U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-29-2015, 07:40 PM
 
2,291 posts, read 3,944,097 times
Reputation: 2062

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons View Post
It was Barney who first mentioned violence: "Let's keep going with the example in my previous post: 3rd referendum... question is in violation of Clarity Act... referendum happens anyway... YES wins (say 53%).... What do you think will happen then? ... it will be hell here if that happens, and there will be violence."

Doesn't sound very democratic if the question violates the Clarity Act, and the outcome Barney is suggesting doesn't sound like a peaceful movement.

Just word the question clearly and simply. Nobody would have trouble respecting a Yes outcome then.
You are right, I am not suggesting a peaceful movement, IF the federal government fights a YES result on the grounds that the question violated the Clarity Act (you conveniently left that out from my quote). I am, however, questioning your assumption that the process cannot be democratic if the question violates the Clarity Act.

Agree to disagree I guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-29-2015, 08:00 PM
 
Location: Montreal
375 posts, read 267,166 times
Reputation: 283
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons View Post
It was Barney who first mentioned violence: "Let's keep going with the example in my previous post: 3rd referendum... question is in violation of Clarity Act... referendum happens anyway... YES wins (say 53%).... What do you think will happen then? ... it will be hell here if that happens, and there will be violence."

Doesn't sound very democratic if the question violates the Clarity Act, and the outcome Barney is suggesting doesn't sound like a peaceful movement.

Just word the question clearly and simply. Nobody would have trouble respecting a Yes outcome then.
How is the Clarity Act more democratic than a popular vote? The Clarity Act means a few elites up top have the last say on whether 51% or 58% or 66% voting for independence is good enough to achieve that independence. If we are interested in keeping things purely democratic then 50.1% for independence mean Quebec becomes independent. The Clarity Act is there to prevent things from being purely democratic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2015, 08:32 PM
 
18,357 posts, read 10,426,450 times
Reputation: 13427
Quote:
Originally Posted by PBeauchamp View Post
How is the Clarity Act more democratic than a popular vote? The Clarity Act means a few elites up top have the last say on whether 51% or 58% or 66% voting for independence is good enough to achieve that independence. If we are interested in keeping things purely democratic then 50.1% for independence mean Quebec becomes independent. The Clarity Act is there to prevent things from being purely democratic.
You're completely missing the definition of the word "clarity" being the raison-d-etra of the Act.

It's primarily not to decide the percentage of vote required BUT rather to the wording of the referendum question itself.

Canada, in the form of it's federal government, is to be assured that the question posed to Quebecers to decide their fate should be one of complete "clarity" without any obfuscation or possibility for misunderstanding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2015, 09:27 PM
 
Location: Alberta, Canada
2,190 posts, read 1,762,605 times
Reputation: 2683
Exactly. Thank you, BruSan. The Clarity Act assures everybody--from the federal government to the average Quebecer--that the question will be clearly-worded, so the people know exactly what they are voting for or against.

Trying to confuse voters with legalistic-sounding bafflegab is hardly democratic. What were voters voting for in 1980? Not independence; in a question measuring 106 words in English, they were merely granting the Quebec government permission to negotiate an agreement with the government of Canada for more powers.

And in 1995? In a question of 43 words (again, in English), voters were asked about "becoming sovereign" (not "becoming independent," or of "becoming a sovereign country," just "becoming sovereign" without any definition of what that meant--perhaps what was meant in 1980, but perhaps not; as that question was not on independence), but only after the Quebec government had made a formal offer to Canada in terms of a bill (which most voters likely had not read nor understood) and of an agreement (which, again, most voters likely had not read nor understood). The word "offer" is itself problematic, as an offer requires an acceptance before a deal can be struck; and if the party to whom the offer is made does not accept, then no deal can be struck. I am left unsure just what voters were being asked in 1995, outside of some vague notion of sovereignty after certain conditions occur, with no guarantees that the offer mentioned would be accepted.

Here's a question of just six words in English, that would fit the terms of the Clarity Act perfectly:

"Should Quebec be an independent country?"

A majority Yes vote to that question would pretty much force the Canadian government to the negotiating table, as per the Reference Re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 S.C.R. 217.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2015, 12:09 AM
 
Location: Alberta, Canada
2,190 posts, read 1,762,605 times
Reputation: 2683
Quote:
Originally Posted by barneyg View Post
Nothing's hard about that.

"It will be Quebec's fault" -- I'm out of my league on legal arguments so I'll leave it at that, but you are usually much more nuanced when it comes to assessing blame and responsibility. "Quebec's fault" means it is partially my fault because I am a Québécois, even if I vote NO? I do know one thing: if some people are shot and some die because of this, it will be everybody's fault, including yours, because it will be a collective failure to peacefully resolve our collective differences.
Nice leap in logic, Barney. The proximate cause principle may work in tort law, but it does not in constitutional law.

Maybe the time for nuance is past. Maybe it is time to take a good, hard, cold look at Quebec independence, well beyond the Canadian constitution. What it means economically, socially, and politically. What it would mean in the world community of nations.

How many countries have celebrated their independence from the UK, from France, from Germany, from the Netherlands, from Belgium, in the 20th century? Plenty; and there have been British (or French or Dutch, etc.) soldiers standing at attention when their flag is lowered and the new one goes up, and parades, and happy children dancing in the streets. And how many of those, now free from their colonial masters (as I understand things, Quebec likes to paint itself as a "colony," though it is not, but let's just go with it for now), have been able to achieve anything like the standard of living of the "home" country?

So, Quebec would do well to plan for such an eventuality. As I see things, questions it will face include:

-- How it deals with First Nations; in particular, whether treaties concluded with the Crown would transfer to an independent Quebec, or whether they would have to be renegotiated.

-- How it deals with the United States. Would Quebec have to renegotiate anew the number of treaties that Canada and the US have, as regards criminal law, free trade, customs and immigration, among others? What might the US want to do about those?

-- What happens to Canadian government infrastructure currently in the province of Quebec. All those federal office buildings across the Ottawa River, military installations (e.g. CFB Bagotville), and so on, all of which were paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. Will an independent Quebec buy them? For how much?

-- What currency it will use. All are up for grabs, but Quebec should be aware that upon independence, it will not automatically use the Canadian dollar. Oh, it can, but it will be no more influential upon the Canadian dollar than Ecuador (which pegged its currency to the US dollar) is upon the US dollar: that is, no influence at all. Canadians will not allow foreigners (which Quebec will be after independence) a seat at the Bank of Canada; any more than Americans would allow foreigners a seat at the Federal Reserve.

Independence involves a lot more than flags and happy children dancing in parades. Quebec would do well to prepare for it.

Oh, and Barney? You're not at fault if anybody gets shot. Neither am I. The PQ and Quebec separatists are, or will be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2015, 07:01 AM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,967 posts, read 27,436,169 times
Reputation: 8626
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons View Post
Oh, and Barney? You're not at fault if anybody gets shot. Neither am I. The PQ and Quebec separatists are, or will be.
Them and the anti-French Quebec bashing crowd in Anglo-Canada, and the angryphone crowd in Quebec too, I'm afraid to say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2015, 07:02 AM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
21,967 posts, read 27,436,169 times
Reputation: 8626
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChevySpoons View Post

-- What happens to Canadian government infrastructure currently in the province of Quebec. All those federal office buildings across the Ottawa River, military installations (e.g. CFB Bagotville), and so on, all of which were paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. Will an independent Quebec buy them? For how much?

.
This makes it sound like people in Quebec don't pay federal taxes to the Canadian government!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2015, 07:17 AM
 
Location: Hougary, Texberta
8,607 posts, read 11,114,388 times
Reputation: 10334
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
This makes it sound like people in Quebec don't pay federal taxes to the Canadian government!
On the contrary, he's pointing out that the ownership of Federal institutions on Quebec soil do not solely belong to the people of Quebec to do with as they wish.

The better point would be that Quebec should remember that they didn't pay for all those things by themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2015, 07:54 AM
 
18,357 posts, read 10,426,450 times
Reputation: 13427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Them and the anti-French Quebec bashing crowd in Anglo-Canada, and the angryphone crowd in Quebec too, I'm afraid to say.
Horse pucky! Neither of those two commenced this whinefest theatrical production.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2015, 08:05 AM
 
34,479 posts, read 41,610,228 times
Reputation: 29948
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyyc View Post
On the contrary, he's pointing out that the ownership of Federal institutions on Quebec soil do not solely belong to the people of Quebec to do with as they wish.

The better point would be that Quebec should remember that they didn't pay for all those things by themselves.
A similar train of thought has me wondering does the province of Quebec belong to just francophones or all Canadians and if the latter what right do they have to consider leaving/separating with something that isnt rightfully theirs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Canada
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top