A warning from Canada: don’t let the elite take back control

[Blackleaf]

After the Quebec referendum, Canada’s elite drew up new constraints on democracy...

A warning from Canada: don’t let the elite take back control

MICHAEL SCOTT
14th October 2019
Spiked

For many Canadians, the word referendum still brings back memories of frightening days from 1995, when Quebec held a referendum on independence. We had no idea what was going to happen. In the end, we narrowly avoided a divorce. The ‘Remain’ side won 50.58 to 49.42 – mere decimal points away from catastrophe.

The powers that be wanted to make sure this couldn’t happen again. The fate of the country would no longer be decided by the people, but by the elite. And so a newspeak piece of legislation called the Clarity Act was passed in the Canadian parliament. It gave the House of Commons the power to determine whether or not a clear majority had expressed itself after any future referendum vote – implying some sort of supermajority might be required to overturn the status quo. MPs were given the explicit power to override referendum results, if any tenets of the Clarity Act are violated.

In other words, the House of Commons could simply decide after a vote is held and a decision is delivered that there was an insufficient majority and scuttle the whole thing. There is no clarification of how large a majority would be needed. The only clarity is that it wrestles the power from voters and puts it in the hands of the House of Commons.

Recently, I tuned in to watch the shenanigans in the British parliament. I was particularly taken aback when I heard Scottish MPs trying to cancel Brexit and asking for another Scottish independence referendum. Hypocritical, sure. But I was shocked at their complete lack of foresight.

From a practical point of view, the SNP is laying the very groundwork for any future independence referendum to be thwarted, should it ever succeed. Sure, more people in Scotland voted for Remain than Leave. But should Scotland vote to leave the UK one day, the very same arguments could easily scupper a victory for independence. Surely, the question will be asked: what exactly does independence mean? If any unforeseen financial issues crop up after the vote, the familiar refrain will return: did Scottish people know what they were voting for?

British voters, especially those in Scotland, should be very wary of what might result from a second EU referendum or the cancellation of Brexit. In Canada, the ability of the elite to thwart the results of future referendums was codified in law. Overturning the Brexit vote will set a dangerous precedent for democracy.

While I am a staunch unionist and don’t support Quebec independence, it is not up to me. The people of Quebec should be the ones to decide whether or not they want to be part of Canada. It should not be decided by the thumbs up or thumbs down of the elite after the vote has happened. If Britain follows Canada down this path, then voting in referendums will become a pointless exercise.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2019/10/14/a-warning-from-canada-dont-let-the-elite-take-back-control/

 

[pgs]

And we wish they won . Someone rid us of that greedy province .

 

[taxslave]

The only reason it was close is because the rest of us didn't get to vote. Only some people in Quebec got their vote counted.

 

[Serryah]

The Clarity Act is more than just "the elite" saying what constitutes a majority...


Did you read up on what the Act is?

 

[petros]

I sure did.

It's ambiguous with no definition of what the majority threshold is.

 

[Serryah]

I sure did.

It's ambiguous with no definition of what the majority threshold is.

I was asking Blackie.


While I agree that the lack of defining what a real majority is in the Act is an issue, it does state that it needs to be a *clear* majority.


A 50%+1 isn't a clear majority, IMO.


A 55% or more would be more of a clear majority. Likely, due to the act and considering the implications to the rest of Canada, a vote of 60% plus would be needed and I honestly don't see a problem with that.

 

[Jinentonix]

Depends on whose "law" we're talking about. The UN states a majority is 50% +1.


There's also a world of difference between Brexit and the Quebec separation argument. Britain was dragged illegally into the EU. Quebec is a willing participant in Confederation, outside of a few hotheads. Quebec was also trying to push sovereignty/ association, whereby they'd be a separate, independent state literally physically splitting the country while still continuing to benefit from being "part" of Canada. It was basically akin to an older teenager seeking their independence by living in mommy and daddy's basement but still leeching from them.

 

[Serryah]

Depends on whose "law" we're talking about. The UN states a majority is 50% +1.


There's also a world of difference between Brexit and the Quebec separation argument. Britain was dragged illegally into the EU. Quebec is a willing participant in Confederation, outside of a few hotheads. Quebec was also trying to push sovereignty/ association, whereby they'd be a separate, independent state literally physically splitting the country while still continuing to benefit from being "part" of Canada. It was basically akin to an older teenager seeking their independence by living in mommy and daddy's basement but still leeching from them.

When I originally used it as a loose comparison to Brexit, it was not for the actual results, but rather how confusing the question was and how much of a conflict it created within Canada itself, and how Government dealt with the results after. The question at the time was such a clusterfuk that the Act became a thing.


Brexit was similar in that the question was not as clear as some thought, the aftermath is a clusterfuk but unlike Quebec, the whole of the UK is divided over the issue still, despite people like Blackie saying it's not that bad.

 

[pgs]

When I originally used it as a loose comparison to Brexit, it was not for the actual results, but rather how confusing the question was and how much of a conflict it created within Canada itself, and how Government dealt with the results after. The question at the time was such a clusterfuk that the Act became a thing.


Brexit was similar in that the question was not as clear as some thought, the aftermath is a clusterfuk but unlike Quebec, the whole of the UK is divided over the issue still, despite people like Blackie saying it's not that bad.

Blackleaf has been consistent throughout the whole Brexit debacle. He voted for Brexit along with the majority of Britain’s , they expect it to be delivered . He has not moved from that position .

 

[MHz]

I sure did.

It's ambiguous with no definition of what the majority threshold is.

Maybe it is that way just for you. What is the closest they come??

 

[MHz]

Blackleaf has been consistent throughout the whole Brexit debacle. He voted for Brexit along with the majority of Britain’s , they expect it to be delivered . He has not moved from that position .

It is a 180 from Scotland having the right to determine their own destiny though. Like Quebec leaving Canada it should have been the whole country voting and they would have been out just like that, if the whole EU voted the UK would most likely be tossed and Germany take over her position of power in NATO.

 

[Blackleaf]

I was asking Blackie.
While I agree that the lack of defining what a real majority is in the Act is an issue, it does state that it needs to be a *clear* majority.
A 50%+1 isn't a clear majority, IMO.
A 55% or more would be more of a clear majority. Likely, due to the act and considering the implications to the rest of Canada, a vote of 60% plus would be needed and I honestly don't see a problem with that.

I always thought that democracy works on the basis of more than 50%, even if it's 50.6%.

 

[Jinentonix]

I always thought that democracy works on the basis of more than 50%, even if it's 50.6%.

It does, that's why the UN's 50%+1 is bullshit and why Canada created the Clarity Act. There's no comparison between the Clarity Act and the attempted subversion of Democracy going on in Britain. The Quebec referendum's results were accepted and the Clarity Act was written up after the fact. The Brexit referendum's results on the other hand are being rejected with multiple attempts at subverting the outcome. That shit did NOT go on during the 1995 Quebec referendum.

 

[MHz]

I always thought that democracy works on the basis of more than 50%, even if it's 50.6%.

The Vatican uses 66% as 'a tie'. Might explain why 'their sermons' on Sunday are 'disjointed' to say the least and the children's Choir is raped Monday-Saturday. I wonder which member of the Flock gets told he is the most boring sinner ever?


When the 'majority vote' is 'fixed' in any way/shape/form what is it called, other than Dictatorship of the worst kind?


Cuba and Iran were 'commies' but Venezuela was 'bad socialism' and 'the rise and fall' is a mirror, the only difference is the narrative from the West. South Africa before 1960 would be the way they run a nation, as would be Central America once Company Farms moved in. When you have to lie about the past to make the current system look good that is one big sign the current system stinks, 15% is never the majority until 85% are ignored.
When Ontario and Quebec make decisions that should be made in other Provinces then something is crooked. SNC was into dams and hydro, those contracts would all be 'pork barrel politics' if the power is shipped out of Province while the locals live in slum-like conditions. 'We' cannot be trusted to fix 'our own' mistakes apparently.

 

[MHz]

That shit did NOT go on during the 1995 Quebec referendum.

No voters coming in to help one side or the other??

Quebec Referendum: you voted ‘no’, yes? | Canada 150 | 22 Minutes

In 1995, millions of Quebecers cast their ballots in a referendum, ultimately rejecting separation. Now, in their new book, Chantal Hebert and Jean Lapierre have startling details about what was happening behind the scenes.


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-to-destroy-referendum-ballots/article671683/
Quebec to destroy referendum ballots

Nearly five million ballots that almost tore up a country are headed to the shredder, ending a 12-year legal saga born in the turbulent wake of the Quebec referendum.
A judge gave Quebec's elections chief the green light to destroy the warehoused ballots yesterday, dashing the hopes of federalists who believed they could unlock the secrets of possible vote-rigging in the 1995 referendum.
To most of Quebec, the ballots are long-forgotten relics of a distant and painful political battle. But to others, they're historic pieces of evidence.
The focus is on 86,501 ballots that were were marked improperly and never counted in the outcome, a No victory of 50.6 per cent.
The high rate of rejection in certain federalist ridings led the anglophone-rights group Alliance Quebec to seek the preservation of the ballots.

It hoped to find out whether a calculated effort reached into the upper tiers of the sovereigntist Yes organization to thwart federalist No voters.
"This is not about the past; it's about the future," lawyer Michael Bergman, who has been fighting the case, said in an interview. "These are not just pieces of paper. They're forensic instruments."
Mr. Bergman admitted that the ballots, almost all of which he believes were No votes, would not have changed the outcome of the referendum, although they may have driven the No side's real margin of victory to as high as 54 per cent.
Still, he believes they contained clues that could show "the extent and at what level of authority" a Yes-side plot reached. He favoured handing the ballots to a university or library.
"It's to assure that any future process is open, transparent and legitimate," Mr. Bergman said.



That plan was dashed in a ruling by Superior Court Justice Roger Baker. He granted a petition by Chief Electoral Officer Marcel Blanchet to dismiss Alliance Quebec's lawsuit, effectively sending 4.8 million ballots to the dustbin.
While the "overtones" of the suit were significant because they dealt with the possible breakup of the country, Judge Baker said he was ruling on a matter of procedure.
"Courts are not political forums. Courts are not here to make statements," he said from the bench.
"This is not 1995 ... this is not to determine whether Quebec is staying or not in Canada," he said. The matter before him boiled down to "a procedural entanglement."
He said 13 years had elapsed since the referendum, a "potentially cataclysmic" event in Canada, and "13 years is too long" to deal with the legal request.
Lawyers for the Chief Electoral Officer said the Quebec elections law didn't permit them to make the ballots publicly accessible.



The ballots are preserved in a warehouse in Quebec City at a cost of $12,000 a year.
A spokeswoman said Mr. Blanchet would wait for the 30-day appeals process to elapse before destroying the ballots. Held in sealed boxes, they would eventually be shredded and the paper recycled.
Mr. Bergman said he is considering an appeal, but acknowledged yesterday's ruling was the end of "a long and winding" battle. The ballots have been at the heart of multiple court fights and inquiries.
In an investigation, former chief justice Alan Gold of Quebec Superior Court concluded in 1996 that two Yes committee members and 29 deputy returning officers had rejected an unusually high number of No ballots "in a patently unreasonable manner."
Mr. Bergman says yesterday's ruling doesn't put the matter to rest.
"Perhaps now the forensic evidence will be lost, shredded into landfill or incinerated at some point no doubt," he told reporters, "but the controversy remains very much alive."

 

[Blackleaf]

It does, that's why the UN's 50%+1 is bullshit and why Canada created the Clarity Act. There's no comparison between the Clarity Act and the attempted subversion of Democracy going on in Britain. The Quebec referendum's results were accepted and the Clarity Act was written up after the fact. The Brexit referendum's results on the other hand are being rejected with multiple attempts at subverting the outcome. That shit did NOT go on during the 1995 Quebec referendum.

I agree, what what if Quebec had voted Leave?

Had that been the case, you would likely have seen the undemocratic shenanigans going on in Britain right now.

 

[Cannuck]

I agree, what what if Quebec had voted Leave?
Had that been the case, you would likely have seen the undemocratic shenanigans going on in Britain right now.

You're an idiot.

Had Kweebeck voted to leave, the aboriginals that control most of the northern part of the province would have chosen to leave Kweebeck and return to Canada. Kweebeck would have three choices....swallow their pride and return to Canada in a weaker position, go it alone and leave with a sliver of land along the St Lawrence River or try and fight the aboriginals (and their Canadian and American allies)for control of the northern part of the province. Simply put, they would get butt-facked worse than the UK leaving the EU.

 

[Blackleaf]

You're an idiot.
Had Kweebeck voted to leave, the aboriginals that control most of the northern part of the province would have chosen to leave Kweebeck and return to Canada. Kweebeck would have three choices....swallow their pride and return to Canada in a weaker position, go it alone and leave with a sliver of land along the St Lawrence River or try and fight the aboriginals (and their Canadian and American allies)for control of the northern part of the province. Simply put, they would get butt-facked worse than the UK leaving the EU.

Britain won't be butt-****ed at all. It's the EU that's ****ed.

As for Quebec, this isn't the place to discuss the outcome of its independence.

I'm just pointing out that a Quebec Leave vote would likely have resulted in the same undemocratic attempts to overturn that vote as we are seeing with Brexit.

 

[Cannuck]

Britain won't be butt-****ed at all...

That's exactly what Kweebeck separatists tried to sell. Smart people didn't fall for that either

 

[Danbones]

but YOU fell for it.