Best military option for a possible free Quebec?

[Vindiria]

1 with a bigger national guard and american military bases

[Ainin]

1 with a bigger national guard and american military bases

[Union of Confederate Socialist Republics]

None of the above. Quebec wants Canada to keep paying for it even after separation.

That kind of tells you what the economy is like.

[Dakini]

None of the above. Quebec wants Canada to keep paying for it even after separation.

No it doesn't. There's some debate about using the same currency still, but as far as I know, that's the closest they expect. They know that they'll have to take on their share of Canada's debt as well.

That kind of tells you what the economy is like.

Last I heard, the economy in Quebec was fine.

[Grand Britannia]

1 with a bigger national guard and american military bases

Perfect, they will be another state of the U.S, then.

[Saint-Thor]

Well, I don't think he would know anything about Canada in general either.

Saruhan is from Newfoundland.

Wow really? His flag misled me, I should have known his name rang bells.

I'm not a huge expert on Canada, so could somebody please explain to me why Quebec would want to be independent of Canada?

I planned to eventually start a thread on the subject. Don't have time for this now.

That's kind of the problem. Quebec isn't in charge of Canada, and Canada won't dissolve if Quebec leaves. Canada has no obligation to give Quebec a single penny's worth of federal assets. Again, with the apartment thing. If you end your lease on an apartment, do you take the toilet with you?

This isn't an apartment; it's more like a divorce. If Quebec leaves, it gets its share of assets and it has to take its share of Canada's debt.

Exactly. I actually see Canada and Québec as a dysfonctional couple. They don't really hate each other, it's just that it doesn't seem to work out and no one is trying to fix it. And no, giving equalization payments is not a way to fix things. I think they should just break up and remain friends. We should just put an end to the "Two solitudes" and start cooperating with each other.

Also, contrary to what was indicated earlier, Quebec can be broken up into pieces. This is something that I think comes out of the Clarity Act, but it was also deemed to be the case by the Supreme Court of Canada (if Canada is divisible, so too is Quebec). So if Quebec succeeds in getting a clear majority (e.g. more than 51% of the votes.. I think it's 60% now) for succession then different parts of Quebec could leave or stay. Given that the Anglophones and Allophones are overwhelmingly against separation (still) this means that Montreal (which is very multicultural) and the Eastern Townships (Anglophone) would likely stay with Canada and all the other parts would pick and choose as they will.

It's Trudeau who first came up with this phrase (if Canada is divisible, so too is Québec) mainly to please the RoC. While the Anglo Montrealers embraced this idea, it is vastly rejected by Francophones, left and right, federalists and independentists. The thing is that it has no legal basis, at all. Partition is very new in the secession debate in Canada. 20 years old at most. I mean, until recently, it was accepted that if Québécois were to democratically decide their accession to sovereignty, Québec would keep its present territory and would be recognized within its existing borders. This assumption was buttressed by the cases of dozens of countries that have come into existence since the creation of the UN.

Now, suddenly, a strange debate has erupted over carving up or dividing the territory of a sovereign Québec. Québec's borders would no longer be based on geography but rather on ethnical or linguistic considerations. This is what the “partitionists” are proposing. The kind of shit you would see in Africa. What first appeared a ludicrous idea, a sort of utopia of the desperate, has spread like wildfire, fed by misinformation and exaggeration à la National Post or Gazette. Like I said in my previous post, the idea that parts of Québec's territory could remain under the administration of the federal government or another province after Québec achieves sovereignty is contradicted both by international law and by recent history. It's sad but there is no rule of international law that supports this possibility.

It's the same thing for the municipalities. The partition resolutions passed by some municipalities have no legal force. Cities and towns are administrative entities that exist by the will of the National Assembly and the Québec government. They have no power to decide whether they want to be part of Québec or not.

BTW, the Clarity Act does not mention anything about partition. It does not state that you need 60% to secede either, it basically means that those question would require negociations.

Well, I don't think he would know anything about Canada in general either.

Saruhan is from Newfoundland.

...which has its own separatist sentiments interestingly enough.[/quote]
Yes and you know what, I find it funny to see such animosity toward Québec independists from a Newfoundlander. Especially when you consider how they got shafted by entering the Canadian federation in 1949. How brilliant it was to hand over an industry that represented 80% of its GDP to the Canadian government in 1949 since fisheries is federal jurisdiction. Very smart. The real power brokers in Canada don't live in Newfoundland. Most of them live in Ontario's Golden Horseshoe. To them the economic engine of Canada is Southern Ontario. Fishing has never made up more than 1% of Canada's GDP. No wonder the cod industry was mismanaged. The people in charge of it didn't give a rat's ass about cod fishing. They don't give a rat's ass about Newfoundland as a whole if you ask me. No one will look after your interests better than you. It's a basic lesson you learn once you're out of childhood. But hey, it's far easier to simply send welfare checks to Newfoundland than it is to spend the time and energy necessary to properly build up and manage its economy for the benefit of the people living there. No wonder the Newfoundlanders became a source of mockery from the rest of Canada for like, what, almost 50 years?

Sure, they don't get any equalization payment anymore after they recently began to pump oil. But even then, Newfoundland can't prevent its youth from leaving the province. A lot of them are moving to Alberta, Ontario and even the other maritimes. I can understand why some of them want leave the federation. I don't think it's only due to the derision from the Canadian media for being beggars and welfare bums (A derision that is usually reserved for Québécois). Independence for Québec is not just for cultural reasons, it's also for economic reasons. No one will look after our economic interests better than we will. It's that simple.

[Marcurix]

This may come as a shock to you but no, they cannot. Oh sure they granted all that land to Québec, because back then, Northern Québec belonged to the federal governement. Not anymore. Once you give, you can't take it back. Now, the only political power that can divide a province is its provincial legislative assembly. Here an official publication on the Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State: Take a look at chapter III article 9: http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.q ... 0_2_A.html

9. The territory of Québec and its boundaries cannot be altered except with the consent of the National Assembly.
The Government must ensure that the territorial integrity of Québec is maintained and respected.
2000, c. 46, s. 9.

One might say that those laws wouldn't apply if one of the province secedes. Not exactly. You see, you have that principle in international law called uti possidetis juris which basically mean that you keep what you already have. This rule has been rigorously applied in all recent cases in which states have attained sovereignty. For example, when the republics of the former Soviet Union became sovereign states, they kept their territory; indeed, respect for established borders was one of the international community's main criteria for recognizing the new states.

But then those states did not have large tracks of land, full of culturally distinct people, that fall under federal jurisdiction. What you fail to realize is that Canada is in a unique position, its overlapping provincial and federal interactions create circumstances that were not present in those new states you mentioned. One very key criteria for the international community is a little thing called self determination, which was invoked by the Grand Council of the Crees and the Inuit of Nunavik on the eve of the last vote, though it wasn't a major issue. Theoretically this could also extend to the English speaking parts of Quebec, and you cannot deny that self-determination trumps uti possidetis juris, unless these groups are offered significant concessions from the Quebec government.

Many federalists like to play the First nations card. It doesn't take long to make them realize this is not in 1995 anymore. The "aboriginal tribes" as you call them, are no fools. They have no sympathy for the federal governement. At least, not anymore. They are constrantly laughed at by Canada, ignored if not despised.

and it's any different in Quebec? You'd be lying if you said anything other than no.

Sure they voted "NO" in 1995,

A 95% no.

but after many interesting concessions made by Québec in 2002 (the Peace of the Braves) and recently Bill 42 giving more power to the Eeyou Istchee (reprensenting the Cree of Northern Québec) than any other First nations in Canada, they might change their mind.

You'd have a case, if you could prove they have.

The independentists would grant a very large degree of autonomy to their First nations.

source.

Since that Idle No more thing, I think that even the Mohawks had their confidence eroded by the general indifference

Again, if you can prove that, you'd have a case. But 95% is a significant number, and one not easily overturned. Speculation is one thing, action is another.

[Saint-Thor]

This may come as a shock to you but no, they cannot. Oh sure they granted all that land to Québec, because back then, Northern Québec belonged to the federal governement. Not anymore. Once you give, you can't take it back. Now, the only political power that can divide a province is its provincial legislative assembly. Here an official publication on the Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State: Take a look at chapter III article 9: http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.q ... 0_2_A.html

One might say that those laws wouldn't apply if one of the province secedes. Not exactly. You see, you have that principle in international law called uti possidetis juris which basically mean that you keep what you already have. This rule has been rigorously applied in all recent cases in which states have attained sovereignty. For example, when the republics of the former Soviet Union became sovereign states, they kept their territory; indeed, respect for established borders was one of the international community's main criteria for recognizing the new states.

But then those states did not have large tracks of land, full of culturally distinct people, that fall under federal jurisdiction. What you fail to realize is that Canada is in a unique position, its overlapping provincial and federal interactions create circumstances that were not present in those new states you mentioned. One very key criteria for the international community is a little thing called self determination, which was invoked by the Grand Council of the Crees and the Inuit of Nunavik on the eve of the last vote, though it wasn't a major issue. Theoretically this could also extend to the English speaking parts of Quebec, and you cannot deny that self-determination trumps uti possidetis juris, unless these groups are offered significant concessions from the Quebec government.

You should reread my last post. Here:

It's the same thing for the municipalities. The partition resolutions passed by some municipalities have no legal force. Cities and towns are administrative entities that exist by the will of the National Assembly and the Québec government. They have no power to decide whether they want to be part of Québec or not.

Anyway I don't think you should compare the First nations with the Anglos of the West Island.

Many federalists like to play the First nations card. It doesn't take long to make them realize this is not in 1995 anymore. The "aboriginal tribes" as you call them, are no fools. They have no sympathy for the federal governement. At least, not anymore. They are constrantly laughed at by Canada, ignored if not despised.

and it's any different in Quebec? You'd be lying if you said anything other than no.

No need to lie actually. It's quite obvious. The Cree of Québec probably have the highest standard of living of all the First nations of Canada. You cross the border and the Ontario Cree live in third world like conditions à la Attawapiskat. Here's an interesting article about the difference between the two that explains why. Also, recently, Quebec signed yet another historic agreement with the James Bay Cree. It's a power sharing agreement that gives the Cree a substantial say in what goes on in almost a third of Québec. These agreements could be a model for Canada, giving native people far greater say about what goes on in Canada's vast expanses. But English Canada has never agreed to cede this much power to the native people. In fact, this is what the Cree Grand Council had to say about La Paix Des Braves (Peace of the Braves):

"Most importantly, the Crees signed the "Agreement Respecting a New Relationship Between the Cree Nation and the Government of Quebec" on February 7, 2002 that implements certain obligations of Quebec to the Cree People for community and economic development under section 28 of the JBNQA. While Canada has similar and sometimes joint obligations with Quebec under the same section, Canada has yet to sign a similar agreement to implement its obligations."

Source: http://www.gcc.ca/gcc/querelations.php

I'm not even talking about the fact that Native people are underrepresented in the prison population of Québec whereas in Saskatchewan or Manitoba Native people are over-represented by a ratio of seven to one. It does say a lot. Plus, we don't have shitholes like Attawapiskat like they have in Ontatio. I’m not suggesting that our First nations are living in a idyllic world or anything. But yes, I can say without a doubt that the First nations are in better shape in Québec than in the rest of Canada, which should tell us a lot about their overall conditions coast to coast.

but after many interesting concessions made by Québec in 2002 (the Peace of the Braves) and recently Bill 42 giving more power to the Eeyou Istchee (reprensenting the Cree of Northern Québec) than any other First nations in Canada, they might change their mind.

You'd have a case, if you could prove they have.

Sorry bro, your guess is as good as mine, but I'm willing to bet their support is not 95% anymore. Only time will tell in this case.

The independentists would grant a very large degree of autonomy to their First nations.

source

Well, like I said in this very post, they kinda already have a large one, largely due to the PQ. The Cree are now the only First nation in North America with regional autonomous governance. The agreement Bill 42 previously listed is simply building on the "Paix des Braves", which was signed by Bernard Landry, an independentist Prime minister. More recently, Option nationale probably has the best approach regarding the First nations. If you can read French, take a look at 1.1, 1.4 and 1.6 of their platform. Or Google translate might do the trick. As for Québec Solidaire (left-independentist), they would give them full independence if it's what they want.