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 08-16-2019, 08:31 AM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
22,345 posts, read 27,836,664 times
Reputation: 8754

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyyc View Post
Not my original question, but I would be interested to see that law. Last time I checked both South Sudan and East Timor essentially got either war or f u from their previous nations, and the only support is from foreign aid or the UN. They certainly weren't obligated to continue paying for an independent nation's existence.

That's the other side of that double edged blade.

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be multiple layers of support, but it's not an obligation.
Apologies. I don't think we're talking about the same thing.


Our friend JBGUSA seems to be saying that if Quebec were to become independent, an essential condition would be for it to pay Canada back for equalization over X years or decades, or pay Canada back for any federal infrastructure found on Quebec territory that the new country would theoretically "leave" with.


This is what I meant when talking about international law and precedents. Generally speaking when new countries are created, the seceding entity "leaves" with all of the stuff on its territory that built by or the property of the larger entity it used to be a part of. And both sides call it even.


In terms of financial assistance post-independence, no I don't think there would be anything of that sort (equalization or otherwise) coming from Canada to Quebec if the latter were to separate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-16-2019, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Hougary, Texberta
8,760 posts, read 11,267,666 times
Reputation: 10515
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
Apologies. I don't think we're talking about the same thing.


Our friend JBGUSA seems to be saying that if Quebec were to become independent, an essential condition would be for it to pay Canada back for equalization over X years or decades, or pay Canada back for any federal infrastructure found on Quebec territory that the new country would theoretically "leave" with.


This is what I meant when talking about international law and precedents. Generally speaking when new countries are created, the seceding entity "leaves" with all of the stuff on its territory that built by or the property of the larger entity it used to be a part of. And both sides call it even.


In terms of financial assistance post-independence, no I don't think there would be anything of that sort (equalization or otherwise) coming from Canada to Quebec if the latter were to separate.
I agree wholeheartedly with your assessment. I think we both thought of JBG's post in different ways, but we're in agreement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2019, 09:46 PM
 
69 posts, read 24,223 times
Reputation: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
Thanks. I had forgotten about Meech and Charlottetown. I cannot conceive of anywhere else that a unit of a country would be allowed to hold a "referendum" on secession, except for unique situations such as the modern shotgun (literally) marriage that created Czechoslovakia out of the rump of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. I thought the overall concept of secession was settled, except in rare cases, at Appomattox Courthouse, Virginia. Or maybe Gettysburg or Antietam.
I suppose most of the Irish who were alive at the time the they broke off from the UK weren't born yet during the American Civil War and thus had no idea it wasn't supposed to be doable, so they went ahead and did it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-18-2019, 05:25 AM
 
Location: New York Area
16,583 posts, read 6,561,893 times
Reputation: 12759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack View Post
What do you mean "for free"? You make it sound like people in Quebec don't pay federal taxes.


Going back in history, in the years before the 1867 Confederation, Canada East (now Quebec) and Canada West (Ontario) were merged in order that Canada East (pretty much debt free at the time) could take on a share of Canada West's debts, which were huge and crippling. So yeah, in the early days of the Canadian union, Quebec paid off Ontario's debts, or at least took on a huge chunk of them when Quebec itself didn't have much debt. These debts taken on by Canada West (Ontario) and paid for in large part by the ancestors of today's Quebecers, laid the infrastructure, etc. foundations of today's powerhouse Ontario.


Also, money mostly from Quebec and Ontario laid/paid for the foundations for much of Canada's expansion on the Prairies of the West. Especially Alberta and Saskatchewan.


These two central Canadian provinces (governments and people) also funded bailouts and assistance (in some case averting large-scale human death) multiple times in the first half of the 20th century when these regions were hard-hit by droughts.


Canadian historical knowledge! Very useful when debating!
Very interesting and thank you. But I thought the names were Upper Canada for what you call Canada West and Lower Canada for what you call Canada East. I had not known of that history before and I will do some reading. As far as financial support I'm sure that bilateral support would be out of the question. And I am not saying that Quebec isn't paying Federal taxes. But they are getting transfers in their favor, as well as favoritism for Quebec companies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2019, 07:03 PM
 
Location: Québec
64 posts, read 33,673 times
Reputation: 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
I suppose most of the Irish who were alive at the time the they broke off from the UK weren't born yet during the American Civil War and thus had no idea it wasn't supposed to be doable, so they went ahead and did it.
This is so true! I'm not sure what jbg is even talking about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2019, 07:30 PM
 
Location: New York Area
16,583 posts, read 6,561,893 times
Reputation: 12759
Quote:
Originally Posted by No Manners View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
Thanks. I had forgotten about Meech and Charlottetown. I cannot conceive of anywhere else that a unit of a country would be allowed to hold a "referendum" on secession, except for unique situations such as the modern shotgun (literally) marriage that created Czechoslovakia out of the rump of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. I thought the overall concept of secession was settled, except in rare cases, at Appomattox Courthouse, Virginia. Or maybe Gettysburg or Antietam.
I suppose most of the Irish who were alive at the time the they broke off from the UK weren't born yet during the American Civil War and thus had no idea it wasn't supposed to be doable, so they went ahead and did it.
This is so true! I'm not sure what jbg is even talking about.
What I was saying was that I cannot conceive of too many situations (not saying none) where a democracy will allow a part to "take its marbles" and go home" when the democratic dice (a term I borrow from a 1976 Wall Street Journal editorial that I remember) roll the wrong way. Usually the losing side of a debate in a democracy finds a way to live with the result. That much was settled at Appomattox Courthouse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2019, 09:03 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
22,345 posts, read 27,836,664 times
Reputation: 8754
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
Very interesting and thank you. But I thought the names were Upper Canada for what you call Canada West and Lower Canada for what you call Canada East. I had not known of that history before and I will do some reading. As far as financial support I'm sure that bilateral support would be out of the question. And I am not saying that Quebec isn't paying Federal taxes. But they are getting transfers in their favor, as well as favoritism for Quebec companies.
The latter is a matter of opinion. Certainly in negotiations on indpendence it would be a non sequitur.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2019, 09:04 PM
 
Location: Gatineau, Québec
22,345 posts, read 27,836,664 times
Reputation: 8754
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa View Post
What I was saying was that I cannot conceive of too many situations (not saying none) where a democracy will allow a part to "take its marbles" and go home" when the democratic dice (a term I borrow from a 1976 Wall Street Journal editorial that I remember) roll the wrong way. Usually the losing side of a debate in a democracy finds a way to live with the result. That much was settled at Appomattox Courthouse.
Quebec separatists did accept the result. Quebec is still part of Canada.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2019, 12:55 AM
 
Location: Montreal
484 posts, read 297,940 times
Reputation: 379
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikeyyc View Post
I think he meant post-independence. Why would nouveau-Canada be willing to support the New Quebec in any fashion without some compensation in return.
That's a good question, mikeycc, but the ROC takes a plethora of actions which make little sense for themselves.

I wouldn't even be shocked if a Quebec-less Canada continued to cater to Quebec in the event of independence.

After all, they willingly play junior-partner to the U.S. even when it doesn't benefit them.

The truth is that the government of Canada barely represents the typical anglo Canadian, and most anglo Canadians simply take it, or even defend it.

Look at Canada currently!

An unelected senate.

An unelected governor general.

Unelected party leaders, designated by the party.

Prime ministers winning with support of 30-something percent of the population.

It's not a bad position for Quebec to be in because we are effectively asserting autonomy. We should be more than grateful for all we have.

But realistically speaking, mikeycc and company, how does that make sense for a province like Alberta?

Nonetheless, they will stick with it, because it's what's been given to them and that's the Canadian way.

Maintain the status quo and keep things the same. Some even gloat "if it ain't boke, don't fix it". As if that is an honorable mentality.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2019, 01:27 AM
 
Location: Alberta, Canada
2,264 posts, read 1,806,452 times
Reputation: 2762
Quote:
Originally Posted by PBeauchamp View Post
Look at Canada currently!

An unelected senate.

An unelected governor general.

Unelected party leaders, designated by the party.
Yes, that's what's known as a "Westminster parliamentary system." If you want an American republican form of government, then just say so. And work towards such. Unless and until I see "PBeauchamp" heading rallies and protests to free us from a Westminster system, and pointing us towards a US Constitutional system, I'll pay your comments no heed.

Neither should anybody else. 'Nuff said for now.
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

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