My nationalistic pride

[Benz]

Adebisi,

Well, the title is my nationalistic pride and the first poster was interested to know other nations point of view. I only compared your situation to ours and you see the results! HURRI-CANE seems to like his mysterious origin!

dingbat,

It seems that you like to read only what you want to read.

"You forgot the Cree, right?"

Nope, they are into my reply to Vrylakas. Go back to check it out. Crees have been driven into pathetic games between these "white" conflicts Ottawa-Québec. Now, ask the Crees if they want to leave the new deal they just signed up yesterday.

"Why are you so worried?"

Worried about who and what?

"Did you raise any issues? I've never seen you actually speak about issues. You've merely ranted about being treated like a dog. If you'd like to raise a specific issue, I'd be happy to discuss it."

Yes I did! Read again! I will do it again with bullet points to make it more clear for you.

- Québec is a different nation
- therefore, we must have a say into the constitution (the very least)
- we must have a decentralized central gov't to make sure that the federal will no longer force us to do what he wants us to do against our will. (the western provinces agree on that and they expect no less the same too)

You see? It is not that difficult! You don't have to drink the sea. All we are asking is respect and the freedom to manage our stuff like we want to. It is because you do not undertand this that we look foward sovereignty.

"Quebec has the right to opt in or open negotiations at any time, on the understanding that this is not a discussion between two equal parties but between 10 equal partners. "

9 of this 10 partners are English and one is French. The French one do not think like its neighbors. If they don't listen to what he has to say, he will leave and that is what gonna happen. 1982, the ROC has changed the constitution without us and we no longer have a say.

"When Quebec joined Canada, it didn't bring as much as the separatists are threatening to take away."

Wow! Because you think that you granted us our own land? Should we say thank you then? In 1840, when London unified both Ontario and Québec into one colony, they merged the debt of Ontario and split it to both. While Québec had not a debt as big as they had. Northen Québec (Nunavik) do not belongs to you. It belongs to the Inuit NATION and don't worry, we know how to negociate peacefully with natives. Ask the Crees and the Innus.

We are not threatening away something that belongs to English Canada.

I am not tender regarding English Canada and there is a specific reason for this. This issue is burning our energy for over 40 years now. We tryied several times to make them understand and there is no opening to resolve the problem. It always end up into the same result. 9 against 1! This is pissing us off. It is not because the situation is complicated, there is no goodwill to resolve the problem.

[The English do not deserve to "rule the constitution" and they do not. ]

Yes they do since april 1st, 1982. Québec is not a member of the constitution anymore.

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by Benz

"Did you raise any issues? I've never seen you actually speak about issues. You've merely ranted about being treated like a dog. If you'd like to raise a specific issue, I'd be happy to discuss it."

Yes I did! Read again! I will do it again with bullet points to make it more clear for you.

- Québec is a different nation
- therefore, we must have a say into the constitution (the very least)
- we must have a decentralized central gov't to make sure that the federal will no longer force us to do what he wants us to do against our will. (the western provinces agree on that and they expect no less the same too)

These are not issues. These are demands.

It seems to me you pretty much do want you want in Quebec anyway. Please list (cuz I know you've got a list) all the ways the federal government forces you to do what they want against your will. Those are issues.

"Quebec has the right to opt in or open negotiations at any time, on the understanding that this is not a discussion between two equal parties but between 10 equal partners. "

9 of this 10 partners are English and one is French. The French one do not think like its neighbors. If they don't listen to what he has to say, he will leave and that is what gonna happen. 1982, the ROC has changed the constitution without us and we no longer have a say.

J'accuse!

If you think those 9 out of 10 partners all think alike, you are guilty of the same ignorance you accuse English Canada of. Sorry, but you're not all that unique.

/bruce

 

[Benz]

*whisper*

"lease list (cuz I know you've got a list) all the ways the federal government forces you to do what they want against your will."

- Bill C-7, this bill raise the punition to the crimes and it include the youlth contravener. Despite we have one of the best performance of reabilitation, the federal do not want to let us manage this ourself. It will crap all the social works done here.

- Our National Asembly has voted unanimously in favor of a generous program to help women in maternity. The federal decided to stop it even if it is not of its business.

- Bill C-20, the federal is hijacking our inhireted rights to consult our own population. This law allow them to unvalidate our referenda if THEY THINK the question is not clear to THEIR understanding. It places them exactly into a conflict interest. So we made a bill 99 stating our institutions and Superior Court are the only one competent enough to judge it. If the federal does not agree, it will has to ask international supreme court.

- Social Union, the provinces (9) allows more flexibility to the federal to get into provincial's business. The federal applies it on Québec even if we haven't agreed.

- All the main and most important expenses are done by our gov't but, the federal collects as much money as Québec does. Then they want to participate in our expenses but, they have their conditions. These stuff are not of their business.

- Bourses du millénaires. The federal has finally retired itself but, they highjacked the students more than one year. They wanted to manage a program usually done by the provinces and of course, in a different way from us. Just to bother!

Do you want me to continu? I think you have enough here to play with.

"If you think those 9 out of 10 partners all think alike, you are guilty of the same ignorance you accuse English Canada of."

Of course they are differents! They do not have the same colored stick to hit my back. :lol *this was a joke*

There is 10 provinces but, we can easily talk about for 4 regions.

-East provinces (atlantic), they were very seasonnal oriented. The federal has not promoted any other kind of developpement and most of the R&D went to Ontario. My guess is they are the ones that suffered the most from the economic management from the federal. Actually, they are economically the poorest region of Canada. It is sad because they are pretty cool regions I like to visit.

-Québec, the only one French majority province. Different civil laws, different language, different orientation of politic and so on. It is one of the most socialist area of the north america. Although it is not socialist at all compared to East Europe.

-Ontario, biggest province 33% of the whole Canada. They own the federal's capital Ottawa and the biggest city, Toronto. Politic... mainly conservative.

-West, they have a curious feeling of being driving by the center but, when the time comes to defend their point, they sit down. West is interesting. Manitoba and Saskatchewan are mostly left winger, Alberta extremly right winger and BC... well, it is hard to say.

Canada is very different from coast to coast but, there is a single problem applied to all. The federal is taking to much powers over them and only Québec is doing opposition. The way it goes, it will collapse soon or later like the USSR.

When I say it is 9 against one, it is because they all signed the new federal's constitution even if they knew we wouldn't be in. The same thing happened in 1999 with the social union and the defeat of Meech in 1987 and 1990. They have no conscience problems with that. It doesn't matter at all that we are forced to swallow their rules without a say. "Let's go Quebec, shut up and follow us!". No my friends! We are not YOURS. Respect us as we are or... hasta luego, ciao, au revoir, do svidania comrads!

 

[muppet]

Originally posted by Benz
Hurricane,
Do you know that Québec is not only one talking about separation? It is the most serious one but, western provinces are very unsatisfied with the actual system and they are English, not French.

There are many people in many provinces, states, regions and districts that do not like where they are, or the government that they must obey. However, most of us that feel that way have a tendency to emmigrate. You can always leave. No? What you can't do is take land and territory that does not belong to you. Hmm... it would be really neat if me and my bros wanted to separate from Canada, claim our real estate and call that our own country. Sounds stupid, No?

As to those everywhere else in Canada that have wanted to separate this country -- it has always been about greed.

Did British Columbia want to separate when it was experiencing mass immigration and investment from Asia? Yup. There was talk in those days with Washington, Alberta, and Oregon about forming an independant economic zone. Because our so called earnings that had to be shared with everyone else that was not doing as well. Does Alberta wish to leave Canada now? Yup. Same stupid reasons.

Western provinces are NOT 'unsatisfied' with the situation. More correctly, 'greedy' westerners are unsatisfied with the situation.

I have no patience for greed, and am glad that these discussions about separation were uhm... killed!

I pay more in taxes in 10 years than most British Columbians will in their entire lifetime. I do not mind, in fact I am quite proud, that my taxes are being used to support the poorer interior provinces so that all Canadians can benefit. I am dissapointed that others in my position are so f*cking greedy.

 

[Vrylakas]

Benz wrote:

You don't know much about Québec for sure.

Very possible. Aside from a couple pleasure-trips, my point of reference is Central European minorities, any one of whom would have given anything to be annexed by Canada and live with the rights and conditions Quebecers have. It's just very difficult from that vantage point to understand what Quebec really has to complain about, at least in terms enough to want to secede.

"Economies don't run on nationalism. "

No? Nationalism is what took us from one of the poorest area to the big league. Our best move was the nationalization of Hydro-Québec. We are making profits big time even if we have the lowest cost rates in america.

Quebec was among the poorest of provinces until about 30 years ago when the provincial government began to liberalize its economy, attracting foreign investment and encouraging business growth (the "Quiet Revolution"). Still though, after 3 decades of a much higher rate of growth than the rest of Canada, Quebec's average individual income is still only 92% of of the rest of Canada's average. At both of the secession referendums, in 1980 and 1995, the Quebec economy tail-spinned. I was shocked how abandoned Montreal looked in 1996, like a ghost town - completely different from 1985.

Republican Ireland, Franco's Spain, Peron's Argentina, Junta-ruled Greece, Nasser's Egypt - all nationalist governments, and all experienced moribund economies until they rid themselves of the nationalists. Also, nationalist governments tend to borrow a lot of money, which Quebec has done, as a way of buying off the population. Quebec currently has the highest per capita provincial debt in Canada - though it must be said that at least the Quebecois nationalists have used what they have borrowed much better than most.

"Quebec will still find many of the resources and goods it relies on suddenly across foreign borders, and therefore more expensive to acquire. "

80% of our business is done with the USA. We are already seperate from the US as far as I am concren. Your logic do not hold the road. Conflicts and protections exist between provinces because the NAFTA does not cover it.

No - 86% of Quebec's foreign business is done with the U.S. Clearly, the U.S. is the province's main international trading partner. However, overall the U.S. comes in at 6th on Quebec's export list. Ontario is #1. 40% of Quebec's total GDP is exported, about half of it to the rest of Canada and half internationally. A quote from a Canadian government report on the Quebec economy: "While trade relations are especially strong between Quebec and Ontario, it is important to note that Quebec exports as much to Newfoundland as it does to such countries as Japan and France."

Also, everywhere I looked on American websites in reference to a Quebec secession, the opinion is negative. I also recall hearing some American officials voice negative opinions about Quebec independence. The likelihood seems to be that the U.S. would not automatically support and grant an independent Quebec the same treaty status that the province enjoys through its association with Canada. Ottawa and Washington have a HUGE amount of commerce-related treaties, and the evidence suggests that Washington would not consider Quebec a party to them - which means an economic brick wall would suddenly spring up along the St. Lawrence River. Remember that 86% of Quebec's foreign trade going to the U.S....?

I cruised some old brokerage analysts' websites to see what their take on Quebec independence would be, and just about all agreed - the Canadian economy would be very hard hit, but the Quebec economy would tank. Quebec provincial bonds probably won't be worth the paper they're printed on. And this is all assuming the secession is peaceful and amicable...

"the hydroelectric power generators at Niagara Falls) and Quebec's plans (as I've read them) would require the abrogation of Canada's treaties with the Cree Indians and provoke the wrath of international environmental groups. "

First of all, Niagara is in Ontario besides Buffalo.

Yup. I lived in Buffalo for years.

It has nothing to do with us.

Wrong; it's competition for power export. Major utilities can export power far afield from their own power-grid networks. (For instance, some Canadian utilities are currently selling electricity to California.) Quebec is pinning much financial hope on being able to make a major splash in the utility market - and as I was pointing out, this business will be born in a crowded local neighborhood. Quebec is obviously looking southward at the far more populous American market.

Second, It is very funny that you talk about it because, Québec and the Crees have officially signed YESTERDAY the treaty you talk about. :lol The treaty is called "La paix des braves". Very good news for us and for the natives.

Very good news indeed, although it is already kicking up some dust I see. There are claims that Chief Moses rammed it through, designing the vote so that there would intentionally be a very low voter turn-out - with his supporters making sure they did vote. Thanks for the update. BTW, I didn't see in any of teh stories I read about this; are the Inuit involved with this treaty?

"Also, nationalist governments tend to scare away tourists, which is a problem with tourism being Quebec's biggest industry currently."

Oh boy! You definitly don't know what is going here. The Québec is one of the most visited province in Canada. There is so many festivals in Montréal and its reputation is known around the world. Such as Jazz festival, Formula one racing (we recently got a championship of the Cart serie) and so on. The tourism industry never suffered from politics. Even in 1995, the year of the last referendum.

Montreal and Quebec City are indeed world famous, but I strongly beg to differ about the effects of the referendum. Leading up to that referendum, there was a capital flight from Montreal, with businesses fleeing to more secure markets. Also, foreign investment (according to a September 2001 Canadian government report I found) still has not achieved pre-1995 levels, although it is picking up quickly again. The Bank of Montreal was one of the many businesses to move its HQ out of the province, and indeed I recall seeing numerous news reports about this capital flight. As I mentioned, I visited Montreal in 1996 and was shocked at how empty the main business district was. The American economy (a major foreign trade partner for Quebec) at the time was in the midst of its strongest period of growth in its history, and yet the province's economy was clearly in recession. Since then it has recovered greatly, and why? Because the nationalists have learned to keep their mouths shut about another referendum, instead promoting economic stability and viability in Quebec - a very smart move.

"the Gypsies just about everywhere - I think any of these minority groups would be very happy to have the status and condition Quebec "suffers" with in Canada."

We are no Gypsies! Come visit us and you will see what is our society. It is not because we have a better status than the Hungarians of Italy that we will sit on our chair and wait into a golden prison. The issue is, we deserve a say into the constitution of our country. We will get it with or with the ROC(rest of Canada). That is as simple as this. It is because they do not want to understand that we will go by our own.

I didn't say Quebecois were Gypsies. I have visited Quebec a few times already, and no doubt will again sometime. And what's this about the Hungarians of Italy? I didn't realize there was a Hungarian minority in Italy (aside from perhaps Cicciolina...). Italy does not rule any Hungarian-populated areas, although it does rule territories once belonging to Hungary - Trieste and the Istrian Peninsula - but these are Italian, Slovene and Croat-populated areas. Ya got me confused here.

As for a say in the Constitution, didn't Quebec refuse to ratify the 1982 Canadian Constitution, which is the reason Quebec has little input into Constitutional issues?

"but as far as I've seen, the PQ isn't capable of either of these conditions"

If you read crap, I can't help you?

Do you define "crap" as all literature that doesn't agree with your opinions? Let's try and keep this civil at least, and not use pejorative terms, OK?

By the way, it is true that several companies exile to Toronto but, it happened mostly after the first election of the PQ in 1976. Before and after the referendum of 1995, there was no big moves. The fear no longer works in Québec. This kind of witches chase is clearly not outdated. By the way, Toronto is sucking every business in Canada anyway and it makes all the regions upset. We are doing pretty good today and specially in the technology domain. Montréal is in the top 5 cities in america regarding the technology industry.

Yes, it's true that the Quebec economy is doing much better nowadays, but for the reason I mentioned - that the PQ has lowered its rhetoric and concentrated on building up the province. And businesses don't abandon their home areas and flee simply on rumor. They look at realistic analyst reports on likely economic consequences.

"And this is my major concern about Quebec independence; that it will result in a poor, embittered Quebec that is a source of crime, cross-border smuggling and internal persecution of its own minorities that will keep it fairly isolated on the world stage. It's not so much the principal of independence I fear as how it's achieved."

That is pure bigotery. None of what you are saying is realistic. It is clear that you don't know Québec, our society, our culture, our history, our model and so on. International persecution? Let me laugh! The English minority group here is one of the most well protected minority of the world. I'm telling you man! You are way off track. You are having a so bad and non realistic opinion of us that I don't know where to start. I this point, all I can say is come see us by yourself and you will see how wrong you are.

I don't quite see the part about how I'm a bigot - but I'll ignore your name-calling and move on to the rest of your point. I wrote Internal persecution, not international. I don't understand why you're taking this so personally - I'm not attacking you. Relax! I was projecting what I think would likely happen should Quebec achieve independence. As I read projections by the Ontario provincial government today, I saw that they have come to similar conclusions. You seem to have some sort of persecution complex, that you need to attack me so strongly. I laughed when I read your statements above, somewhat stunned.

You have no idea of all the crap the federal gov't is doing in that country. Just few exemples... The budget of R&D (very big budget) goes like this, Ontario 50%, Québec 8%. R&D creates jobs and business, Ontario wins over every other provinces big time. Our Hydro developpment was funded only by our provincial gov't but, the Ontario Nuclear Plants are big time funded by the federal. Do I have to tell you that it is alot of money? This mean, we are paying for either OUR electricity and THEIR electricity. The list of theses crappy stuff is very long. Econnomically, I have no fear at all.

I understand there are many arguments about how public finance is handled in Canada, but is secession the only way to deal with these issues? This is really the gist of my argument, that I think Quebec is reaching for independence more on nationalist than rational grounds. I'm trying to point out, as someone who studies new states and the struggles they face, that statehood is not quite the automatic magic answer that many believe it to be. Quebec also derives much benefit from being in Canada, and I haven't seen that angle explored on any of the websites you posted; a more rational approach would be to ask, "OK, what are we losing by doing this?" but I don't see any of that kind of discussion yet. It appears to me to be a blind leap into darkness, with little real contemplation of how this will impact those in Quebec or those surrounding Quebec.

As I mentioned in my initial post on this subject, I'm not against Quebec independence - I'm only questioning how it's being done. There was a joke circulating around Prague in the early 1990s that went like this: "In Bratislava there are Slovaks, and in Prague there are Czechoslovaks..." That was a separation that was similarly "inevitable", but at least it was well-thought out and planned. No violence and minimal economic pain for both parties. I can only hope that if Quebec makes a move in that direction, it will be done similarly.

Do you know that Québec is not only one talking about separation? It is the most serious one but, western provinces are very unsatisfied with the actual system and they are English, not French.

Yes, I know. As I recall BC and Alberta nominally asked to join the U.S. several years back. The big issue for the Western provinces is the tax structure of Canada, which heavily favors the East over the West. (Alberta is the only province that actually pays out more taxes than it receives back in the form of grants, etc.) BTW, you'll note that when the Western provinces made their request, Washington did react immediately with a statement (despite one guy in Congress) to the effect that the U.S. would not entertain any move that would break up Canada - a bad precedent for Quebec.

The figures I used in this post I gathered the Canadian government finance website, the Quebec provincial finance website (though their .pdf files were only in French), the Ontario provincial website and various news articles relevant to the subject, all from financial news sources I know to be trustable.

 

[Benz]

muppet,

"you can't do is take land and territory that does not belong to you. Hmm... "

Then you are clearly saying that we are not at home here in Québec. We are here for the last 300 years but, it is not our home.

"I do not mind, in fact I am quite proud, that my taxes are being used to support the poorer interior provinces so that all Canadians can benefit. I am dissapointed that others in my position are so f*cking greedy."

Well, this mean you are definitly not an Canadian Alliance member or anykind of right winger! I perfectly agree with you that led by greed feelings to separate, is not a good option.

Tell me muppet, why do you think the English part of Canada can rules the country alone? Why the French part can't have a say on the constitution?

Only because you out number us?

Our solution of doing an European-like confederation would resolves the problem but... no solution from this black sheep must be accepted isn't it?


Vrylakas,

"Also, nationalist governments tend to borrow a lot of money, which Quebec has done, as a way of buying off the population. "

From 1985 to 1994, the Liberal party of Quebec had the power. They made big deficits every single year of their reign. They raised the debt so high that we will pay the consequences for several years. Since 1996, the PQ successfully reduced the deficit to zero. Your argument does not hold the road, sorry!

"No - 86% of Quebec's foreign business is done with the U.S. "

Yes, you are right, sorry!

"Also, everywhere I looked on American websites in reference to a Quebec secession, the opinion is negative. "

To be honest my friend, it does not matter at all.

"Ottawa and Washington have a HUGE amount of commerce-related treaties, and the evidence suggests that Washington would not consider Quebec a party to them "

Very nice! And .... what is the reason of this friendly attitude? The fear that we will do treaties with Fidel Castro? That we will invited Bin Laden? That we will support Sadam Hussein? What is the silly reason why the USA would be very interested to do business with the rest of america and not with us? I do not recall that I ever see a capitalist stop doing business and money because a land became free. What would be interesting from the members of the NAFTA to lose Québec?

Mike Harris, former prime minister of the Ontario never being scared to say that the Ontario would do business with an independent Québec as usual. Why? Because Ontario makes more money with us than we do with them. Their income from us is around 1G per year.

"I don't quite see the part about how I'm a bigot "

No? then what is this?

"that it will result in a poor, embittered Quebec that is a source of crime, cross-border smuggling and internal persecution of its own minorities that will keep it fairly isolated on the world stage. "

So you are telling me that my society will become like this if we get independent and you expect me to react gently to this? I can bet you anytime and what you want that we won't. There is no intelligent explanations from you to come at this conclusion.

"You seem to have some sort of persecution complex"

Of course, look at yourself! Let me recall you that what you are saying to us today, Britain was saying even worse on the US before they got their independence.

"I can only hope that if Quebec makes a move in that direction, it will be done similarly. "

Do you see any act of violence somewhere in Québec regarding sovereignty movement?

"Czechoslovaks..."

hmmm, they were communist! It was even harder than it will be for us.

"As for a say in the Constitution, didn't Quebec refuse to ratify the 1982 Canadian Constitution, which is the reason Quebec has little input into Constitutional issues? "

aaahhhhh! Here is the jackpot!

In 1982, they ratifyied the constitution the way they want it to be. We haven't signed it because we were not satified with it. They decided that they no longer need us to change the constitution and this is why they signed it without us even if we never left the negociation table. London granted the constitution of Canada to Ottawa even if we asked London to not allow them to do such thing.

We have been betrayed and the situation is still like this today. They do not want to change it to accomodate us. They want to be able to change it without us. And of course, they expect us to follow exactly what they are telling us to do. OVER MY DEAD BODY!

Would you sign something like that? Would you allow another nation to rules exclusively the constitution of your own country?

 

[Evie]

Oh, there is a reason why people outside Québec would think of a free Québec given to internal persecution.

It died a few months back, and was called Mordecai Richler. A reason whom, might I add, was one of the worst source of lies about Québec in history. He was generally speaking an outcast of the Québec Jewish community because of his ridiculous statements about Québec. Most Québec federalist (IE : excluding Alliance Québec) were rather annoyed with his editorials that painted a completely false view of Québec.

Aside from a few biggots (on all side, Richler and that guy who brought about Bouchard's resignation with his tantrum*) that can be found in every nation on the planet, Québec is actually quite open, except for the difference in language, and that's not really that much of a problem since more and more the french-speaking Québécois also develop a decent english.

As for my personal opinion on independance or Canada...if we had anyone but Chrétien for prime minister (Martin and co for example), things would run in a far smoother way. Chrétien is just dead-set on drawing hatred from Québec, and his government constantly infringe on the provincial sphere of action.

Otherwise, I don't frankly care wheter I live in Québec or Canada. I see no reason to go away, and no reason to stay in - nothing that would get me strongly loyal to Canada, and nothing that would make me want at all cost to be away from Canada.

Nationalist pride is overrated anyway. I don't see myself as Québécois or Canadian or even North American. I'm human, and that's that. I feel no closer to a guy because he live inside the same randomly determined geographic limits as I do than I feel to a guy living in another country.

If only more in the world felt that way, mankind wouldn,t be so screwed up.

 

[Vrylakas]

Benz wrote:

Vrylakas,

"Also, nationalist governments tend to borrow a lot of money, which Quebec has done, as a way of buying off the population. "

From 1985 to 1994, the Liberal party of Quebec had the power. They made big deficits every single year of their reign. They raised the debt so high that we will pay the consequences for several years. Since 1996, the PQ successfully reduced the deficit to zero. Your argument does not hold the road, sorry!

They've reduced the annual budget deficit to zero (which is major progress), but not the debt. As I said, Quebec still has the largest provincial per capita debt in Canada. It's not say they haven't made significant progress in this direction, but the debt issue is still valid. It may however indeed be that the Liberals initiated this debt; I'm not sure. If that's the case then the PQ have done well by attempting to rein it in.

"No - 86% of Quebec's foreign business is done with the U.S. "

Yes, you are right, sorry!

"Also, everywhere I looked on American websites in reference to a Quebec secession, the opinion is negative. "

To be honest my friend, it does not matter at all.

Unfortunately it is significant. The U.S. would certainly never be able to stop Quebec from seceding from Canada and wouldn't lift a finger to attempt doing so, but it is very probable that Washington would refuse to allow Quebec to be considered a signatory to the various U.S.-Canadian treaties relative to commerce. That would be the equivalent to Washington slapping high tariffs on Quebec products, which again would make Quebec commerce much more expensive. I can assure you that this would have a very significantly negative impact on the economy in Quebec.

Quebec's salvation in this regard may be local interests, meaning that the U.S. states who trade with Quebec may lobby hard in Washington on Quebec's behalf. However, only one of the main trading partners among U.S. states I saw on the Quebec website is a "big" state with real political clout in Washington (New York). I strongly suspect that the American reaction would be pinned to exactly how Quebec independence came about; a negotiated and legal disengagement arranged between Ottawa and Quebec City would probably involve negotiations with Washington (and even Mexico City because of NAFTA) on adding Quebec to the various treaties as a formal signatory. A unilateral Quebec secession however may invoke American anger enough for the U.S. to be happy to watch Quebec twist on the vine for a while.

And that was only half of my original point; my figures showed that half of Quebec's exports go to Canada, principally to Ontario. This is the half that would suddenly have to transport across a foreign border, which in every case - even between friendly countries like the U.S. and Canada with trade treaties like NAFTA - raises prices. The cost of transport itrself will go up simply because there are now two different authorities maintaining the system - look at Europe! And once again, local (especially Ontario) business interests may lobby for a normalization of relations, but the outcome really depends on how the separation would take place; business interests do not always win.

"Ottawa and Washington have a HUGE amount of commerce-related treaties, and the evidence suggests that Washington would not consider Quebec a party to them "

Very nice! And .... what is the reason of this friendly attitude? The fear that we will do treaties with Fidel Castro? That we will invited Bin Laden? That we will support Sadam Hussein? What is the silly reason why the USA would be very interested to do business with the rest of america and not with us? I do not recall that I ever see a capitalist stop doing business and money because a land became free. What would be interesting from the members of the NAFTA to lose Québec?

Canada is the United States' #1 trading partner, #1 security partner and the country that shares the most with the U.S. in just about all categories, including culture. They are two different countries with distinct traditions, but it would be difficult to find two other countries who share so much in common. And, put on an emotional level, most Americans simply like Canada. (That was the humor behind the South Park spoof film a couple years back with the hit song "Blame Canada!"...) Their economies and security needs are so intertwined that pain for one means pain for the other; now can you understand the American fear of instability in Canada over Quebec? You are correct that business interests would indeed eventually pressure both Ottawa and Washington to resolve the situation - and from a purely economic standpoint it would be to everyone's interests to find a solution but again, business interest does not always win. I'll give an example below in response to your statement on why I'm a bigot.

Mike Harris, former prime minister of the Ontario never being scared to say that the Ontario would do business with an independent Québec as usual. Why? Because Ontario makes more money with us than we do with them. Their income from us is around 1G per year.

Again, it would depend how Quebec leaves, were it to do so.

"I don't quite see the part about how I'm a bigot "

No? then what is this?

"that it will result in a poor, embittered Quebec that is a source of crime, cross-border smuggling and internal persecution of its own minorities that will keep it fairly isolated on the world stage. "

So you are telling me that my society will become like this if we get independent and you expect me to react gently to this? I can bet you anytime and what you want that we won't. There is no intelligent explanations from you to come at this conclusion.

I wasn't targeting Quebec in particular with that statement. Look at most of Continental Europe in the interbellum years; a multitude of states were born (or reborn), all with high hopes and all with the unfortunately automatic assumption that independence = all problems solved. It doesn't. Achieving independence is one thing; maintaining a viable state is quite another. Trade relations between states all over the continent were stunted by nationalists who wouldn't trade with rivals, economic plans were subjugated to political (nationalist) ideologies, and many - most? - ended up as, and I quote, "poor, embittered [states] that were a source of crime, cross-border smuggling and internal persecution of their own minorities." Poland, Romania, the Baltic states, Austria, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Albania and to a lesser extent Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Greece all fell into this pattern. It is an old model that has been by now played out all over the world in failed or semi-failed states. My own family has come to the U.S. as a result of just such a scenario of failed statehood. There are also those who have returned from that abyss, the examples of Spain, Greece and Ireland providing current models of successful and prosperous reformed states. Quebec seems to me to be potentially fitting this category of a (potential) state that would be inclined to make decisions based on nationalism rather than economic or political rational.

A bigot to me is someone who holds beliefs about a people based on their innate qualities and not their actions, and would say something like "Quebec people are clearly incapable of running an independent country and never will be." I've never said anything like this; my statement is that the PQ seem likely to me to jump at independence based on nationalist reasons and the result will be a tragedy for Quebec and its neighbors.

"You seem to have some sort of persecution complex"

Of course, look at yourself! Let me recall you that what you are saying to us today, Britain was saying even worse on the US before they got their independence.

Fair enough - but perhaps you should recall that the U.S. spent its first few decades in financial dispair, and is very likely very lucky that Europe was too preoccupied with the Napoleonic Wars to interfere with the new country across the ocean. Even with the 1812-14 war between the U.S. and Britain, the British were only able to bring minimal pressure to bear against the Americans until the very end (ironically to the final battle of the war, which they lost). Also, what do you mean, "What you're saying to us"? Who do you think I am? Do you think I'm a Canadian Interior Ministry functionary or something? You seem to have me pegged as an enemy, and I'm not sure exactly why.

"I can only hope that if Quebec makes a move in that direction, it will be done similarly. "

Do you see any act of violence somewhere in Québec regarding sovereignty movement?

Independence hasn't been attempted yet. That's when I fear the potential for violence. BTW, several of the news articles I read on the subject mentioned that polls indicate since the Quebec economy has been recovering that support for indepenedence throughout the province has dropped somewhat. Is there a corallary between the recession of the 80s and 90s and the independence movement?

"Czechoslovaks..."

hmmm, they were communist! It was even harder than it will be for us.

They weren't communists when Slovakia separated at the end of 1991. The joke was a Czech joke, and refered to the level of frustration Czechs felt with having poured resources into Slovakia for nearly a century and yet the Slovaks still wanted to separate. To be fair to the Slovaks, by virtue of their smaller population and poorer economy they played a lesser role in the country even despite numerous Constitutional controls in place that ensured Slovaks were represented at every level of the national government, and that both languages were used nationally. I might point out, BTW, that after separation Slovakia soon decended into an economic abyss (like the one I predicted) and collapsed into a pseudo-dictatorship and police state under Meciar for most of the 1990s. It became isolated from the EU and the U.S., even making a move at one point to attempt to join the CIS of the former Soviet Union. Within the last couple years however it has recovered somewhat and is on track to potentially join NATO and maybe even the EU - but it's been a long and painful decade for Slovaks.

"As for a say in the Constitution, didn't Quebec refuse to ratify the 1982 Canadian Constitution, which is the reason Quebec has little input into Constitutional issues? "

aaahhhhh! Here is the jackpot!

In 1982, they ratifyied the constitution the way they want it to be. We haven't signed it because we were not satified with it. They decided that they no longer need us to change the constitution and this is why they signed it without us even if we never left the negociation table. London granted the constitution of Canada to Ottawa even if we asked London to not allow them to do such thing.

What were the issues that made Quebec abstain from ratifying it?

We have been betrayed and the situation is still like this today. They do not want to change it to accomodate us. They want to be able to change it without us. And of course, they expect us to follow exactly what they are telling us to do. OVER MY DEAD BODY!

Oddly enough, the rhetoric I hear from the English-language Canadian press is they feel betrayed by Quebec. They also claim Quebec is inflexible and will not accomodate the rest of the country, despite what they see as many concessions to Quebec. This situation sounds a bit more complicated and less cut-and-dried (as Americans say) to me than you're portraying it.

Would you sign something like that? Would you allow another nation to rules exclusively the constitution of your own country?

I need to understand it better to reply. Do you have a link with the full text I could review? A few caveats though: 1. Quebec is not yet a country so having others have an impact on its Constitutional status is to be expected, rather like New Jersey must allow for the Federal Constitution in the U.S.; 2. when in a country, politics is ruled by compromise and accomodation. No one is going to get everything they want. That Quebec is a distinct society within Canada is clear and I don't have any automatic answers about how best to preserve Quebec's unique culture - indeed, maybe independence is the only solution, although as I think Bruce mentioned the reality that Quebec is surrounded by English language culture and will continually be bombarded by it through the media, etc. will not change - but it's just that I don't think independence is necessarily the only answer, and I base this on my historical insights on what happened in Europe in the 20th century (including to a certain degree France, with its failed 3rd and 4th Republics) and elsewhere since. Again (broken record here), I am not necessarily against Quebec independence, rather I'm so far not convinced by your arguments or those I've seen elsewhere that it is the only way.

 

[SkidiWili]

When did we move to Quebec?

 

[Vrylakas]

Oda Nobunaga wrote

Aside from a few biggots...that can be found in every nation on the planet...

Yes indeed; no country is ever completely clean of them.

Québec is actually quite open, except for the difference in language, and that's not really that much of a problem since more and more the french-speaking Québécois also develop a decent english.

That's been my general experience, at least in the cities.

As for my personal opinion on independance or Canada...if we had anyone but Chrétien for prime minister (Martin and co for example), things would run in a far smoother way. Chrétien is just dead-set on drawing hatred from Québec, and his government constantly infringe on the provincial sphere of action.

Why is this? I tried to watch a Canadian Parliamentary debate once and was surprised how bad Chretien's English was. Why is he seen to be against Quebec, especially since he's a Francophone?

Otherwise, I don't frankly care wheter I live in Québec or Canada. I see no reason to go away, and no reason to stay in - nothing that would get me strongly loyal to Canada, and nothing that would make me want at all cost to be away from Canada.

Nationalist pride is overrated anyway. I don't see myself as Québécois or Canadian or even North American. I'm human, and that's that. I feel no closer to a guy because he live inside the same randomly determined geographic limits as I do than I feel to a guy living in another country.

Amen to that. It's much more important to live in a place that affords you a decent chance at a good standard of living, relative freedom and security. If Albania is the only place to offer it, then I'm off. (Luckily, many more places around the world offer these things... )

If only more in the world felt that way, mankind wouldn,t be so screwed up.

Yup. Your nightly news would be economists and sports. Unfortunately, in reality life is much more like a Civ game...

SkidiWili wrote:

When did we move to Quebec?

I think Benz brought it up, but quite legitimately - the thread is on "My Nationalistic Pride", and not pinned to any particular nation.

 

[Evie]

Originally posted by Vrylakas

Aside from a few biggots...that can be found in every nation on the planet...

Yes indeed; no country is ever completely clean of them.

Québec is actually quite open, except for the difference in language, and that's not really that much of a problem since more and more the french-speaking Québécois also develop a decent english.

That's been my general experience, at least in the cities.

As for my personal opinion on independance or Canada...if we had anyone but Chrétien for prime minister (Martin and co for example), things would run in a far smoother way. Chrétien is just dead-set on drawing hatred from Québec, and his government constantly infringe on the provincial sphere of action.

Why is this? I tried to watch a Canadian Parliamentary debate once and was surprised how bad Chretien's English was. Why is he seen to be against Quebec, especially since he's a Francophone?

Chrétien's Canada-famous for being equally fluent - READ : equally inept - in both official languages. As for the rest, he's a strong federalist, determinate to act in every domain even those he shouldn't be acting in, to take no notice of the specific cases of provinces, etc.

For example, his government recently passed a bill about teens crime. That one was about allowing adult prison sentence for kid 14 and up instead of the old 16 and up. Problem is, Québec has been running with great success a prevention/rehab program instead of sending them to "Crime's big school" for many years, has a low crime rate compared to the canadian average...

And yet they force that law on us, despite being repeatedly asked by *EVERY* political, and legal (the prosecutors, the defense attorneys, the judges, the Assemblé Nationale (parliament) - in an unanimous vote) force in Québec to make room for provinces to opt out of it.

Otherwise, I don't frankly care wheter I live in Québec or Canada. I see no reason to go away, and no reason to stay in - nothing that would get me strongly loyal to Canada, and nothing that would make me want at all cost to be away from Canada.

Nationalist pride is overrated anyway. I don't see myself as Québécois or Canadian or even North American. I'm human, and that's that. I feel no closer to a guy because he live inside the same randomly determined geographic limits as I do than I feel to a guy living in another country.

Amen to that. It's much more important to live in a place that affords you a decent chance at a good standard of living, relative freedom and security. If Albania is the only place to offer it, then I'm off. (Luckily, many more places around the world offer these things... )

If only more in the world felt that way, mankind wouldn,t be so screwed up.

Yup. Your nightly news would be economists and sports. Unfortunately, in reality life is much more like a Civ game...

Yeah - a very brutale one.

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga

For example, his government recently passed a bill about teens crime. That one was about allowing adult prison sentence for kid 14 and up instead of the old 16 and up. Problem is, Québec has been running with great success a prevention/rehab program instead of sending them to "Crime's big school" for many years, has a low crime rate compared to the canadian average...

And yet they force that law on us, despite being repeatedly asked by *EVERY* political, and legal (the prosecutors, the defense attorneys, the judges, the Assemblé Nationale (parliament) - in an unanimous vote) force in Québec to make room for provinces to opt out of it.

Chretien is a threat to all provinces. We have become a one party system and it infuriates me that the Conservatives and Alliance allow this to continue. But that's another story.

I really believe Quebec should have the right to continue with their prehab program, if it is seeing success. But you'll excuse me if I don't consider this enough of a reason to consider separation.

Regards,
/bruce

 

[Evie]

Originally posted by DingBat


Chretien is a threat to all provinces. We have become a one party system and it infuriates me that the Conservatives and Alliance allow this to continue. But that's another story.

I really believe Quebec should have the right to continue with their prehab program, if it is seeing success. But you'll excuse me if I don't consider this enough of a reason to consider separation.

Regards,
/bruce

I never said it was, I said it was a reason to dislike his royal highness Jean I of Canada.

I said it earlier, I frankly don't give a damn about separation.

 

[Hurricane]

There have been many good thoughts by everybody on this thread (and it haven´t even turned into a flame war... yet)

I tend to think that Vrylakas is perhaps overly pessimistic about Quebec ruling itself, but on the other hand, I think Benz is perhaps asking for too much. Do Quebec really need independence, which means own foreign politics, an own army, own monetary system and so on? With good experiences of how things were done in Finland, would not far-reaching self-government be better? I really think you should study the Aland Islands case a bit more.

This is quoted from the Aland Lagting´s (their parliament) web pages:

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ÅLAND - ÅLAND'S OWN PARLIAMENT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WHICH SPHERES CAN THE LAGTING PASS LAWS?
Thanks to their autonomy, the Ålanders possess the right to pass laws themselves concerning their own internal matters and to exercise budgetary powers. The legislative assembly or ''parliament'' of Åland is called the Lagting. The Lagting appoints the Landskapsstyrelse, Åland's ''government.'' Rules on the autonomy are contained in the Act on the Autonomy of Åland, which can only be altered by the Parliament of Finland in constitutional order and with the consent of the the Åland Lagting. The current Autonomy Act came into force on 1 January 1993.
The Autonomy Act specifies the spheres in which the Åland Lagting has the right to pass laws. The most important sectors are
­ education, culture and preservation of ancient monuments
­ health and medical services
­ promotion of industry
­ internal communications
­ municipal administration
­ the police service
­ the postal service
­ radio and television.
We may say that in these spheres Åland functions in just about the same way as an independent state with its own legislation and administrative machinery.

WHICH SPHERES BELONG TO THE AUTHORITIES OF FINLAND?
In spheres where the Lagting does not possess legislative competence, the laws of Finland apply just like in the rest of the country.
Examples of such sectors are
­ administration of foreign affairs
­ most aspects of civil and penal law
­ courts of justice
­ customs and monetary services.
To enable the interests of Åland to be safeguarded in these matters as well, Åland has its own representative in the Parliament of Finland, who is elected in the same way as other Members of Parliament in Finland.

ECONOMIC AUTONOMY
Besides passing laws, the main duty of the Lagting is to adopt the budget of Åland. The new Autonomy Act has entailed great changes for the autonomy in economic aspects.
As previously, the State of Finland collects taxes, customs duty and charges in Åland like in the rest of Finland. In return the outlays of Åland are compensated through an allocation in the State budget being placed at the disposal of the Lagting. This allocation amounts to 0.45 % of the income of the State budget with the exception of State loans. This lump sum is to enable Åland to manage such affairs which otherwise would be administered by the State authorities. The Lagting is free to decide how to apportion the lump sum.

More information on these web pages:
http://www.aland.fi
http://www.lagtinget.aland.fi/eng/index.htm

 

[Evie]

*smiles*

In theory, the Québec government as a Canadian provincial government, can do all that and more besides.

In theory.

In practice, the federal government is always invading the province's field of competence, using the tax money as they see fit rather than let those closer to the field of action administer the needed money for health et al (admitedly they aren't the only ones to blame for healthcare troubles). This, however ,isn't a problem of Québec alone ; it's a problem of Jean Chrétien and his band of looney idiots who might as well *NOT* have to run for reelection due to the Canadian Alliance and Bloc Québécois drawing votes away from any serious opposition through their regional status.

Which explains me calling Jean Chrétien "His Royal Highness" earlier in this thread. He has the power, and he doesn't intend to let it go - and it doesn't seem he'll need to in the foreseeable future.

 

[allhailIndia]

I would like this Quebec madness to stop.
If every bunch of nitwits had a desire to have their own country, we would have had a million countries by now. Frankly most people cannot figure out why quebec does not want to be part of Canada?? What is the point of being a free nation if iit is almost completely enclosed by the parent nation and has to depend on it for most of its needs?? Please explain this and then continue.

 

[Vrylakas]

Hurricane wrote:

I tend to think that Vrylakas is perhaps overly pessimistic about Quebec ruling itself, but on the other hand, I think Benz is perhaps asking for too much. Do Quebec really need independence, which means own foreign politics, an own army, own monetary system and so on?

I'm not pessimistic about Quebec ruling itself - it's essentially doing that now - but about how the PQ nationalists are bucking for independence without considering what it really means to be independent. Questions like, "What will the real costs of independence be for Quebec and Canada?", "Is it the most sane route financially and politically for Quebec?", "What will the long-term repercussions be of independence?", etc. are not being asked. Instead, the PQ just wants to push the dream of being able to raise the Quebec flag as a national flag, a nice idea but not exactly basis for independence. Hurricane's Aland reference raises another point, that I don't see yet any studies of how states separate going on (at least publicly) in Quebec, and sort of reference points for them to see how it's best done. THAT'S my concern; that I see the PQ just charging forth towards independence without any concern about consequences. Oda raised some legitimate issues about how Chretien apparently wields Federal power and I'd like to explore that more, and this is to say that Quebec may have some very legitimate complaints - but again, is independence the automatic answer the PQ claims it is?

Let me put it another way: Quebec is a modern industrialized economy and society, with about as good a chance as any potential state to succeed in independence. In fact, in a comparison between all the regions most likely to attempt independence around the world, I think Quebec by and far comes out as the most modern and most likely to succeed, given its resources and very advanced level of development. HOWEVER, even with these advatntages things can go wrong, and that's what I fear. History is repleat with examples of similarly advanced regions and states attempting or asserting independence for the wrong reasons (usually goaded on by nationalism) with dire consequences. The PQ just doesn't seem to want to think this through, and that worries me. Benz seems to think I'm a Quebec-hater because I don't see the automatic need for Quebec independence, but I'm afraid that isn't true. I enjoy visiting Quebec, and especially enjoy the local history. I do not have a single drop of English blood in me and look at the Anglophones and Francophones as two equally critical components of Canada.

AllHailINdia wrote:

I would like this Quebec madness to stop.
If every bunch of nitwits had a desire to have their own country, we would have had a million countries by now. Frankly most people cannot figure out why quebec does not want to be part of Canada?? What is the point of being a free nation if iit is almost completely enclosed by the parent nation and has to depend on it for most of its needs?? Please explain this and then continue.

O man, Benz is going to burst a blood vessel now.

This does raise a basic issue though; Quebec does have an image problem worldwide. For those who believe in Quebecois independence, they haven't propagated or communicated their cause very well to others, and so few outside of Quebec and perhaps France really understand or sympathize with them. The PQ has a PR problem. Most of the world reacts like I and AllHailIndia have; everyone wonders what could possibly be so bad about living in Canada. Benz is a little gung-ho about his beliefs but he and Oda have conveyed at least some of the issues that are driving some Quebecois to believe independence is a viable route. The world understood Slovak independence, they understood Estonian and Eritrean independence; they don't understand Quebec independence. Wouldn't it be in the PQ's interest to build up some international support to pressure Ottawa, even if only for concessions and not full independence?

 

[Whiskey Priest]

Chrétien's Canada-famous for being equally fluent - READ : equally inept - in both official languages.

I hate it when people say this. The reason he has trouble speaking both languages is because HE HAS A SPEACH IMPEDIMENT!!!!. Frankly I don't see how someone who can fluently speak two languages on top of having a speach impediment should be ridiculed.

 

[Evie]

Originally posted by Whiskey Priest


I hate it when people say this. The reason he has trouble speaking both languages is because HE HAS A SPEACH IMPEDIMENT!!!!. Frankly I don't see how someone who can fluently speak two languages on top of having a speach impediment should be ridiculed.

If it was only his speech impediment there wouldn't be a problem with it. Problem is, it's not just the pronunciations, it's the way he has of picking the wrong words at the wrong times, etc. That's why we call him inept in both official languages. I'm not blind, I know he has a speech impediment.

Parler couramment deux langues? Bien sur. Après tout, le français est ma langue natale . En fait...

So the speach impediment is irrelevant to what I was saying and being fluent in two languages really isn't that big.

 

[Whiskey Priest]

I've only heard him mispeak on one occasion. It was at a meeting with Bill Clinton and a reporter asked what he thought of the drugs coming south from Canada to the United States. Chretien's response: "I think it is great"

(He thought the reporter said "Trucks")

And learning languages is somewhat difficult. Through five years of French in school I remember only one phrase. Je ne pas de travail