Canadian Parties

All the parties in Canada are right? YOu are kidding me. Canada is more left than the U.S. (National healthcare system) right?

About the whole Quebec thing, doesn’t Quebec have money? COmpared to like Manitoba?

All the parties in Canada are right? YOu are kidding me. Canada is more left than the U.S. (National healthcare system) right?

Yes, i think canada is a little more “left-wing”, but i think we could only say they are less right-wing… Quebec is also more from left than the rest of the Canada… French heritage :)

The problem with Quebec wanting to be its own country, is that they want all the benefits of being a separate nation and keep the advantages that being part of Canada would bring.

The Best of both worlds.

I have no problem with Quebec separating, I voted yes to the Referendum
back in 88’, However, you have to take the good with the bad.
None of this special status crap.

After saying all that, IMO, most French people here dont want to be a separate country, anyway.

I agree, no special privileges if you want to separate. I wouldn’t expect the CIS to default on all their loans once they chose to break away from the Union.

[[quote]Jacques Parizeau is a lunatic.
That is why the “greastest country in the world” take him as economic counselor even if he was separatist ? Parizeau was brilliant, he make a lot of good thing for Québec.

He and Hitler would have got along well

You seem to be quite hysteric.

I see you are of a nation where no racist, charismatic power seeker has ever acheived a high public office. It must be nice . . . .
I understand that Saddam did a lot of good things for Iraq. At one time.

“I understand that Saddam did a lot of good things for Iraq. At one time.”

Like what? Does this compare with his actions today?

I would guess that Saddam, in his first years in power, probably build a lot of schools, hospitals and the like. Then he probably brought his supporters into the most decisive positions in the state and economy, or rewared loyalities in this way.

Btw, how can the US call themselves “land of the free” when none of their states is allowed to leave the US? :)

"Btw, how can the US call themselves “land of the free” when none of their states is allowed to leave the US? "

Hey, I resent that! The Confederates were right! Don’t worry the South will rise again! Well, it’ll probably be the West, us Westerns don’t like “Big Brother” Washington DC

I do not really understand why nations would not want to cleave secessionist states/provinces etc. from their country. Why keep Basque in Spain, or parts of Quebec in Canada, or Georgia in America, or Chechnya in Russia, or Taiwan in China blah blah blah.
If they want to leave, then they should be cut off. If life is so great apart from the mother, then they should be allowed to experience that. If it isn’t, then they should suffer appropriately. I would be all for a vote for federalism for all regions in a country every decade or so. Any that don’t want to be a part of a strong country: Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.

I agree with what our Guest has to say. You can’t say something is good or not unless you truly experience it. Remember what Plato said, “To play the fiddle is to play the fiddle.”

@Anonymous:

I do not really understand why nations would not want to cleave secessionist states/provinces etc. from their country. Why keep Basque in Spain, or parts of Quebec in Canada, or Georgia in America, or Chechnya in Russia, or Taiwan in China blah blah blah.
If they want to leave, then they should be cut off. If life is so great apart from the mother, then they should be allowed to experience that. If it isn’t, then they should suffer appropriately. I would be all for a vote for federalism for all regions in a country every decade or so. Any that don’t want to be a part of a strong country: Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.

There are many problems with Quebec separating. For example, there are natives living in Quebec that would want t ostay in Canada. There’s also Quebec’s part of the national debt. Also, not all Quebeckers want to leave. About 40% are committed federalists and another 40% comitted separatists with the other 20% ready to support each side depending on the current situation.

@EmuGod:

@Anonymous:

I do not really understand why nations would not want to cleave secessionist states/provinces etc. from their country. Why keep Basque in Spain, or parts of Quebec in Canada, or Georgia in America, or Chechnya in Russia, or Taiwan in China blah blah blah.
If they want to leave, then they should be cut off. If life is so great apart from the mother, then they should be allowed to experience that. If it isn’t, then they should suffer appropriately. I would be all for a vote for federalism for all regions in a country every decade or so. Any that don’t want to be a part of a strong country: Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.

There are many problems with Quebec separating. For example, there are natives living in Quebec that would want t ostay in Canada. There’s also Quebec’s part of the national debt. Also, not all Quebeckers want to leave. About 40% are committed federalists and another 40% comitted separatists with the other 20% ready to support each side depending on the current situation.

Emugod, i agree with you 100%. When i become the ruler of Canada, Quebec will not be allowed to merely separate “en masse”, but rather the various regions will vote for or against federalism. This will insure protection of the native people as well as immigrants to Quebec, inclusion of Montreal, Hull, and the many counties that border Ontario and the Maritimes and want to remain Canadian (and are needed for a bridge from Ontario to the Maritimes), while getting rid of those parts of Quebec that wish to create a separate nation. There is no reason to punish an entire people for the desires of some of the population (as well as their lunatic leaders).

Well the right of succession should NOT be put into action by only 40% of the population. I would be mighty disappointed if only 40% of the Southern leaders voted for the right of succession. However, I do think it should be all or nothing, since it’s much harder to govern areas in the middle of a “foreign country.” Population relocation sounds like a better word. But you brought up a intresting point: debts. In that case, Quebec would have to pay them off. But the question is, just how much?

@TG:

Well the right of succession should NOT be put into action by only 40% of the population. I would be mighty disappointed if only 40% of the Southern leaders voted for the right of succession. However, I do think it should be all or nothing, since it’s much harder to govern areas in the middle of a “foreign country.” Population relocation sounds like a better word. But you brought up a intresting point: debts. In that case, Quebec would have to pay them off. But the question is, just how much?

last referendum it sounded like the formula was simply that Quebec would be assigned their portion of the National debt on a per capita basis. Prolly come to a couple of hundred billion dollars, give or take.

Ouch that’s gonna hurt :P
Then you have to worry about other problems like Federal military and outpost, and other government run buildings. How do they solve this?

@TG:

Ouch that’s gonna hurt :P
Then you have to worry about other problems like Federal military and outpost, and other government run buildings. How do they solve this?

This infrastructure would theoretically belong to Quebec then (with Canadian infrastructure belonging to Canada) along with their debt. They would keep the buildings as through their taxes, they might be seen to have “purchased” them. The military would be an interesting issue. They would likely, as Canada does, rely on the United States to protect them :)

Well, that just about settles it. :wink: But I think more than a simple, majority vote would be needed before succession is possible due to its burdening significance. Maybe more like 60% or 2/3’s…

@TG:

Well, that just about settles it. :wink: But I think more than a simple, majority vote would be needed before succession is possible due to its burdening significance. Maybe more like 60% or 2/3’s…

one might consider that reasonable, particularly given the number of referendums. If at first you don’t succeed, try try again. I think that if a referendum that is successful at succession ONE TIME, then a referendum that is not as successful should be the last time as well. Anyway, while silly federalists were pushing for more than 50% + 1, separatists were quite adament in saying that would be all that would be needed.

Cased closed! Until those Separatist get a 2/3’s majority, Quebec will remain forever Canada! :P

@TG:

Cased closed! Until those Separatist get a 2/3’s majority, Quebec will remain forever Canada! :P

awww crap. The whole thing? Really? Couldn’t we just excise the separatist parts and keep the good ones? (like the northern ones where the majority of the people are natives/federalists and Montreal) :wink: