Quebec independance

Post Reply New Topic

What is your opinion about Quebec forming a country?I live in Quebec and I don't like the idea of Quebec separating from Canada.Just in case you didn't knew,Independantists in Quebec only represent 20% of the population,and the rest of us find these guys (Insert here bad,mean words of your choice).

This post is designed mostly for Canadians and Quebecois,though any one of any country is free of giving is opinion(Without racism or hate of course!)

If the rest of Canada forces neoliberalism down our throats secession should be an option. The Stephen Harper regime is a very bad sign.

Actually if they force even worse neoliberalism down our throats - we have it already but it can always be worse.

If Harper forces austerity programs in this reccession he'll be reduced to single digits in the polls.

As for seperatism, I have enough confidence in the practicality of Canadian multiculturalism to oppose it.

Mulroney caused great economic damage in his second term particularly and this had a lot to do with the increased support for separation and that referendum. Sure people look to Meech Lake failing and all that but the bad economic situation had a lot to do with it.

There's the matter of the perception that there's a Quebec Model that's more like the French model and that this is in opposition to the Anglo-American Model that is more infused with neoliberal dogma.

Interestingly, Lucien Bouchard was always a neoliberal and his support for sovereignty was very qualified.

By the way, Harper recently named a man associated with that Brockville Quebec flag stomping party to the Senate...

From down here in the USofA, I find it fascinating the convulsions and foot-kissing that the ROC ('Rest Of Canada') have gone through over the years to at least try to keep Quebec from bolting - and yet an attempt failed in 1994 by a referendum margin smaller than the number of spoiled ballots. YIKES!

I sense that the only real question to be asked if they ever should and the ROC shatters - a progression that all logic says will happen - (and I sense that the ROC knows this all too well) is "When will the first fragment be granted statehood in the USA?". Since THAT would directly affect ME as a USA citizen and resident (think: 'balance of power in Congress and the Electoral College'), I do keep on eye on issues relating to that - and the similarly simmering situation in western Canada, especially Alberta.

Mike

Lucien Bouchard recently caused a stir when he said that there would not be sovereignty for years if ever. Last he appeared he lectured Quebeckers about the need to work harder and longer hours and be more like Anglo-Americans generally. He was a member of Mulroney's cabinet and was a right wing premier.

One thing people should understand is that in Quebec, the true separatists usually are left wing, are socialists, and they say of them that they want Quebec to be "the Cuba of the north". They want to break from the anglo-American system that is predisposed towards bankers and finance. Then there's another crowd, the conservatives, who are Quebec nationalists and want more power for Quebec and at times support sovereignty but with qualifications - that is, they want a sovereign Quebec associated with the rest of Canada under some supernational structure or simply want more powers for Quebec. In the old days, they voted for the Union Nationale - they were autonomists. In the early 1990s, the Quebec Liberal government arranged for this report n Quebec's future - the Allaire report. Many of the economic conservatives who fled the Union Nationale as it crumbled became Quebec Liberals. The autonomism of that point of view punctuated the report, and many of the Young Liberals were young conservatives and autonomists, so they got together and formed a new party, the ADQ, which was the re-incarnation of the Union Nationale.

In 1995, Lucien Bouchard, essentially a conservative autonomist, arranged a deal between the hard-core separatist Premier Jacques Parizeau and the leader of the ADQ to support this sovereignty plan - the idea was that they'd vote for sovereignty and that the government would try to negotiate for association and some kind of super-national arrangement. This got many of the autonomists and the conservatives on board with the hard core separatists. This is why the results were so close. Before the deal was made the Yes was way behind. Bouchard was also more popular because of his demeanour - Parizeau was seen as too patrician - he even, in English, liked to say "by Jove"!

Lucien Bouchard became premier soonafter and he was often at odds with his party. He said that they'd try sovereignty only after achieving "winning conditions". What were those? Neoliberal reforms. Cutting spending, the usual nonsense. In 1998, he faced Liberal leader Charest, a former Mulroney Conservative, who promised a a massive neoliberal programme far more than Bouchard was doing so Bouchard ended up defending "the Quebec Model" against him and defeated him.

One dirty secret of the PQ was that many of the sort of bigoted people, the xenophobes, voted for them. Parizeau got a lot of criticism when on referendum night, he made a comment about how "we were beaten, fundamentally by what, money and ethnic votes, essentially", and this was proof of how the PQ was full of horrible racists. Bouchard, who took over, wanted to prove to the Americans that they would not tolerate such things. When he resigned, it was over his attempts to show up a PQ official who said bad things about Jewish organisations. He didn't like the fact that much of his party didn't support him in that.

Many of the bigoted people started voting ADQ during the Bouchard time, and several years later, a Bouchard protege, Andre Boisclair, took over the party. At the time the Liberals were extremely unpopular, Charest having been deeply hated for his time in office. The PQ would certainly take over. Only that Boisclair was openly gay and identified with the big city only. The ADQ took large amounts of votes from the PQ in the rural areas and this led to a kind of three way tie with the Liberals holding a slight advantage, allowing Charest to stay in power. The ADQ ran that year on "reasonable accomodation" of immigrants, saying that they should do a better job in insisting that immigrants assimilate and not shove their customs in people's faces, especially Islamic ones.

Anyway, after Boisclair resigned, the PQ took that issue and tried to get these voters back. The ADQ imploded and its longtime leader resigned and then the new leader resigned the day after becoming leader. Bouchard was complaining about the PQ's talking about the "reasonable accomodation" and how this looked bad.

That was very interesting xenon. I had no idea that things were that fractured.

Duceppe-ratiste topic

Gilles trots it out when his supporters start grumbling. At the moment, it is a non issue.

sans racism or hate- MOI?
speaking as an evil ignorant american, why should a region/province that speaks french be stuck in the middle of other regions which not only don't speak french but even might be a teensy-weensy bit hostile to the whole idea? how would it not be better if the french and english-speaking parts of canada go their separate ways? is this not similar in concept to a family with one member who speaks a totally different language, and the other family members want no part of adapting [becoming fluent in french] to this person?
is it a matter of a quebec secession putting a yawning hole in the national budget?
please make it clear to this clueless yank.
thanx to all canadians, our more enlightened neighbors.

This is the sort of question that Canadians have to sort out.

ruveyn

There is more to a country than a culture and a language. Does Quebec have an economic base that can sustain a small country? I don't know. I'm just asking.

too small to be a Republic and too large to be an insane asylum.

ruveyn

There are plenty of self-sustaining countries that are a lot smaller than Quebec.

I voted Yes (and I'm a Yank). I also think that the USA should split up into smaller countries. As it is, it is almost impossible for us to accomplish anything other than get ourselves deeper in debt to China and Japan. Southern states could separate and do whatever the Hell they wanted to do, and Northern states could enjoy free health care.

Quebeconomics topic

www.manta.com/NA/Canada/Quebec

According to the above web site, there are over 220,000 businesses in Quebec, with over 35,000 in Montreal alone. Quebec separatistes want sovereignty association with the ROC, perhaps to reap more rewards in direct trade with the US (to keep more of the profits). Not sure if this is permanently sustainable.

Economics is not an exact science (no kidding )

Referenda over the years suggest that sovereignty-association is not what the majority of Quebeckers wants. It is not an issue at the moment.

Edit: I am surprised Phil777 has not been here yet.

All the Southrons will come running North to get "free" health care. By the way, nothing is for free. Someone pays for whatever there is.

TANSTAAFL

ruveyn

moi aussi!
interesting how the talk turned to america. heck, even washington state is muttering about splitting into 2 parts! i would not put it past california and texas, either. splitting the nation would not help the debt problems but merely reshuffle the deck.
we now start the "house divided" wargame- as for a north/south split [highly unlikely], with universal health care in the northern part, it is not unrealistic to think the north would soon get a migration of ailing poor from the southern part begging for relief from punitive economic policies and lack of health care, a method the south could use to sabotage the northern economy in the manner that castro tweaked the U.S. by getting-rid of a lot of his undesirables [by allowing them to flee along with the rest of the refugees in the mariel boatlift]. this way, the south would get rid of what they would consider their economically unproductive citizens and hurt the north with one blow.

to avoid a financial drain, the north likely would stop this by slamming the borders closed for real [unlike how the U.S. is just blocking SOME illegals from our existing southern border]. this could improve the unemployment picture, with all that extra border security. but it also could lead to cross-border enmity and mutually cascading blockades of goods and services, a sort-of economic cold war. at this point who knows what could happen?

end of wargame - an alternative to this particular dystopia would be the reality that the divides would not be strictly north/south but resemble a map with each coast separated by the broad middle in several regions - each area would be a secessionist nation-state. this would be an even worse outcome for those who still share lincoln's goal of a people united.
maybe we could postpone this future hell by learning to civilly cooperate. but i doubt we will achieve this, the divisions are too entrenched.

it is sad that there has been so many decades of disharmony between quebec and the rest of canada, and also between american factions. but it could be that some marriages are better disolved.