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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-- 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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
