BQ pushing for repeal of the Clarity Act

328 posts / 0 new
Last post
Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

KenS wrote:

The BQ bill about repealing the Clarity Act will come up in due course.

As you can tell, I've been slacking off a bit. So, I need to bring myself up to speed.

The NDP's "Unity Bill" also will come up in due course - no? Or has it been voted on already? Or did the NDP wake up and withdraw it altogether?

Unionist

KenS wrote:

as it stands right now, notwithstanding attempts from within the NDP to spin it otherwise, the Clarity Act and the Sherbrooke Declaration are seen by  most observeres, not just our enemies, to be in fundamental conflict.

The Clarity Act is broadly supported in the ROC [not just the West]. It is offensive to the bulk of NDP voters in Quebec- the vast majority of whom also do not want to talk about nationalism now. Forget the carboard cutout stereotypes people are stuck on in this discussion. A big part of the reason Quebecers voted for the NDP is because of a consensus that there are better / more important things than being obsessively concerned with sovereignty. But they still find the Clarity Act offensive, and guaranteed will feel betrayed if the NDP does in practice any backing away from the Sherbrooke Declaration to keep from having to even APPEAR to be against the Clarity Act.

I quoted this excerpt just for brevity. Really, I should have quoted the full post. Listen to Ken. Please. And NDP: Listen to Ken. Please.

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

Unionist wrote:

Perhaps, Pogo, you could tell us what you think about the substantive issues, instead of making us guess which parts of kropotkin's writings you agree with and which you don't? Like, what's your view of the Sherbrooke Declaration? The NDP's Unity Bill? How should it vote on the Bloc's motion to repeal the Clarity Act? Or anything else?

 

I like the Sherbrooke accord, but not because of one clause or another.  I like it because it seems to be generally supported by the people of Quebec.  Why do you insist on giving the ROC a veto?

 

 

 

Pogo Pogo's picture

People in BC will vote on pipelines, government services and other things that will materially change their life.  The Clarity Act will be far down the list.

Centrist

kropotkin1951 wrote:
The issue has no traction in BC and will not change anyone's vote in the next election on this coast.

95%+ of the people in BC don't even know what the Clarity Act is. But BC'ers do understand what "clear" means and opinion poll after opinion poll shows that BC'ers support at least a 2/3 threshhold for Quebec separation. Certainly not 50% +1, which implies support for Quebec "separatists".

A chord is struck in BC when a federal political party "panders" to Quebec (read 1970 Trudeau Liberals/Mulroney Tories). And that chord worsens in BC when it panders to "separatists". "Separatists" is deemed an ugly word by the majority of the BC electorate and is associated with the BQ.

Just watch the Cons television ad campaign in BC during the 2015 campaign with the following simplistic theme:

"Tom Mulcair and the NDP panders to Quebec separatists - against BC and Canada's interests"

There are many Con-NDP vote switchers in BC esp. in rural and suburban areas and if the Cons milk this issue for what it's worth the NDP will likely lose seats to the Cons in 2015. I've postulated same previously in this threead and it's really a no-brainer.

KenS

BB's question: BQ bill will come up for vote before the NDP's Unity Bill. The latter was put out there as the NDP's offering. It's not all about the voting, per se.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Thanks Ken!

KenS

 

If you take what you said Centrist that BC voters expect, and what is perceived to be pandering to Quebec gets national parties in BC. And then you stack the NDP's Sherbrooke Declaration against those standards...

Sure looks to me that by those standards, the NDP's SDI qualifies as "pandering to Quebec, " and will cost the NDP at least "significantly." 

Correct me if I have not summed that up correctly.

 

KenS

V

KenS

On reading your comment again Centrist, I guess my question is answered: you're pretty sure that as things stand, the NDP is going to take a hit in BC over tha SDI.

While the NDP might weather in Quebec perceived waffling on aspects of the SDI, you paid particular attention to 50%+1. Guaranteed: if the NDP backed off of promising to support that, you can kiss most of thse seats in Quebec goodbye.

You mention that 2/3 of people in BC want to see a much higher threshold than 50%+1. You also mention most people haven't heard of the Clarity Act. Think a minute about the theme here: people's opinions about the dynamic in Quebec is based on very little actual knowledge, not even caring that much. Big surprise that in this context you ask people a simple question that entails hoary values like what a nation is, lo and behold the answers than come back look kind of familiar.

There is a flip side to people not caring much- there is room to manouver in there. And remember that you dont have to literally change people's minds. The SDI is supported in Quebec not because Quebecers think it is brilliant. It is supported because it is WORKABLE. Why not something similar in BC: the NDP proposes something that might not be their ideal choice. But you know, its OK, it brings peace and quiet, why not?

The answer that people in BC dont want to talk about is just not sufficient if you EITHER:

- care about the prospects of national unity. [Times when sovereignty is off the radar are the opportunity for 'building capital' that doesnt even have to cost anything. At least to not just stand by while salt is rubbed in the wounds.]

AND/OR

- dont want to see the NDP torch 50/60 seats so it can have the smoothest path in BC.

 

6079_Smith_W

I don't disagree with what KenS's basic argument at 208 and 211, but I'd say there is another thing in play as well (which I have mentioned before) : assumptions about people in other parts of Canada.

Sure opinion is divided in Quebec; it is no different elsewhere. So when I read about reactions from the ROC as if it is one thing, and that there will be a particular problem in the west, I have to say I am not so sure what that is based on. Certainly there is attack and backlash from some, but not from all, and the question of sovereignty is hardly the single issue on which people base support for a party.

Also, while there are many who support Quebec's self-determination in a positive way, there are also some who, yes, would be happy to see Quebec leave, or to at least see this situation resolved. It may not be the positive support some might like, but in many cases it is a recognition of sovereignty, and you can hardly call it a refusal to accept Quebec nationalism.

I don't think there are as many as some might think, even among those who have anti-Quebec feelings, who do not recognize that Quebec should have a free choice here. I don't like it, but when  I read the opinions of some around here, really it is many of those who are most angry who would be the most happy to see a sovereign Quebec.

 

autoworker autoworker's picture

Is 'tout le monde' truly offended by The Clarity Act, or is it simply the NPD's erstwhile, blociste constituency that demands appeasement?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec.  

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

babble moderator wrote:

As I do in other culturally sensitive forums, I strongly suggest that you take time off from your rant and listen to the better-informed.

As a resident of ROC with a BA in Political Studies I defer to babbles policy.  Carry on all you better informed people from Quebec. 

KenS

Lets try a simple test on that question autoworker.

Lets take a time machine back and ask minister of Liberal Charest government his opinion of Stephane Dion and the Clarity Act. We'll have to ask him privately, because Quebec Liberal governments are careful not to heedlessly antagonise Ottawa. So speaking his mind publicly about Stepheane Dion would not be OK. But the Tom Mulcair then would speak publicly his opinion of the Clarity Act. And he would be typical of other hard core federalists in Quebec.

"Blociste constituency" ??

When Jack Layton set Pierre Ducasse to developing what became the Sherbrooke Declaration, the NDP was at single digits among francophones. A solid 40% of those people historically want Quebec to stay within Canada. And they tend towards social democratic values.That was true before the Clarity Act. But Jack Layton came along with his determination to break the NDP out in Quebec when the Clarity Act was part of the landscape. And there was no chance of the NDP doing that with its association to the Clarity Act.

One of the manifestations of ignorance about Quebec in this thread is simply not getting the differenece between Quebec nationalism and separatism. There is a BIG difference. And the Clarity Act is offensive to shared Quebec nationalism, even among staunch federalists.

Now people can go an ddecide they would rather take their chances with what happens to the NDP in Quebec if it goes soft on 50%+1, rather than take chances with what happens in the ROC if the NDP stands by the principle. But it is an absolute fallacy to support that choice with delusional notions that, well you know, opinion in Quebec is divided in Quebec just like it is here."

Problem # 1 is your own lack of consistency: you talk about how this doesnt matter much to people in the West, they want it to go away, etc. I agree. But that is not the case in Quebec. In Quebec they dont want to talk about sovereignty now. But that isnt the same thing. They are tired [for now] of the all consuming endless discussion. But respecting Quebec the nation is not complicated or contententious: francophones, and many anglophones, EXPECT it. And they expect it in part because they know it isnt complicated. And the Clarity Act does not respect Quebec as a nation.

KenS

In a lot of ways, pragmaticaly speaking, the Sherbrooke Declaration was ahead of its time. It was written several years earlier, but it was ready to pick up when progressive Quebckers and some other strains of opinion were open to a workable means of tabling the whole sovereignty question and getting on with other concerns. The SD allowed them to see what the NDP can do.

Getting back to that pragmatic discussion of what the NDP is to do:

Over SD and the Clarity Act [most visiby, 50%+1], the NDP faces different hazards in both the ROC and in Quebec.

People in the ROC rate the whole thing as far les important than Quebecers do. Not to trivialize the depth of feeling, but the opinions are preferences, and are a product of never being challenged [hence the notion that is just all about sovereignty and what Quebec wants coming back].

Quebeckers [especially but not only francophones] do not want much. And what they want is simple.But it is no mere preference. Expecting respect is a pretty reasonable minimum condition.... but a minimum condition for continued support of the NDP it is. If the NDP backs away from 50%+1, thats a betraral of trust- even to new voters for the NDP who would not rate the issue as a real high priority. People dont like bait and switch.

That may be it for me in this discussion for a while.

Yes, its all difficult, but where is there more room for working on opinion among the NDP's "supporter universe?"

autoworker autoworker's picture

After the Robocalls imbroglio, how can anyone give credence to 50%+1?

KenS

autoworker wrote:
After the Robocalls imbroglio, how can anyone give credence to 50%+1?

Why just invent stuff?

Why not pay attention to actual discussions?

Just for starters- and this comes up often- if a PQ government ever wins a referendum on a razor thin majority... they will wish they could crawl into a hole and hide. The problems you all seee in a razor thin majority will take care of themselves: actual independence has to be negotiated, and negotiating with a 50%+1 is a mandate for nothing.

All that happens with insisting that Canada has a say in what the referendum level is before independence is negotiated around, is that you fan the flames in Quebec- what was not a problem before, becomes a problem. And the BQ will thank you for once again pushing nationalists who prefer staying in Canada towards them.

Fill your boots.

KenS

Do you think that just maybe Quebec nationalists who have voted non in referendums and expect to keep doing so, do not think about the possibility, even likelihood, that the sovereignists will use every manouver they can to win?

But virtually none of them is concerned about 50%+1 tipping them into independence that otherwise would not happen.

They dont need your 'protection'. And since they dont need it, guess how that makes them fell about having it forced on them anyway.

For nationalists and other quebecois who want to stay in Canada and think to the future- like Tom Mulcair when he was a politician of Quebec- your offered "protection" against what 50%+1 could be, is just a political liability. They will win the next referendum despite you, not because of your unwanted "help".

autoworker autoworker's picture

What it boils down to, KenS, is that, with or without the Sherbrooke Declaration, the NPD can't fool all of Canada, or itself, all of the time. That will become apparent when C-457 is brought to a vote, and nationalists of whichever persuasion will know where each party stands, clearly.

6079_Smith_W

KenS

Look, I'm not arguing in favour of the Clarity Act, nor against the Sherbrooke Declaration in its entirety. And I'm not actually claiming any understanding of how people inside Quebec see this nor downplaying the importance of this issue.

I am just saying that some of the speculation of how this will play elsewhere, particularly in the west, does not quite ring true for me. This would not be so important except that I wouldn't want it to contribute to a perception of more opposition than actually exists (from what I can see). After all, people in your part of the world aren't actively engaged with all the concerns and grievances in our part of the world either. That doesn't always mean that you don't consider them valid.

As for those who would just as soon see Quebec leave, no - it is hardly an endorsement of real sovereignty. I just said it was something which I don't like, and which, in fact, I see as damaging. But it can hardly be argued that those people would want to stand in the way of Quebec sovereignty, even if they aren't the sort of engaged allies one might prefer.

KenS

You need to apell out what the this "fooling" is here.

What do you think the NDP is trying to sell right now?

What is this clarity of where people stand you are looking for?

I see hints in all your comments. But what you mean is all guessing.

KenS

You could take another tack on spelling it out instead...

But what are the "nationalists of whatever persuasion?"

We've been talking about Quebec nationalists. Is there some Canadian nationalist position that is entitled to demand from Quebec how it handles a referendum?

And do go off attributing that to imply Canada has no role or stake. Of course we do.And we have evry right to handle negotiations AFTER a referendum however "we" please. But he question is whether it is acceptable for us to demand a say in how Quebec handlles its referenda.

Centrist

KenS wrote:
On reading your comment again Centrist, I guess my question is answered: you're pretty sure that as things stand, the NDP is going to take a hit in BC over tha SDI.

Even BC NDP leader and next BC premier Adrian Dix supports the Clarity Act, opposes the Unity Act and opposes the 50% + 1 threshold. Dix is politically attuned out here in BC and understands the toxicity of Quebec "separatists."

Canadian Press wrote:
B.C.'s Dix was alone in openly criticizing the unity bill. He said he's  concerned that the 50-plus-one-vote threshold is too low and that the bill  excludes any role for the provinces in judging the clarity of a referendum  question and its result and diminishes their role in any negotiations that would  follow a Yes vote.

"I think B.C. should play a role in that process and I've been clear about  that from the beginning," he said in an interview. Still, Dix said he supports the Clarity Act, as federal New Democrats did when  it was passed in 2000, and doesn't want it amended or repealed.

Again, during the 1990's Reform's ground-zero and hotbed was BC and AB, whereby traditional suburban/rural NDP seats went Reform. I'm just looking at the political angle and how the Cons will definitely utilize it to their advantage in their 2015 election advertising campaign out here. My gut instincts tell me that the Cons will hit a chord with voters, unfortunately.

Ken S wrote:
While the NDP might weather in Quebec perceived waffling on aspects of the SDI, you paid particular attention to 50%+1. Guaranteed: if the NDP backed off of promising to support that, you can kiss most of thse seats in Quebec goodbye.

You mention that 2/3 of people in BC want to see a much higher threshold than 50%+1.

Well, even the majority from Quebec want a higher threshold than 50%+1 based upon several public opinion polls released since last September. Again we have another opinion poll that corroborates same released just today. Therein 75% from Quebec want a higher theshold with the average being ~60%+1:

Canadian Press wrote:
The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey suggests almost three-quarters of  Canadians don't buy Mulcair's assertion that a bare majority of 50 per cent plus  one vote should be sufficient to trigger negotiations on Quebec secession.

Indeed, on average, respondents pegged the ideal threshold at 64 per  cent.

Nationally, 29 per cent said the threshold should be more than 70 per cent,  23 per cent said it should be between 60 and 69 per cent and another 21 per cent  said it should be between 51 and 59 per cent. That's fully 73 per cent who  believed the threshold for negotiating secession should be higher than the NDP's  proposed 50-plus-one-vote.

In Quebec, 75 per cent said the threshold should be higher than a bare  majority. On average, Quebecers pegged the ideal threshold at just under 60 per  cent.

Even among those who identified themselves as NDP supporters, the average  preferred threshold was just less than 63 per cent.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/provincial-ndp-leaders-dodge-federal-party-s-unpopular-unity-bill-1.1160334#ixzz2LC2uA7BP

 

Unionist

It's a shame how progressive people can recognize neo-colonialism everywhere in the world, except where they themselves benefit from and perpetuate it.

I also admire the kind of "recognition" of Québec's right to self-determination that says, "who cares what they do, let 'em leave if they want, they won't be missed". This is the same kind of thuggery which will cheer when troops are sent in. Just compare with the brutal and racist society to the south. When they send their armed youth off to Iraq or Vietnam or Afghanistan, it's precisely those who consider those nations to be a bother, a nuisance, less than human, who are the most intent upon keeping them in the "free world".

Likewise with the neoliberals who masquerade as provincial NDP premiers. Not one of them - not one - is prepared to defend the Sherbrooke Declaration. Apparently recognition of Québec's right to self-determination, and the concept of asymmetric federalism, are "federal" concerns.

Every one of the NDP leadership candidates that I heard pledged allegiance to the Sherbrooke Declaration. They won't even let people read it now. They appear to be governed by fear of handling tough topics.

Unless they find a way to stop watching polls and start listening to their own Québec caucus (for starters), and figure out how to counter Liberal/Conservative propaganda without succumbing to it, they will return (very fast) to the wilderness they inhabited since 1933.

 

 

Pages