Calling all Separatists!

[jackd]

Blue Alberta:

Virtually every report says there are three provinces which are a net contributor to Canada, being Ontario, Alberta, and now, BC.

ALL provinces are NET contributors to Canada, even NewFoundland, which is the poorest province.
All provinces sends more money to Ottawa than it gets back.
You statement implies that Canada's budget (=/-$180Billion) only comes from the 3 provinces you mentioned, which is incorrect.

 

[DasFX]

54% in Quebec back sovereignty

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 - The Globe and Mail

"QUEBEC -- Support for sovereignty in Quebec has broken through the 50-per-cent barrier to its highest level since 1998 amid growing controversy over the sponsorship scandal.

A new poll shows 54 per cent of decided voters would support sovereignty in a referendum that offered an economic and political partnership with the rest of Canada -- the same question asked in the Oct. 30, 1995, referendum.

Polls over the past year asking similar questions showed support of between 44 and 49 per cent for sovereignty.

The survey, conducted by Léger Marketing for The Globe and Mail and Le Devoir, comes as a new controversy erupted in Quebec after Michel Robert, the province's Chief Justice, said separatists should not be appointed to the bench.

The last time support for sovereignty was this high was in October, 1998, the pollsters say. Quebec was then weeks away from a provincial election, which was won by Lucien Bouchard of the Parti Québécois.

This survey, conducted April 21 to 24, shows 76 per cent of voters felt betrayed by the actions of the former prime minister and the Liberal Party of Canada after the 1995 referendum on sovereignty.

That opinion was shared by a majority of federalists regardless of their political allegiance, according to the poll.

"The sponsorship program, which contributed to undermining support for sovereignty between 1997 and 2002, is now having the opposite effect," said pollster Jean-Marc Léger. "In fact it is helping rebuild the sovereignty movement."

The survey found 37 per cent of respondents said the scandal and the allegations at the Gomery Commission motivated their decision to support sovereignty. Even among those who described themselves as federalist, 13 per cent said the inquiry would motivate them to vote for sovereignty.

Almost half -- 49 per cent of voters -- believe that Quebec will one day become a sovereign country while 41 per cent said it won't and 10 per cent said they didn't know.

And 49 per cent expressed a desire to have another referendum, while 46 per cent said they were against it. The remaining 5 per cent were undecided.

"People are no longer reluctant to want to vote in a referendum. The winning conditions are beginning to take shape if English Canada does not act quickly," Mr. Léger said.

However, support for sovereignty appears to be more a reflection of Quebeckers' anger toward the federal government than a deep-seated desire to achieve political independence.

When asked if by voting for sovereignty they still wanted Quebec to continue to be a part of Canada, 56 per cent of respondents said yes and 40 per cent responded no, with 4 per cent undecided.

Renewed federalism remained the preferred option for a sizable portion of the population, according to the poll, but voters are still deeply divided over the issue.

When asked if they believed in the possibility of renewed federalism in which Quebec would have its "rightful place in Canada," about 48 per cent expressed confidence it could happen; 45 per cent said no and 8 per cent refused to answer or didn't know.

"What this poll really says is that Canada still remains the first choice of a majority of Quebeckers. But if there is no offer of renewed federalism, Quebeckers are prepared to go to the extreme and vote for sovereignty. In other words they will choose sovereignty by default," Mr. Léger said.

The Bloc Québécois appears poised to capitalize on the backlash against the federal Liberals. The poll says it now leads by 31 percentage points.

After distribution of the undecided voters in a proportion equal to the expressed voting intentions, 53 per cent said they would vote for the Bloc, 22 per cent for the Liberals, 12 per cent for the Conservatives, 9 per cent for the NDP and 3 per cent for other parties.

"If the Bloc surpasses the crucial 50-per-cent mark in the next election, it could have a considerable impact on the PQ vote and on a potential referendum on sovereignty," Mr. Léger said.

Léger Marketing, which during the 1995 referendum accurately predicted the final tally in which federalists won with 50.6 per cent of the vote, conducted interviews with 1,008 eligible voters throughout Quebec. The poll is considered accurate within 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out 20.

Although the support for independence is greater than 50%, I think separatists should be disappointed that the support is so low amidst this great Liberal scandal.

 

[jackd]

The real question is not "if" separation will happen, but "when".
Stupid Charest will probably velcro himself to his seat until 2008, knowing too well this will be his last political job, at least on the provincial level. This is unless some surprises arise from the Gomery commission.
The PQ will probably take over the Liberals in 2008 and will take a year or two to get ready for a 2009-2010 referendum.
The latest poll indicates separation is supported by 54% of the population.

http://www2.canoe.com/infos/quebeccanada/archives/2005/04/20050427-060936.html

 

[s_lone]

Although the support for independence is greater than 50%, I think separatists should be disappointed that the support is so low amidst this great Liberal scandal.

This is an interesting observation. But I wonder about exactly who is questionned during those polls. Don't forget the young generation (18-25) can easily be dismissed in these kind of polls as people that age are not always "registered" in the polling files. Many still live at their parent's home.

Young generations are a lot more willing to consider sovereignty because they can take the risk and the excitement it generates. And that is without counting the ones who will be 18 by 2008...

 

[s_lone]

Ideally, I think the shock created by Quebec seperation would cause the ROC to reconsider what kind of country/political union it wants. It would be to the benefit of all Canadians to stay strongly united even after the seperation of Quebec. The main reason being to avoid the US to start swallowing one province/(country?) after another.

To put it clear, I think a real Canadian reform could be triggered by a YES victory and all Canadians could benefit by negotiating a new political union.

 

[I think not]

The main reason being to avoid the US to start swallowing one province/(country?) after another.

:roll:

 

[DasFX]

A new poll shows 54 per cent of decided voters would support sovereignty in a referendum that offered an economic and political partnership with the rest of Canada -- the same question asked in the Oct. 30, 1995, referendum.

When asked if by voting for sovereignty they still wanted Quebec to continue to be a part of Canada, 56 per cent of respondents said yes and 40 per cent responded no, with 4 per cent undecided.

See, I don't get this. How can you vote for sovereignty and continue to be a part of Canada. I think most in Quebec associate sovereignty with a renewed federal system and not being a separate country completely cut off from Canada.

I've read that most Quebecs believe that they will still be able to maintain their Canadian passport and will have all the other rights of Canadian citizens.

Based on the 1995 question, what would a yes vote have lead to? The questions lead people to believe that there would be a economic and political partnership with Canada, what would happen if this wasn't to happen?

Given a clear and straightforward question, I don't think Quebecers will choose to separate, atleast 50% + 1 won't.

The next referendum question should be along the lines of:

Do you wish Quebec to become a soveign nation, completely separate from Canada?

There should be no talk about partnerships or any other agreements. Of course there will have to be some negotiations about the actually separation but anything further is only speculation.

What I think Quebec's want is a more powerful provincial government with no interference from Ottawa, except on matters that legitamately are national issues. Sounds a lot like folks in Alberta.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

A new poll shows 54 per cent of decided voters would support sovereignty in a referendum that offered an economic and political partnership with the rest of Canada -- the same question asked in the Oct. 30, 1995, referendum.

Yeah, that's really the key point, isn't it? The nature of that economic and political partnership isn't spelled out clearly, and the rest of Canada might have something to say about that. Sovereignty with a special economic and political relationship with the rest of Canada isn't real sovereignty, not if Quebec is still relying on Canadian passports, currency, defence, the banking system, international treaties and trade agreements Canada's a party to, and all the rest of it. In my view, if Quebec wants sovereignty, it means complete sovereignty, no a priori special deals, no special relationship, you start from zero as a fully independent nation negotiating with Canada and the rest of the world for what you want from the rest of us, and we'll see what happens.

Sovereignty with a special economic and political relationship with the rest of Canada is pretty much what Quebec already has. It consistently opts out of federal-provincial cost-shared programs and gets the money thrown at it to implement its own version of things, it gets special consideration on immigration matters, it runs its own pension plan separate from the CPP... well, there's no point in multiplying examples, Quebec's special status is pretty much common knowledge.

I've believed for years that what the sovereigntists want is all the benefits of being part of Canada without any of the costs. My answer is no, you can't have that.

 

[cub1c]

It's funny how people that don't even live in Québec know what's good for Quebecers.

It's like what we see on TV in Québec right now. NB's PM saying to Quebecers that we will come down with his troops in Québec to fight for the No camp at the next referendum. The same way those Albertarian came to Montréal for the big walk of Canada love before the referendum. How sick is that?

Québec always wanted to make THEIR choices and has never impose them to other provinces.

 

[cub1c]

How can you vote for sovereignty and continue to be a part of Canada.

You are talking like if there is no country in the world that share politics and economics with other countrys.

 

[DasFX]

It's funny how people that don't even live in Québec know what's good for Quebecers.

Hey, I never claimed to know what's best for Quebec. I live in Ontario, we don't even know what's best for ourselves.

You are talking like if there is no country in the world that share politics and economics with other countrys.

Sure they do, but these individual countries would not consider themselves a part of the other. We have a economic and political relationsip with the US, but I would never consider that being a part of the US.

Quebecers are free to do what they want, I just want a clear and conscise question without speculation of any future deals.

Quebecers need to know that once they vote yes, their voice in Ottawa and in Canadian affairs will be silenced. Quebecs wishes and desires will carry as much weight in Ottawa as it will in Washington, London, Canberra, New Delhi or Ulan Bator!

 

[Dexter Sinister]

Québec always wanted to make THEIR choices and has never impose them to other provinces.

Nonsense. You don't think separatism is imposing something on the rest of us? Or on the aboriginal people within Québec? How about you review the history of the constitutional negotiations starting from about 1968 onwards, and see how obstructionist various of your premiers were, starting with things like the demand for a veto over constitutional changes that was offered by Trudeau repeatedly and then turned down by both Lévesque and Bourassa. You were offered something you'd asked for and turned it down, because if you'd got it, then there'd have been a deal and you couldn't go on using the threat of separatism to try to leverage more out the rest of Canada. I refer you to page 65 of a little book called Pierre Trudeau Speaks Out on Meech Lake, and an older and larger book called The Dangerous Delusion, by Douglas Fullerton, as a starting point.

 

[cub1c]

The image you have of the 1982 events are clearly dependant of the author you read. I'm pretty sure English Canada doesn't have the same views on this issue than French, and I'm not saying one is better than the other. Adding in top of that, it's a complex issue.

But, can you explain something. Why Canada adopted the 1982 constitution even if Québec rejected it?

Doesn't it clearly demonstrate that even if Québec is not ok with something, it doens't make much difference?

And we are talking about a constitution, not SSM.

You don't think separatism is imposing something on the rest of us?

You almost made me cry on that one. Poor victims.

 

[DasFX]

But, can you explain something. Why Canada adopted the 1982 constitution even if Québec rejected it?

Doesn't it clearly demonstrate that even if Québec is not ok with something, it doens't make much difference?

The Canadian public had no choice in the matter, I would think most Canadians think the adopting of the 1982 constitution without unanimous support (especially from the largest province which held over 25% of the population at the time) was wrong.

 

[cub1c]

Quebecers are free to do what they want, I just want a clear and conscise question without speculation of any future deals.

It's not the question that isn't clear, it's the future. No one can predict reactions of other toward the independance of Québec.

But I can assure you something, those who vote YES at a referendum is because they are ready; if you aren't about the question or if you're feel insecure, you vote No.

Everything that is aside and related to the question is not even clear for both sides, yes or no. But if you vote yes, it's because you're sure at least about the fact that we should take our future in our hands. So if you see this that way, the Yes votes are way more meaningful and powerful than the No.

 

[DasFX]

But if you vote yes, it's because you're sure at least about the fact that we should take our future in our hands. So if you see this that way, the Yes votes are way more meaningful and powerful than the No.

How can one be sure if they are ready to take their future in their own hands if they don't even know what that entails?

What recourse would Quebecers have if they voted yes and then saw how they "were taking their future in their own hands" and disagreed?

 

[DasFX]

It's not the question that isn't clear, it's the future. No one can predict reactions of other toward the independance of Québec.

I agree, no one cannot predict the future so shouldn't the separatist at least present the "worst case scenerio" or default scenario for independence and that is no economic or political relationship with Canada, no Canadian passport, no Canadian rights and basically starting from zero.

The separatistist only paint the good outcome of separation, they never present boast sides. The only show how Canada will remain whole, how there will be a relationship, how Quebec automatically will be a part of NAFTA. These issues are not in Quebec hands so how can they present them as a given or a default situation if separation occured.

 

[cub1c]

What recourse would Quebecers have if they voted yes and then saw how they "were taking their future in their own hands" and disagreed?

Everybody knows what a country is! Everybody Quebecers knows that they aren't stupidier than Talibans, and they have their country.

 

[cub1c]

These issues are not in Quebec hands so how can they present them as a given or a default situation if separation occured.

They may not be in our hands, but people here rely on the good will of humans. And I'm pretty sure that North America won't reject us for our independance. And if it turns out that Canada and US turns evil with us because we, the people, decided, then we had a VERY good reason to seperate.

This kind of threat, espacially coming from the ROC is very disturbing. They claim canadian unity everywhere FOR YEARS, but are willing turn the other way around, agaisnt those who doesn't want it, in a matter of hours (a referendum).

The ROC is complaning we threat them with separation, but they threat us back with things like "you won't have our support if you decide separation!". It's all perverse and looks more like dictatorship than real cooperation.

If you don't support other country and other culture, why spend on internationnal help and have strong economics with other countrys?

I know some will always say "we will make the life hard for you if you seperate", but I accept it. Because I'm sure Canadians are tolerant and a great democratic nation and will accept our choice and live with it!

If not, then we should stop right now dreaming of a peacefull world.

 

[DasFX]

What recourse would Quebecers have if they voted yes and then saw how they "were taking their future in their own hands" and disagreed?

Everybody knows what a country is! Everybody Quebecers knows that they aren't stupidier than Talibans, and they have their country.

I read what your quoted and then read what you wrote and I honestly have no clue what you are trying to say!

From you posts, I enferred that you thought the referendum wasn't necessarily about the specifics of separation but more of seeking the answer to if Quebecers were ready to "take their future in their own hands".

My question was, should a yes vote be achieved, what recourse would Quebecers have if when the actual specifics of independence wasn't to their liking.

What I'm trying to say is how can you ask people a question about an end goal or result without providing any information about the process of acheiving it?