What would be your thoughts on Quebec voluntarily separating from Canada but sharing a common citizenship and passport?
Pros and cons?
True separation happens when one is willing to defend borders. Even if one knows he'll loose to defend those borders, the point is, it's going to cost blood, so do you really want to?
Therefore, your question really should have been: What would be your thoughts on Quebec setting up it's own militia reportable only to the National Assembly in Quebec City?
As for the rest of the mishmashing of sharing passports and currencies, take a look at Uncle Sam, and his experiences with Liberia (shared currency), Puerto Rico, and those little semi-autonomous things they jurisdict over in the pacific (Mariana Islands etc.)
You know, I was born in the USA, grew up in Alberta, have been working in BC, don't know a word of French other than "Oui, No" and "Voila Mousiour Tibout", but I've done some drives up and over the Gaspe Peninsula and through Quebec, and it didn't take long for one simple thing to become essentially clear,
There's just *one* thing they're ticked about and which Anglos are blank-brains about getting, which if you can get and take to heart, everything will be okay, because otherwise they really don't mind the order and economic benefits of the current system of Canadian organization.
It's this.
When they are in English Canada, English is the default language, and we have to go out of our way doing them a favor to find someone who speaks French to a monolingual French speaker, which they deal with.
Yet when we go to Quebec, we stomp around like it's a British right that they should by default be speaking English to us.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to learn a second language once past the age of about seven?
All you have to do is, when in Quebec, understand that the default language is French, therefore show some respect if they give you some English, because in that situation it is *they* doing you the favor.
Do that, and they might ditch that stupid BQ.
It has fragmented the politics of the nation enabling creepo's like Harper to weasel in to pass corporate tax-cut bills to send more profits back to New York while we hear every day how the social services that used to be paid for by the resources our ancestors fought mosquitoes to get for us be whittled away by Harper's American Plutocrat puppet masters.
I just don't get it. Paul Martin did the ultimate painful optimization of the budget, and got it to the point where spending had been whittled down to the lowest point required to maintain a western democracy while taking in enough revenue to pay off the debt with no corporation complaining, and dumb voters let in a guy who figured it wasn't enough to cut fat... that now we should cut bone.
How did those dumb voters get conned?
Because of the Sponsorship Scandal, where they wanted to blame everything upon the Ministry of Finance, as if Finance has anything to do with spending.
It doesn't. Finance deals with revenue.
Spending is done by TBS (Treasury Board Secretariat). *That's* the ministry which did not do it's job when the Sponsorship Scandal happened.
So why didn't the media ever go after the Minster of the Treasury Board?
I don't know. It's totally bizarre.
The only thing I can think of is it's because Martin was actually balanced in terms of compromising all interests in a post cold-war era where the Capitalists won and now they don't have to be nice to workers any more in order to convince said workers that life here is better than in the Soviet Union, such that the mass takeover of media by Plutocrats started in the late 70's after the damage they felt over the Pentagon papers swung its club to take Martin out just like they today hate Obama for trying to be balanced. (Except Obama's got an extra problem... in his case, he's trying to bring together people who's careers are based upon being obstinate... they don't really want good government).