Duceppe says it's up to NFLD whether it wants to leave Canada
- Thread starter VanIsle
- Start date
I'm thinking Harper didn't know Newfoundland/Labrador didn't count as Maritimes either...... I have no issues with others in our country not knowing they're not, but you'd think our Prime Minister would know better :lol:
I think that was Stockwell Day, he said that Niagara Falls flowed south, and I happened to be in the same hotel at a meeting.. boy, did I surprise the RCMP when I came blasting down the stairway on my way back from my room...
It isn’t just the decision of Newfoundland and Labrador.
To abolish the Canadian sovereignty of Newfoundland and Labrador would require us to materially change the office of The Crown of Canada in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we would also need to abolish the Office of the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador; to do either of these would require the unanymous consent of the Honourable the Senate of Canada, the House of Commons, and all Legislative Assemblies of the Provinces.
‘50% + 1’ is not sufficient to tear away a part of Canada without the rest of us having a say.
To abolish the Canadian sovereignty of Newfoundland and Labrador would require us to materially change the office of The Crown of Canada in Right of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we would also need to abolish the Office of the Lieutenant Governor of Newfoundland and Labrador; to do either of these would require the unanymous consent of the Honourable the Senate of Canada, the House of Commons, and all Legislative Assemblies of the Provinces.
‘50% + 1’ is not sufficient to tear away a part of Canada without the rest of us having a say.
riiiiiiiight:roll:
and if they decided to unilaterally tell the rest of Canada to stick it up their ass, what would you suggest be done? Send in the armed forces?
Haha...now that's a good one LW. The old jokes are the best.
Newfoundland will persevere. A 100 years from now she'll still be sitting there in the North Atlantic providing raw materials, fish, people and services to this great country of ours. She'll still be the jewel in Canada's crown. Don't forget it was Brian Tobin from Newfoundland who was instrumental in helping Canada come back from the brink when the last Quebec referendum was held. That's how much compassion he has for this country and a lot of Newfoundlanders feel the same way.
Man, I wish we had a visionary in office on Parliament Hill. Someone who can help alleviate these petty differences across the land and plant the seeds of peace. Someone who can upstage a canker like Duceppe and silence him forever.
Newfoundland will persevere. A 100 years from now she'll still be sitting there in the North Atlantic providing raw materials, fish, people and services to this great country of ours. She'll still be the jewel in Canada's crown. Don't forget it was Brian Tobin from Newfoundland who was instrumental in helping Canada come back from the brink when the last Quebec referendum was held. That's how much compassion he has for this country and a lot of Newfoundlanders feel the same way.
Man, I wish we had a visionary in office on Parliament Hill. Someone who can help alleviate these petty differences across the land and plant the seeds of peace. Someone who can upstage a canker like Duceppe and silence him forever.
Except that the Supreme Court of Canada has already ruled on this, with respect to the last Quebec referendum, and said 50% +1 is sufficient for Quebec to seperate... why wouldn't Newfoundland be subject to this precedent?
When did they say that, Wulfie? Do you have a link? I remember Chretien passed the Clarity Act, which says that any question in a separation referendum must be a clear, concise question and not the fudged, convoluted question like they had in the last referendum. It also says that a clear majority is required before separation can take place, that 50%+1 is not enough.
I am not aware that Supreme Court has invalidated the Clarity Act. So do you have a link where it says that 50%+1 is enough?
Incidentally, I assume the Clarity Act applies to Newfoundland as well as to Quebec (or indeed to any province which wants to separate).
That makes a load of sense. That's like saying to your family you're moving out on your own and everybody else puts it to a vote and says you can't, grab yer damn mop and get back to work.
Or better yet, it's like Canada deciding to do something independently and concerns only us, but then the US, UK, Russia, etc. all get to have a say, over rule, and then dictate to us what we're going to do in our own country.
Sure, they already try and pull this stunt all over the world, everyday, but it's not right, and it's not democracy. It's a twisted and mutated form of democracy that out-right abuses the rights of the minority.
Or another example is having people in Manitoba voting in Newfoundland's provincial elections. Other provinces don't vote in other Provinces' elections..... Because it's none of anybody else's business.
Whether or not a province wishes to leave and do its own this is not for any of the rest of us to decide, because then we'd all know the outcome, they'd be refused, stuck to do the rest of the nation's bidding, and then the violence begins.
There's no reason why a province in question can't decide own its own, its own future, and then once done, all the other government/political folk involved can mash out how it's going to be done, because it's already been decided.
Quebec independence referendum, 1995 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
".....This culminated in the federal government's 2000 Clarity Act which stated that any future referendum would have to be on a "clear question" and that it would have to represent a "clear majority" for the federal Parliament to recognize its validity. The meaning of both a "clear question" and a "clear majority" is left unspecified in the act, which was criticized by some."
^ That's real nice.... a "Clear Question" and "Clear Majority" explanation that's.... not "Clear" on what either is.
Since it's left up to interpretation on which either is, %-wise, this act is pointless as any means of justification.
And as far as I'm concerned, 51% is a Clear Majority unless one can't count or is blind.... hence the term "Majority Rules" which more often then not in democratic decisions, means 51% or greater.
It's funny how people will talk about what happened in the Quebec Referendum as the right thing, which is that the NO's won by 50.58%, was the right decision, since majority ruled and it benefits the rest of those who didn't want them to leave, who live outside of Quebec.
But if say that 50.58% was for the YES's to separate, suddenly it's have to be a "clear majority", whatever the heck that imaginary number is, if it's not 50.58%.
^ So in the above case, if the YES's got the majority, and their democratic rights rejected, what then?
The NO's win regardless.... so what's the point in putting it to a vote and call it democracy when one side of the vote has a clear advantage from the start and stands very little chance in losing?
Even still, let's say the YES's got 60%+ and was a very clear majority?
People would start moaning about the 40%- "Canadian Citizens" being pulled away from their country and jump through every legal bureaucratic pile of crap one could think of to try and reject the final vote.... once again, possibly leading to violent actions ensuing.
machajo thats how i feel, i dont know how else to explain myself
Wheather your a hurtin albertan(ill make sure your hurtin, and those longshots from the mountain sides is all you got) or some frenchmen from quebec, if your province seperates, johnnny and the boys are a coming for you, thats how i feel
it may not be the most politically correct way of going about things, but in my opinion this isnt europe where everyone needs to be seperate to feel special, this is canada and its honestly not that bad so those separtists can quit their whining
im sorry thats how i feel folks, but johnnny here is willing to put his own life on the line to bring other provinces in line
''I'm leaving you. I don't love you anymore''
''But you CAN'T leave me! We're married, and you swore allegiance to me!''
''Whatever. I'm leaving you.''
In a democracy, majority does not always rule. You cannot change the constitution or the Charter by a majority vote. If we are going by strict rule of the law, any separation will require a constitutional amendment and so a referendum on separation will be meaningless anyway.
So a majority clearly does not rule when it comes to separation. At the same time, we don’t want to force a province to stay in the country against the wishes of the majority.
But the question is, what does majority mean in this context? Clearly not 51%. Separation from a country is a profound and irreversible decision and cannot be made on a slim majority. It is totally different from electing a government. If people don’t like the government, they can vote it out at the next election. If people change their mind in two years about separation, they cannot rejoin Canada, much as they may wish to.
A small majority like 51% does not really tell us how people really feel. There may have been some occurrence just recently (e.g. PM snubbing the Premier) which may still be fresh in peoples’ mind and that may sway enough voters to put separation over the 50% mark into 51%. Six months later when people have forgotten the snub, or we have different PM, the sentiment for separation may change again.
So there is no way 51% majority is enough to break a country.
As to Quebec referendum, 50.58% no vote was sufficient to stay within Canada, since that is the status quo. But it should not be sufficient vote to separate from Canada, since that is breaking up the country. A status quo may be maintained by the slimmest of majorities, but a country cannot be broken up by the slimmest of majorities.
Also the question in Quebec referendum was incredibly convoluted, incredibly fudged, I am not sure many people knew what they were voting for. PQ made the question intentionally vague, obscure. Their intention was to get a 50%+1 vote, claim that it is the vote for total independence and declare independence. It was an incredibly shabby tactic and fortunately it did not succeed.
Incidentally, I understand today there is very little appetite for separation in Quebec. So if they had separated on 50%+1 vote, very likely they would regret it today, but it would be too late to change their mind. That is why a clear majority is needed.
In my opinion, at least 60% majority should be needed with a clear question (e.g. do you want to separate from Canada and form an independent country?). Anything short of that Canada should not recognize the results. At least that much majority is needed to break up a country.
Last edited: