Independence for Quebec

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Captain Moran,

I'd actually met some Quebecers who are aware that Quebec could potentially suffer economically in the event of separation yet still support it. The idea on their part was that sacrificing a little wealth in exchange for sovereignty was a small price to pay. I'm not saying I agree with their positin, but can understand it.

make no mistake Machjo, I am not suggesting that Quebec separate or not, that is their own decision. However, the probability (at this point) is that separation would result in significant hardships and the need for a wholesale changes in the fundamental structure(s) in Quebec. My opinion is that those pressures would be too overwhelming and teh experiment would end in failure.

At present, Quebec cannot 'afford' their lifestyle (as evidenced by billions in annual transfer payments) and lacks to GDP to be capable of developing a stand-alone economy on a timely basis. Add in the liklihood that many businesses/individuals would flee the jurisdiction along with the First Nations issues and you have a recipe for problems.

For Quebec to travel that path right now would probably result in that community taking 10 steps backwards before they could expect to move forward.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
72
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
I dissagree . it does matter.
How?

make no mistake Machjo, I am not suggesting that Quebec separate or not, that is their own decision. However, the probability (at this point) is that separation would result in significant hardships and the need for a wholesale changes in the fundamental structure(s) in Quebec. My opinion is that those pressures would be too overwhelming and teh experiment would end in failure.

At present, Quebec cannot 'afford' their lifestyle (as evidenced by billions in annual transfer payments) and lacks to GDP to be capable of developing a stand-alone economy on a timely basis. Add in the liklihood that many businesses/individuals would flee the jurisdiction along with the First Nations issues and you have a recipe for problems.

For Quebec to travel that path right now would probably result in that community taking 10 steps backwards before they could expect to move forward.
Almost certainly.
 

L Gilbert

Winterized
Nov 30, 2006
23,738
107
63
72
50 acres in Kootenays BC
the-brights.net
Countries the were swallowed up by the soviet union would gladly leave giving the chance and they did.
And they are better off for it. Which is what Bar Sinister asked for. He asked for an example of a country that split up and is better for it. I said the USSR splitting up is better.
Quebec on the other hand was part of the creation of canada .
It's simply a region of Canada that contains mostly Canadians and a small fraction of people that don't want to be Canadians. The small fraction is SOL.
 

El Barto

les fesses a l'aire
Feb 11, 2007
5,959
66
48
Quebec
and they are better off for it. Which is what bar sinister asked for. He asked for an example of a country that split up and is better for it. I said the ussr splitting up is better.
It's simply a region of canada that contains mostly canadians and a small fraction of people that don't want to be canadians. The small fraction is sol.
sol?
 

Aliksander

New Member
May 19, 2010
23
0
1
Countries the were swallowed up by the soviet union would gladly leave giving the chance and they did.
Quebec on the other hand was part of the creation of canada .

That's a very good point, but keep in mind that most any present-day nation is the product of some form of governmental change at some point. Any given square inch of land has been controlled by vast numbers of individuals and factions over time, so to speak of the creation of Canada as if Canada has existed forever is logically flawed.
 

El Barto

les fesses a l'aire
Feb 11, 2007
5,959
66
48
Quebec
That's a very good point, but keep in mind that most any present-day nation is the product of some form of governmental change at some point. Any given square inch of land has been controlled by vast numbers of individuals and factions over time, so to speak of the creation of Canada as if Canada has existed forever is logically flawed.
who said canada existed forever?
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Oh, I agree that in some circumstances having instructions in multiple languages is fine. But as Anna said, the demographics in BC is that 1.5% of the population of BC speaks French, 5% speak indigenous languages, and the majority speaks English. Having English + French is illogical. The situation in Ontario or Quebec is different than here.

I'd suggest that quite a few countries benefited from the break up of the USSR. But that's just my opinion.

Actually I was not advocating compulsory bilingualism. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. However, I see nothing wrong with language programs in schools if people want to take them.

And from the USSR's point of view the breakup was a disaster. However, since no one noticed it I will point out one example - apparently the Czech Republic is better off without Slovakia.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Actually I was not advocating compulsory bilingualism. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. However, I see nothing wrong with language programs in schools if people want to take them.

And from the USSR's point of view the breakup was a disaster.
Ya think? It dissolved. That would not be good for a country. But in dissolving it made Russia and 15 other countries, most of which kind of benefited from the dissolution of the USSR.
However, since no one noticed it I will point out one example - apparently the Czech Republic is better off without Slovakia.
Apparently Slovakia is happy, too. So how does this example provide disproving evidence of "a nation that became stronger or wealthier when a portion of it seceded."
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Ya think? It dissolved. That would not be good for a country. But in dissolving it made Russia and 15 other countries, most of which kind of benefited from the dissolution of the USSR. Apparently Slovakia is happy, too. So how does this example provide disproving evidence of "a nation that became stronger or wealthier when a portion of it seceded."


Anna, why is it that you make a hobby out of deliberately misleading my posts? I cannot believe that you simply miss the point when it happens so often. First of all my comment on the USSR was meant to show that it did not help the country that was broken up. It is irrelevant whether or not the countries that seceded benefited, as that was not the point of the original post.

Second my comment on the Czech republic was not intended to prove anything. It was merely agreeing with your original statement by pointing out that I realize there are exceptions to the rule. Try to read my posts more carefully before your fingers start hitting the keyboard.

BTW other than Czechoslovakia I cannot think of any other examples of a nation that breaks up, but I have no problem thinking of dozens of negative examples.
 

The Old Medic

Council Member
May 16, 2010
1,330
2
38
The World
Sadly, a tiny minority of the people of Quebec just can't get over the fact that France lost the wars on the North American Continent. They want to go back to the womb, the mother tongue, and the mother culture. What they do not realize is that Quebec has not had a French culture for well over 100 years. it has an Anglo-French culture, one that is very, very different from the culture in France.

Quebec has had a strong English speaking population for well over 200 years now. The Francophones do their best to beat down the English language, and to attempt to erase any aspect of English cultural influence, but it is a losing battle.

The French speaking people of Quebec are simply not replacing themselves. Their birthrate is so low, that in another 100 years, they will be a tiny minority in their own province. By then, the language will have been changed to English, and those that speak French will be considered somewhat backward and quaint.

There is not support even among the French speaking population of today to make Quebec an independent country. As time goes by, that support will be less and less and less. It is a self-solving problem, nothing that anyone actually needs to worry about.
 

s_lone

Council Member
Feb 16, 2005
2,233
30
48
44
Montreal
Sadly, a tiny minority of the people of Quebec just can't get over the fact that France lost the wars on the North American Continent. They want to go back to the womb, the mother tongue, and the mother culture. What they do not realize is that Quebec has not had a French culture for well over 100 years. it has an Anglo-French culture, one that is very, very different from the culture in France.

Oh boy! What a lesson in the socio-cultural reality of Quebec! I'm guessing that by the ''tiny minority'', you mean the approximately 40% of Quebecers that want Quebec to be a country. And if so, you are totally wrong about them wanting to go back to the womb. Quebecers are very much aware of the differences between their culture and French culture. And their is no desire to go back to French culture. We have Quebec culture and that's good enough. Of course, there are cultural crossovers between Quebec and France because of language in the same way that there are crossovers between British and English Canadian culture.

Quebec has had a strong English speaking population for well over 200 years now. The Francophones do their best to beat down the English language, and to attempt to erase any aspect of English cultural influence, but it is a losing battle.

In the long run everything ends up dying. Latin disappeared despite the fact that no Roman would have believed you would you manage to go back in time to tell them. So with this in mind, even English is bound to disappear eventually or mutate into something else.

But for the time being, there is no reason for Quebecers to simply abandon their language.

The French speaking people of Quebec are simply not replacing themselves. Their birthrate is so low, that in another 100 years, they will be a tiny minority in their own province. By then, the language will have been changed to English, and those that speak French will be considered somewhat backward and quaint.

That remains to be seen. As long as we keep a good grip on language laws, children of immigrants are required to learn French and this makes a huge difference. And there's been a mini-boom in the last decade. No doubt we would need to have more babies, but things have improved and there seems to be a slow but steady curve towards heightened fertility because of pro-family measures that have been taken by the government in the last decade.

There is no doubt that English is becoming more and more a huge influence. But to say that French speakers will be considered backward and quaint just demonstrates your inability to understand the value of a different language.


There is not support even among the French speaking population of today to make Quebec an independent country. As time goes by, that support will be less and less and less. It is a self-solving problem, nothing that anyone actually needs to worry about.

In the years following the first referendum (1980), support for separation went down and many said the issue was over. But then came the Meech Lake crisis and the whole constitutional debate. We then got the 1995 referendum where virtually half of Quebec voted for separation.

The constitutional issue isn't settled and while support for separation isn't overwhelming, neither is support for federalism, which enjoys the easy and safe road of the status quo. Why do you think the Bloc is still going strong? Something is still wrong and given the right conditions, only a few sparks would be needed for the separation movement to flare up dangerously. This cannot be repeated enough.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Anna, why is it that you make a hobby out of deliberately misleading my posts? I cannot believe that you simply miss the point when it happens so often. First of all my comment on the USSR was meant to show that it did not help the country that was broken up.
Well, then you should have specified that instead of leaving people to guess about it. But, perhaps you believe in claivoyance, I don't.
It is irrelevant whether or not the countries that seceded benefited, as that was not the point of the original post.
As I said, your point was not as clear as you think it was, then.

Second my comment on the Czech republic was not intended to prove anything. It was merely agreeing with your original statement by pointing out that I realize there are exceptions to the rule. Try to read my posts more carefully before your fingers start hitting the keyboard.
I will if you make your points more clearly.

BTW other than Czechoslovakia I cannot think of any other examples of a nation that breaks up, but I have no problem thinking of dozens of negative examples.
It only takes one example to refute your original claim.

Sadly, a tiny minority of the people of Quebec just can't get over the fact that France lost the wars on the North American Continent. They want to go back to the womb, the mother tongue, and the mother culture. What they do not realize is that Quebec has not had a French culture for well over 100 years. it has an Anglo-French culture, one that is very, very different from the culture in France.

Quebec has had a strong English speaking population for well over 200 years now. The Francophones do their best to beat down the English language, and to attempt to erase any aspect of English cultural influence, but it is a losing battle.

The French speaking people of Quebec are simply not replacing themselves. Their birthrate is so low, that in another 100 years, they will be a tiny minority in their own province. By then, the language will have been changed to English, and those that speak French will be considered somewhat backward and quaint.

There is not support even among the French speaking population of today to make Quebec an independent country. As time goes by, that support will be less and less and less. It is a self-solving problem, nothing that anyone actually needs to worry about.
Actually the entire planet seemsa to be converting to something called "Globish".

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/21/arts/21iht-Blume22.html

Globish: How English Became the World's Language by Robert McCrum: review - Telegraph
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Well, then you should have specified that instead of leaving people to guess about it. But, perhaps you believe in claivoyance, I don't. As I said, your point was not as clear as you think it was, then.

I will if you make your points more clearly.

It only takes one example to refute your original claim.

Actually the entire planet seemsa to be converting to something called "Globish".

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/21/arts/21iht-Blume22.html

Globish: How English Became the World's Language by Robert McCrum: review - Telegraph


Sorry, but I find your interpretations of my post deliberately obtuse. No one else seems to have any trouble interpreting them. And you still have provided no evidence to counter my original post.

And the example of "Globish" does not refute my position it supports it. Earlier in the thread I stated that no matter what Quebec does English will win out and Quebec's culture will gradually disappear. Your link to Globish supports that position and by inference you support it as well. Once again your attempt to refute what I have said is a deliberate misinterpretation of what I have said.

To refresh your memory this is my original post.

Independence for Quebec is a moot point. As I pointed out in another thread it does not matter what Quebec does in an attempt to preserve its culture. It is a tiny island of French located in a vast sea of English. Its culture will slowly fade over time in precisely the way the cultures of Ireland, Wales, and Scotland were absorbed into the greater English culture. Even complete independence won't matter. It may take hundreds of years, but it will happen.
 

SirJosephPorter

Time Out
Nov 7, 2008
11,956
56
48
Ontario
The constitutional issue isn't settled and while support for separation isn't overwhelming, neither is support for federalism, which enjoys the easy and safe road of the status quo. Why do you think the Bloc is still going strong? Something is still wrong and given the right conditions, only a few sparks would be needed for the separation movement to flare up dangerously. This cannot be repeated enough.

I think Quebec will eventually separate; it is a question of when, not if. It is similar to Islamic terrorists committing terrorist acts in USA. They may get caught 100 times and be unsuccessful, but they have to get it right only once.

It is the same with Quebec referendum. They may get 100 no votes, they may be unsuccessful 100 times, but they have to succeed only once. Eventually the ideal circumstances will arise. A very unpopular Prime Minister in Ottawa, ruling party having very few (or none) MPs from Québec, a charismatic, popular PQ Premier in Québec, and the deed will be done.
 

JLM

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 27, 2008
75,301
548
113
Vernon, B.C.
Quebec is like the five year old boy who packs his suitcase and threatens to leave home when things aren't going his way. He whines a lot, but does he leave home? NEVER. :smile:
 

s_lone

Council Member
Feb 16, 2005
2,233
30
48
44
Montreal
Sorry, but I find your interpretations of my post deliberately obtuse. No one else seems to have any trouble interpreting them. And you still have provided no evidence to counter my original post.

And the example of "Globish" does not refute my position it supports it. Earlier in the thread I stated that no matter what Quebec does English will win out and Quebec's culture will gradually disappear. Your link to Globish supports that position and by inference you support it as well. Once again your attempt to refute what I have said is a deliberate misinterpretation of what I have said.

To refresh your memory this is my original post.

Independence for Quebec is a moot point. As I pointed out in another thread it does not matter what Quebec does in an attempt to preserve its culture. It is a tiny island of French located in a vast sea of English. Its culture will slowly fade over time in precisely the way the cultures of Ireland, Wales, and Scotland were absorbed into the greater English culture. Even complete independence won't matter. It may take hundreds of years, but it will happen.

I think you're largely over confident when it comes to the disappearance of French. The fact that any language survives or slowly dies as centuries go by is largely dependant on political and socio-cultural events.

For example, the Irish saw their language (Irish Gaelic) decline because of the direct bullying of the UK. The huge death toll of the great famine had in the 19th century certainly didn't help either. One could argue that had their been no famine, Irish Gaelic would have kept the critical necessary amount of speakers to ensure its survival as the main language of the country.

Of course there isn't much sense in hypothesizing about the past. Whatever happened happened. But the future isn't written yet.

Quebec has been much luckier than the Irish in terms of maintaining its language for various reasons. The British were not as aggressive as in Ireland in imposing English. The Quiet Revolution put an end to the gross economic dominance of English speakers in Quebec and the language laws now create a significant barrier to the decline of French. Had there been none of these laws, it's not hard to imagine how Montreal would be predominantly English today.

Quebec is like the five year old boy who packs his suitcase and threatens to leave home when things aren't going his way. He whines a lot, but does he leave home? NEVER. :smile:

The analogy is a nice projection of your maturity level when it comes to discussing Quebec.

I think Quebec will eventually separate; it is a question of when, not if. It is similar to Islamic terrorists committing terrorist acts in USA. They may get caught 100 times and be unsuccessful, but they have to get it right only once.

It is the same with Quebec referendum. They may get 100 no votes, they may be unsuccessful 100 times, but they have to succeed only once. Eventually the ideal circumstances will arise. A very unpopular Prime Minister in Ottawa, ruling party having very few (or none) MPs from Québec, a charismatic, popular PQ Premier in Québec, and the deed will be done.

That is why I wish for some sort of resolution of this conflict in which Canada's structure would change enough to satisfy Quebec's need for independence. I think the only way this could work is if all provinces get the same level of independence Quebec wants. We would then all be winners.