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.
So that would lead me to believe according to you that the anglo population in Quebec is lower than previous levels - either in absolute terms or percentage of the population or both. So if it is lower and support for separation is lower now than in 95 it looks like the movement isn't gaining traction its losing vs 95 levels and in particular in the francophone community vs 95.
Feel free to clarify in terms of a percentage of the population of Quebec - does the Anglophone community represent a higher percentage or a lower in 2015 vs 1995? I'm also taking into account the majority of Anglophones would not vote for separation in a future referendum as was the case in 95 you being an exception of course.
Sorry about that Fusion.My computer has the odd habit of occasionally deleting all the text, if i dont check before posting it sends out a post like that one. .
Theres many less Anglophones here in Quebec today than there were in 1995 and while i dont have firm %s i see friends and family leaving the province all the time,The Eastern Townships where my wife is from was very English when we first met 40 yrs ago now its almost entirely French.
All the kids my daughters have gone and are going to school with the vast majority have or are moving out of Quebec.Every one i know who has left Quebec are united in their thinking theres is no future for Anglos in Quebec
Sorry about that Fusion.My computer has the odd habit of occasionally deleting all the text, if i dont check before posting it sends out a post like that one. .
lol I understand Jambo.. I don't dismiss you as an angryphone at all btw! I'm just trying to get a handle on what support the movement has now and likelihood that mister PKP will make a meaningful dent in the future so i'm looking at things on a macro level. Any smaller or more localized issues id need to read up on of course.
What PKPs influence on Quebec will be? only time will tell however as a man who controls the lionshare of Quebecs media he doesnt seem to get the concept of conflict of interest and refuses to divest himself of his financial interests in these mega media enterprises .
Last week a move to francicise all big box store names has resurfaced under Couillard and the Liberals, something the separatists tried to do, i'm surprised Couillard is chasing this as well= Quebec sign law would add touch of French to global chains like Walmart | Toronto Star
Those Anglophones who dont live in Quebec usually base their views on the occasional story of some linguistic anomaly,those of us who do live here get the frequent rude/snide and disrespectful attitudes from francophones particularly from major institutions like public transit/healthcare/ police/fire/DOT and EMTs.
lol I understand Jambo.. I don't dismiss you as an angryphone at all btw! I'm just trying to get a handle on what support the movement has now and likelihood that mister PKP will make a meaningful dent in the future so i'm looking at things on a macro level. Any smaller or more localized issues id need to read up on of course.
Support for independence is dynamic. Among Gen Y and Millenials, unconditional support for independence is certainly lower than among Baby Boomers and Gen X -- many people do not see the appeal and are not convinced that independence would solve (or make it easier to solve) any problems.
But that doesn't mean a 3rd referendum would be any more of a sure thing for the NO camp. The reason is that there aren't that many people under 35 who are unconditional federalists either. Polls have shown weak support for independence recently but to interpret this as "the separatist movement is dying" would be a very, very poor read of the situation. All it takes is for some crisis or hot button issue to make the question important again.
Tying back to jambo's point about Anglophones -- I doubt 'native' (pure laine) Anglos would be more likely to vote for separation in 2015 than in 1995. However, their demographic weight has declined, as has the demographic weight of pure laine Francophones -- to the benefit of immigrants (mostly Allophone but many Franco as well). Those demographic shifts are consistent with the decline of the importance of the indepedence question but they do not imply that a NO win would be any more of a sure thing in 2015/2020/2025 than in 1995. It is a latent issue not seen as a life and death issue right now (as opposed to health care or even the state of public finances right now) but it could become important again.
fusion2, re: the Clarity Act -- the reason why many people (esp. in Quebec but I would venture elsewhere in Canada too) dismiss the act is because they see it as what it truly is: a political tool. The act gives marginal negotiating power for the federal government against a Quebec government before and after a referendum. If a 3rd referendum happens, if the question is deemed in violation of the Clarity Act by some legal analyst or a court of law, and if 53% or 55% or 58% of Quebecers vote YES, then Quebec will separate. It might leave more on the table than if the question had been rubber-stamped by the federal gov't, but it will separate. The Clarity Act won't stop that from happening.
Support for independence is dynamic. Among Gen Y and Millenials, unconditional support for independence is certainly lower than among Baby Boomers and Gen X -- many people do not see the appeal and are not convinced that independence would solve (or make it easier to solve) any problems.
But that doesn't mean a 3rd referendum would be any more of a sure thing for the NO camp. The reason is that there aren't that many people under 35 who are unconditional federalists either. Polls have shown weak support for independence recently but to interpret this as "the separatist movement is dying" would be a very, very poor read of the situation. All it takes is for some crisis or hot button issue to make the question important again.
Tying back to jambo's point about Anglophones -- I doubt 'native' (pure laine) Anglos would be more likely to vote for separation in 2015 than in 1995. However, their demographic weight has declined, as has the demographic weight of pure laine Francophones -- to the benefit of immigrants (mostly Allophone but many Franco as well). Those demographic shifts are consistent with the decline of the importance of the indepedence question but they do not imply that a NO win would be any more of a sure thing in 2015/2020/2025 than in 1995. It is a latent issue not seen as a life and death issue right now (as opposed to health care or even the state of public finances right now) but it could become important again.
fusion2, re: the Clarity Act -- the reason why many people (esp. in Quebec but I would venture elsewhere in Canada too) dismiss the act is because they see it as what it truly is: a political tool. The act gives marginal negotiating power for the federal government against a Quebec government before and after a referendum. If a 3rd referendum happens, if the question is deemed in violation of the Clarity Act by some legal analyst or a court of law, and if 53% or 55% or 58% of Quebecers vote YES, then Quebec will separate. It might leave more on the table than if the question had been rubber-stamped by the federal gov't, but it will separate. The Clarity Act won't stop that from happening.
Thanks for this post and the information.. It for the most part clarifies the questions I was asking particularly regarding demographics and the relative weight of the anglo vote in the here and now vs 95. I never said that the movement is dead btw, I said right now relative to 95 its support isn't as strong and hasn't been for some time so the challenges of moving people to the yes side are still there (not dismissing challenges for the no side either).. Its more than just swaying 49 to 52 - its more like 40 to 52.. I get it though, nothing is certain and to be honest this doesn't disturb me.. For my entire life I've lived with this and it is a reality for us all in Canada. We are used to the 'unknown' about the Quebec situation. Its simply an ongoing neverending story.
As far as dismissal of the Clarity act how exactly would that be dismissed? Is it not the law and to what extent can it legally be dismissed by Quebec or any other Province for that matter - because it isn't liked or because it is not recognized legally? If it isn't recognized who doesn't recognize it and do they have a right not to recognize it. If they don't have the right to dismiss it and it is indeed recognized legally than I see no other choice but for Quebec or any other Province to comply with its requirements whether it is a tool or not the law is the law.
It could be said that asking people an ambiguous and unclear question regarding separation does indeed need to be addressed which I think the Clarity act does - otherwise the question could be misunderstood and much is on the line here - this isn't something with minimal consequenes lol - therefore the question should be very clear and totally unambiguous. So, there most certainly are elements to the clarity act I like and actually support - it makes sense to me - others I find more ambiguous and unclear. Anyway, I'm not stating that a majority yes vote would be dismissed and that negotiations with the R.O.C won't take place if that happens but it would certainly be interesting to see how those negotiations are settled in terms of how separation would look like in the end state - kind of like a divorce settlement who gets what. This still remains unclear to me as I imagine it would be to everyone at this point.
What PKPs influence on Quebec will be? only time will tell however as a man who controls the lionshare of Quebecs media he doesnt seem to get the concept of conflict of interest and refuses to divest himself of his financial interests in these mega media enterprises .
Last week a move to francicise all big box store names has resurfaced under Couillard and the Liberals, something the separatists tried to do, i'm surprised Couillard is chasing this as well= Quebec sign law would add touch of French to global chains like Walmart | Toronto Star
Those Anglophones who dont live in Quebec usually base their views on the occasional story of some linguistic anomaly,those of us who do live here get the frequent rude/snide and disrespectful attitudes from francophones particularly from major institutions like public transit/healthcare/ police/fire/DOT and EMTs.
Well i'm sure you can understand Jambo that the R.O.C has been through these things before. Its a cyclical thing.. Indeed time will tell how much influence this man will have - i'm simply asking questions. We generally don't lose sleep over these things in the R.O.C because you just become battle hardened to it if you will. I'm sure both sides will be out in full force if a future referendum is held. I'm just saying don't dismiss the length either side will go to advance its agenda. These things are never pretty and smear campaigns will be out in full force.
It would be better if cooler heads prevailed and worked on putting out ongoing fires but it just seems the last few decades things have been dormant. I'll read your links Jambo and learn more about the micro
As far as dismissal of the Clarity act how exactly would that be dismissed? Is it not the law and to what extent can it legally be dismissed by Quebec or any other Province for that matter - because it isn't liked or because it is not recognized legally? If it isn't recognized who doesn't recognize it and do they have a right not to recognize it. If they don't have the right to dismiss it and it is indeed recognized legally than I see no other choice but for Quebec or any other Province to comply with its requirements whether it is a tool or not the law is the law.
I guess I can only make my point with a hypothetical question. 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? Do you think the Quebec government would just say "oh damn, we would have loved to separate but we can't because of the Clarity Act"? Do you think Quebecers would then say "fair enough, what we just voted for is meaningless because the Clarity Act says the federal government decides whether/how we get to separate, we accept that"? As a federalist I would rather see the NO camp win. But my 2nd best outcome is a YES win coupled with a quick recognition from the federal government that Quebec is going to become a separate country. A YES win + federal gov't fighting the legitimacy of the vote is by far the worst outcome -- it will be hell here if that happens, and there will be violence.
In other words (or maybe a stronger point) -- the more the NO camp brings up the Clarity Act, the greater the support for the YES camp will be. The Act will parsimoniously be used as a threat during negotiations. Hardline separatists would be very happy if the NO camp made it a central part of its strategy as it would make their job easier, because they could bring the argument that English Canada considers Quebec as its colony, an argument that would work (and not just among idiots) regardless of how objectively true/false it is.
I guess I can only make my point with a hypothetical question. 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? Do you think the Quebec government would just say "oh damn, we would have loved to separate but we can't because of the Clarity Act"? Do you think Quebecers would then say "fair enough, what we just voted for is meaningless because the Clarity Act says the federal government decides whether/how we get to separate, we accept that"? As a federalist I would rather see the NO camp win. But my 2nd best outcome is a YES win coupled with a quick recognition from the federal government that Quebec is going to become a separate country. A YES win + federal gov't fighting the legitimacy of the vote is by far the worst outcome -- it will be hell here if that happens, and there will be violence.
In other words (or maybe a stronger point) -- the more the NO camp brings up the Clarity Act, the greater the support for the YES camp will be. The Act will parsimoniously be used as a threat during negotiations. Hardline separatists would be very happy if the NO camp made it a central part of its strategy as it would make their job easier, because they could bring the argument that English Canada considers Quebec as its colony, an argument that would work (and not just among idiots) regardless of how objectively true/false it is.
Your understanding of the clarity act and my understanding is completely different to be honest.
This is I think the most important point of the act
Giving the House of Commons the power to decide whether a proposed referendum question was considered clear before the public vote
Let me flip the hypothetical on you - say the question was not clear and was ambiguous - where would the legality in that be if there was a yes vote.. It could be called into question. So, a clear question is in the benefit of both sides if you ask me. Not just the 'NO' side but also the 'YES' because it ensures the vote is more sound due to a clear question and a clear YES or NO answer.
I think any nation needs to set up guidelines/rules/laws surrounding something as important as a country or division of said country so yes I do think that it is important to have something like the act in place. Otherwise it would be chaos and who is to say under what conditions separation can occur? The Premier of a Province? A First Nations Chief? A Hells Angel Gang Member? A corporate CEO?. I think the best group that rests with is the Federal government of the existing country and in this case that is Canada.
As for the act being used as a threat during negotiations I don't see how to be honest. If the question put forth to the people of Quebec is clear in a referendum and the majority vote yes - than I do believe at that point negotiations will take place that will end up with Quebec or any other province for that matter becoming a sovereign nation - but YES negotiations do happen lol in these instances.. How else can it be Barney.. We don't discuss important issues like this in advance because we don't want to p**s anyone off? How ridiculous is that? If we are going to have a national discussion on sovereignty of any Province than we are goin to have to have a discussion on some unpleasant things. We don't like to have unpleasant discussion though in this country seemingly Barney.. If we had unpleasant discussion - maybe just maybe we'd be resolving a lot of fundamental problems.. Its not about marginalizing or peeving off anyone, its ensuring we all know what will entail from beginning to end if a Province wants to go down that road.. Going down that road btw is one I'd love to avert even if it means airing dirty laundry.
One thing I've found in these discussions is that people just espouse the benefits one way or another based on how they see things when all is said and done but there is a process to get to the all is said and done - the end state if you will and why shouldn't that be discussed?
I guess I can only make my point with a hypothetical question. 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.
Violence? Well, yes. And the Canadian Army will move in to restore order. Some people may be shot. Some may die. And if that's the case, then it will be Quebec's fault, for not presenting a clear question. And in the end, Quebec will still remain a province of Canada.
But it need not be this way. Through the Clarity Act and the Reference Re Quebec Separation, the Canadian government has made it obvious that a province can separate from Canada if a substantial number of the electorate vote Yes on a clear question. It's not hard to do: just ask a clear question. In the next referendum, Quebec must ask the clear question: "Do you want Quebec to be an independent country; yes or no?" In those words, and their French equivalent. The votes are tallied, Quebec wins independence, or doesn't, and nobody gets shot.
What is so freakin' hard about that?
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.
