are paying for the Native Claims that go back further than that. If we were
to go in and protect their rights, or we were to maintain the land of the Natives wishing to be
Canadian remained Canadian we may light the match of a civil war. Why is it, it is never that
easy in Canada.
I can't remember the document, but I do remember it being an issue during the debate on the
failed Meech Lake Accord.
 
CDNBear
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

There is a troubling thought here though that throws a monkey wrench into the whole thing.
Its one of those Canadian things you know, something we agreed to nearly a century ago
and the issue would still be valid today.
In and around 1912 when Canada and the others expanded the territory of Quebec to now
include much of the Area around the Hudson Bay region, we signed onto a document with
the Denni People, that we would protect their right to be Canadian and their lands in the
event something like this were to happen. I maintain it would then be incumbent upon us
to go in and protect the rights of Canadians that we signed an agreement with all those years
ago. After all we are paying for the Native Claims that go back further than that. If we were
to go in and protect their rights, or we were to maintain the land of the Natives wishing to be
Canadian remained Canadian we may light the match of a civil war. Why is it, it is never that
easy in Canada.
I can't remember the document, but I do remember it being an issue during the debate on the
failed Meech Lake Accord.

That would be covered by, Ruperts Land and all Crown Reservations, remaining Canadian territory.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#8
I believe anybody can leave Canada as long as the rules are in place before that happens. That way we don't have politicians running around calling groups nations when they aren't. As for the conditions in the OP, Kweebeck could use whatever currency they want, they can pay off their share of the debt whenever and however they want and they can make all the territorial claims they want. That doesn't mean we have to listen to them.

I don't care what Celine does.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#9
Thank you I knew the details about territorial regions were covered by some document
I just couldn't remember which one.
 
CDNBear
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

I believe anybody can leave Canada as long as the rules are in place before that happens. That way we don't have politicians running around calling groups nations when they aren't.

I understand you have an extremely poor grasp of Canadian history, but it was already explained to you, and you stated that you were aware of the fact, that the SCC has already made a ruling on that.

So the rules are already there. Whether your bigotry will let you like them or not...
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#11
There is in fact a process for separation it is whether or not the participants and advocate
for separation can meet the measure of the bar, to have the numbers to qualify them to do
so. So far no one has met the measure of acceptance.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

I understand you have an extremely poor grasp of Canadian history, but it was already explained to you, and you stated that you were aware of the fact, that the SCC has already made a ruling on that.

So the rules are already there. Whether your bigotry will let you like them or not...

I've already stated that I don't care what the SCC says. We should not allow lawyers to decide the fate of the country. I've said this numerous times. I can't understand why you are having such a difficult time grasping it.
 
gerryh
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by cannuck View Post

i've already stated that i don't care what the scc says. We should not allow lawyers to decide the fate of the country. I've said this numerous times. I can't understand why you are having such a difficult time grasping it.


roflmfao
 
CDNBear
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

I've already stated that I don't care what the SCC says.

I know that. But you keep saying the same silly thing, that there is no set standard, and that a lie and you know it. I can't understand why you are having such a difficult time understanding that.

That's not true, I understand bigots all to well.

Anyways, that topic is Quebec separation, not what your bigoted imagination thinks is or isn't a Nation.

You already ran away from the thread dedicated to what a Nation is or isn't. Having failed to provide any evidence to the contrary, let alone something substantial or compelling.
Last edited by CDNBear; Apr 15th, 2011 at 04:59 PM..
 
CDNBear
#15
Lol.....
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

I know that. But you keep saying the same silly thing, that there is no set standard

That's not what I've said. I've said that I don't accept your standards. That's not the same as saying they don't exist.
 
CDNBear
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

That's not what I've said.

Yes it is...

Quote:

I've said that I don't accept your standards.

No, you said you didn't accept the SCC's standards, which is my standard.

Quote:

That's not the same as saying they don't exist.

But this is...
Quote:

That way we don't have politicians running around calling groups nations when they aren't.

I'm not a politician. But I bet they're using the SCC's ruling...

Anyways, go post your drivel in the thread on what a Nation is. Or are you now condoning hijacking threads, after chastising me for it?

Would you like to see your own words on that?
 
weaselwords
No Party Affiliation
+1
#18
Not sure about keeping Ruperts Land much of the territory was signed over during the LeGrande (James Bay) project with documented treaties between PQ the Cree & the Innu. The New Quebec Act of 1911 also gives little or no leeway to the Feds considering it transferred responsibility for Ungava to PQ.
 
Durry
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

I believe anybody can leave Canada as long as the rules are in place before that happens. That way we don't have politicians running around calling groups nations when they aren't. As for the conditions in the OP, Kweebeck could use whatever currency they want, they can pay off their share of the debt whenever and however they want and they can make all the territorial claims they want. That doesn't mean we have to listen to them.
oes.

The easiest province to separate is Alberta. They would have absolutely nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Last year I think they paid out about $12 billion in transfer payments only to have Quebec lower it's taxes.

AB, has never been the receiver of transfer payments.
I think in the last 10 yrs it has paid out over $50 billion in trans payments.

There is absolutely no reason for AB to stay in the federation ..
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Anyways, go post your drivel in the thread on what a Nation is. Or are you now condoning hijacking threads, after chastising me for it?

I'm not hijacking the thread. I posted a response to the OP. If that bothers you, go find a tissue.
 
CDNBear
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

I'm not hijacking the thread. I posted a response to the OP. If that bothers you, go find a tissue.

I see you ignored the bulk of that post, as you usually do when you get caught shooting your mouth off, and shown to be wrong.

 
Machjo
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

I'm all for supporting Quebec's bid to go it alone.

I could be for giving Quebec partial sovereignty, but total sovereignty would harmful to both sides.


Quote:

Just a few minor details to hammer out first.

1, Get own currency.

Sharing a common currency would benefit both sides. Why would you want to hurt us just to hurt them. Seems pretty darn spiteful to me. Irrational.

Quote:

2, Pay off their share of the debt, within 10 years.

Simpler solution: Divide the debt and transfer their share to the Quebec National Assembly. that way Canada need no longer worry about their part of the debt anymore.

Quote:

3, Make no claim to the territory, 100kms north of the St. Lawrance, from Sainte Regis to, Brador.

They could make a claim if they wish, but I'd say if Quebec can separate from Canada, so can those regions from Quebec. In the end, the locals should have their say.

Quote:

4, Make no claim to the entirety of Ruperts Land.

Refer to the above.

Quote:

5, Concede that all Crown Reservations remain Canadian territory, left unmolested, and given rights of free passage.

Why not let the local First Nations decide?

Quote:

6, They must make Celine Dion return to Quebec, and keep her their, in silence.

I just switch channels. If you're TV's broken, a simple solution is to unplug it.

Quote:

Have I missed any?

Not that I can think of. Have I missed any?

Oh yes, and seeing how many cross-border families there are already, maintaining a common citizenship and passport might be a good idea too.
 
CDNBear
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

I could be for giving Quebec partial sovereignty, but total sovereignty would harmful to both sides.

How so?

Quote:

Sharing a common currency would benefit both sides. Why would you want to hurt us just to hurt them. Seems pretty darn spiteful to me. Irrational.

How so?

Quote:

Simpler solution: Divide the debt and transfer their share to the Quebec National Assembly. that way Canada need no longer worry about their part of the debt anymore.

Whatever gets them to pay it back.
Quote:

They could make a claim if they wish, but I'd say if Quebec can separate from Canada, so can those regions from Quebec.

The point is, in a negotiation, if they want out, this is one of the things they'll have to concede to.

Quote:

In the end, the locals should have their say.

I think the bulk of southern Quebec made their choice perfectly clear.

Quote:

Why not let the local First Nations decide?

Done, it was almost a unanimous Non!

Quote:

Oh yes, and seeing how many cross-border families there are already, maintaining a common citizenship and passport might be a good idea too.

Nope, they want their own country, they can have it.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

I see you ignored the bulk of that post

I responded to each of your points. I'm not sure what "bulk" you are referring to.
 
CDNBear
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

I responded to each of your points.



With your usual lies and BS. Which of course I showed to be just that. As is my usual MO, when dealing with a predictable troll.

Quote:

'm not sure what "bulk" you are referring to.

All the stuff you can't refute. As is your usual MO.

Dance little boi dance...
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

I see you ignored the bulk of that post....

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear;1410265[U

][/U]....With your usual lies and BS.

First you say I didn't respond then you say I did with lies and BS....maybe you should make up your mind about what you want to say before you start spouting and end up contradicting yourself which inevitably leads to your need to try and insult people with name calling a la "little boi". Fortunately for me, I realize that name calling is generally the last resort when an argument goes south....kinda like calling Harper "Hitler"
 
CDNBear
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

First you say I didn't respond then you say I did with lies and BS....



Quote:

Fortunately for me, I realize that name calling is generally the last resort when an argument goes south....

Yes, a favoured tactic of yours. Funny how you cry about it, when you're on the receiving end though. Keep dancing little boi, dance.

You're more entertaining than Joey.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Funny how you cry about it, when you're on the receiving end though.

I don't cry about it. Why would I? As I've said numerous times, your motive for doing so is quite clear....and I wasn't the one that started a thread criticizing people for name calling. Do you know who did that? I do. Why do you think that person cried about name calling when he obviously resorts to the same tactics?
 
CDNBear
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

I don't cry about it.

Your tearful false accusations, would indicate the opposite. Need a tissue lil boi?

Quote:

Why do you think that person cried about name calling when he obviously resorts to the same tactics?

OK, I'll bite, why do you resort to name calling?
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Your tearful false accusations, would indicate the opposite. Need a tissue lil boi ?

Too funny!!
 

Similar Threads

398
Quebec shouldn't separate from Canada
by data-unlimited | Jan 20th, 2010
315
Should Quebec separate from Canada?
by sine000 | Jan 16th, 2010
32
Images separate people
by china | May 11th, 2009
5
50
The Quebec "nation" should separate...
by masalla | Nov 26th, 2004