sovreingty support at 43 % ( crop)

31 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lefauve
sovreingty support at 43 % ( crop)

Latest poll on sovreignty is at 43% What do you think of it?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

It'll go higher once Harper gets rolling with his majority.

Question: as support for sovereignty grows, will the NDP get with the program, or get left behind?

Lefauve

I don't know boom boom,

I think right now that the game is in Harper hand's,

If he play with partisanery it will likely grow,

But If he play like a real men of the stat it will keep stable.

Right now, i'm trying to do some prediction, but there are simply to much unkown and probability.

The law of chaos at it best!

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

It puts the NDP in a difficult position, I think. Because, as support for sovereignty grows, the federal NDP in Quebec will have to make choices. If the federal NDP in Quebec are seen to be weak on the issue of sovereignty, why should pro-sovereigntists vote for them?

Lefauve

I understand your point Boom Boom, But i think that your point is valide as long as canada is making it to the next election.
On the time line between now and the next federal election they are a provincial election which anything is possible.

In that election the outcome of a probable election of sovrengty party or a sovreignty coalition is highly probable.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

We'll have to wait and see, I suppose. In the meantime, keep an eye on the polls.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Young Quebec separatists drum up support for independence

excerpt:

With the more recent defeat in mind, another group of young Quebec separatists has put together a book of essays to drum up support for the independence movement.

The book, which translates as "I would have voted Yes but I was too young," was unveiled Sunday evening in Montreal. Bruno Forest, one of the authors, said the book gives voice to young separatists who weren't old enough to vote during previous referendums but still believe the dream of independence is achievable.

Like Zambito, Forest said he's not discouraged by the near disappearance of the Bloc. He said the NDP managed to break through in the province because voters wanted a strong party to defend their interests against the Conservatives.

And he said there are new reasons for Quebec to separate, including the federal government's lack of commitment to climate change policies.

Zambito said Monday's provincial holiday, which commemorates the Lower Canada rebellion against the British in 1837-1838, is an important reminder of Quebec's distinct roots and the need for a separate country.

He said the Young Patriots have received a lot of support since asking for cash and volunteers, and he expects several hundred people to attend the rally Monday afternoon in Montreal.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

You just knew this was coming, right? Laughing

Dion offering clarity again

excerpt:

But Dion was one of just 34 Liberal MPs to survive the recent election, so he's still in Parliament and he's still concerned with pushing for clarity over the rules and tools for Canada in confronting the possibility of Quebec secession.

With a Quebec election on the horizon, and considering the recent secessionist case of Sudan, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute has released a commentary by Dion arguing again that unilateral secession has no legal foundation in Canada and that negotiation would be the only way forward.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Secession and the Virtues of Clarity 

By The Honourable Stéphane Dion, P.C., M.P.

Conclusion

 

Quebec's sovereignist movement has given itself a huge task: to convince us Quebeckers to make Quebec an independent country, and in order to do that, give up Canada, the country we have built with other Canadians and which is the envy of the world. Far from making secession less onerous, attempting to achieve this objective unilaterally would put it out of reach.

Whether one is for or against Quebec's secession, one has to admit that unilateral secession would be doomed to fail. It would be bad for everyone concerned. It would not lead to independence and it would be very disruptive for all.

And the reason is simple: a unilateral secession would have no legal foundation. It would contravene Canadian law and would have no legal standing in international law. In clarifying this point of law, the Supreme Court has done to everyone a great service.

It has also done us service by confirming that secession is possible within the legal framework. A separation agreement would have to be duly negotiated within the Canadian constitutional context, and on the basis of a clear expression of the will of Quebeckers to leave Canada in order to make Quebec an independent State.

The diffculties that the separatist leaders are having in convincing Quebeckers to clearly give up on Canada do not authorize them to resort to confusion to achieve that end. Clarity has virtues for everybody.

The break-up of a modern state such as Canada would be a very diffcult goal to attain - and an unreachable one if pursued without clarity and outside the rule of law. This is a lesson of value for Canada, and certainly not for Canada only. It highlights  the universal scope and significance of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Frmrsldr

When the time has come where a people and a culture see themselves as sovereign and genuinely wish for independent statehood there isn't much that can be done to stop it - short perhaps, of a ghastly, murderous and brutal war.

And even that's no guarantee.

Stockholm

Frmrsldr wrote:

When the time has come where a people and a culture see themselves as sovereign and genuinely wish for independent statehood there isn't much that can be done to stop it - short perhaps, of a ghastly, murderous and brutal war.

I agree. But when that happens - you get sweeping majorities voting for independence when given a clear unequivocal question (ie: people in Southern Sudan voting 99% YES to "do you want to become an independent country?) - having 50.000000000001% voting Yes to fuzzy ambiguous question is not what i would call "a people and a culture seeing themselves as sovereign and genuinely wishing for independent statehood" it means something, but not that.

Frmrsldr

I was addressing these points:

wrote:

Secession and the Virtues of Clarity 

By The Honourable Stéphane Dion, P.C., M.P.

Conclusion

 

... Far from making secession less onerous, attempting to achieve this objective unilaterally would put it out of reach.

Whether one is for or against Quebec's secession, one has to admit that unilateral secession would be doomed to fail...  It would not lead to independence...

And the reason is simple: a unilateral secession would have no legal foundation. It would contravene Canadian law and would have no legal standing in international law.

It has also done us service by confirming that secession is possible within the legal framework. A separation agreement would have to be duly negotiated within the Canadian constitutional context, and on the basis of a clear expression of the will of Quebeckers to leave Canada in order to make Quebec an independent State.

The break-up of a modern state such as Canada would be a very diffcult goal to attain - and an unreachable one if pursued without clarity and outside the rule of law.

That a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) or secession would have no legal basis and is doomed to failure is false or questionable at best:

Look at Kosovo; keep eyes on Palestine.

I don't think the "clarity" he is referring to is the wording of Sovereignty Referenda, I think it's the language that should be used in drawing a roadmap for possible future negotiations between the federal government of Canada and the 'national' government of the province of Quebec for future (possible) sovereignty.

If people see themselves as independent and genuinely wish to become a sovereign nation-state, they aren't going to dither around with unclear language when it comes to the Referenda and to the UDI.

If they do, then independent statehood is not the main but some other objectives are being sought after.

Caissa

On Tuesday, Layton seemed to back the Clarity Act passed in 2000, which sets conditions for Quebec independence and ultimately gives Ottawa the right to decide what constitutes a clear referendum question.

"We believe that the decision made by the Supreme Court and accepted by both sides that talks about an important majority...we can be moving ahead with that framework," Layton said, referring to the Supreme Court decision that is the basis for the Clarity Act.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/05/26/quebec-reaction-layton-...

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Caissa wrote:

On Tuesday, Layton seemed to back the Clarity Act passed in 2000, which sets conditions for Quebec independence and ultimately gives Ottawa the right to decide what constitutes a clear referendum question.

 

I saw that too, but later, under attack, Layton retreated back to the Sherbrooke Declaration of 50+1.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

There seems to be a conflict brewing - again. Or else I am reading this all wrong - can someone correct me, please?

Quebec rejects Dion's Clarity Act (and the Supreme  Court decision) because it calls for a clear majority of "Yes" votes for sovereignty.

The NDP (in the Sherbrooke Declaration) is more in tune with Quebec's demand that "50 + 1"  - is sufficient.

So - another fight brewing? The Feds want the Clarity Act, Quebec insists on "50 + 1".

 

 

bekayne

Boom Boom wrote:

Quebec rejects Dion's Clarity Act (and the Supreme  Court decision) because it calls for a clear majority of "Yes" votes for sovereignty.

Though in the 2000 election, right after the Clarity bill, the Liberals took more votes in Quebec than the BQ. Which led to Lucien Bouchard's resignation.

bekayne

With regards to 50.00% + 1 vote, does anyone think such a result would be easily settled? It took 2 years to settle who was going to be the MP for York North after the 1988 election.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I read the Sherbrooke Declaration last night (for the umpteenth time) and it says clearly 50% + 1%.

Snert Snert's picture

That might be more easily expressed as 51%.

Any chance it was actually 50% + 1?

bekayne

Snert wrote:

That might be more easily expressed as 51%.

Any chance it was actually 50% + 1?

50% + 1 means 50% + 1 vote. In other words, neverending recounts.

Snert Snert's picture

Fair enough.  But I can't see why anyone would intentionally write 51% as 50% + 1%.  Why not 43% + 8%, or 50.9% + 0.1%?

You may be correct that on the infinitessimally small chance that the votes went (say) 2,485,229/2,485,230 there would be some hanging chad issues, but as a standard, I'd always understood 50% + 1 to simply mean any majority, as small as one vote.

That said, this would be a pretty huge change to rest on a difference of one opinion.  I'd think a supermajority might be appropriate here, unless (like elections) everyone gets another go at it in four years.  That's just my RoC opinion though.

Lefauve

stern 50%+1 meen 50% of the vote add one vote not 51%

Still i beleive that 50%+1 is the only way to have a decratic referendum other way will give a different value depending the options you vote ex you got 100 voter the clarity is set at 60%
than mean that the yes option value is .8 vote and the no option is 1.20 vote it not democratic at all when some vote got more value.

Lefauve

sorry i mean democratic not decratic

Unionist

Boom Boom wrote:

 

Quebec rejects Dion's Clarity Act (and the Supreme  Court decision) because it calls for a clear majority of "Yes" votes for sovereignty.

Wrong. Québec never recognized the right of the federal Parliament, nor of the Supreme Court, to determine how, when, whether Québec may exercise its right of self-determination. The issue of percentage was only one aspect of the interference in the rights of the Québec people. Another was the "clarity" of the question. The fundamental issue is that the Québec nation is sovereign, and it alone decides whether to participate in a federation or not.

That's why the questions being put to Layton are meaningless. He should simply reply that Québec has the right to self-determination if its people so decide, and it's not up to anyone else to dictate terms to them - but that our job is to ensure that all the reasons for Québec to stay in Canada are maintained and strengthened.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I stand corrected - thanks for answering the question I raised. I also agree it's Quebec's decision whether to remain in the federation or not. I find it hard to imagine Harper will give us any reason to stay.

 

Lefauve

Boom Boom wrote:

I stand corrected - thanks for answering the question I raised. I also agree it's Quebec's decision whether to remain in the federation or not. I find it hard to imagine Harper will give us any reason to stay.

 

I think that Harper will serve the winning condition on a silver plater!

With the possible bonus of his resignation!

wage zombie

 

Unionist wrote:

Wrong. Québec never recognized the right of the federal Parliament, nor of the Supreme Court, to determine how, when, whether Québec may exercise its right of self-determination. The issue of percentage was only one aspect of the interference in the rights of the Québec people. Another was the "clarity" of the question. The fundamental issue is that the Québec nation is sovereign, and it alone decides whether to participate in a federation or not.

Is it generally accepted among separatists that a secession attempt requires a referendum for legitimacy?  I'm not going anywhere with this, I'm just curious (and would guess that the answer is yes).

Quote:

That's why the questions being put to Layton are meaningless. He should simply reply that Québec has the right to self-determination if its people so decide, and it's not up to anyone else to dictate terms to them - but that our job is to ensure that all the reasons for Québec to stay in Canada are maintained and strengthened.

Totally agree.

Unionist

wage zombie wrote:

Is it generally accepted among separatists that a secession attempt requires a referendum for legitimacy?  I'm not going anywhere with this, I'm just curious (and would guess that the answer is yes).

Yes - not only among separatists, but all Quebeckers. It's a point of unanimous agreement.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Apparently Flaherty just wrote $2.2billion into the budget for Quebec's HST. Strange, maybe it's to get support for Charest's re-election in two or three years?

Frmrsldr

wage zombie wrote:

Is it generally accepted among separatists that a secession attempt requires a referendum for legitimacy?  I'm not going anywhere with this, I'm just curious (and would guess that the answer is yes).

Unionist wrote:

Yes - not only among separatists, but all Quebeckers. It's a point of unanimous agreement.

The precedents established by the Republics of Ireland and South Africa and the (new state of) Kosovo (to name a few) and possibly Palestinians' application for statehood to the U.N. should be very interesting to Quebeckers.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

First of all, the so-called Clarity Act is a complete fraud - as with most of the crap that emerges from the Liberal Party.

A REAL Clarity Act would have provided (here's a radical idea) CLARITY.

The so-called Clarity Act does exactly the opposite.

A REAL Clarity Act would have said that the wording of a clear question has to be this specific wording (whatever that specific wording might be), and that the necessary margin is one that meets these specific criteria (ie, 50% + 1 OR 60% OR votes totalling 50% + 1 of all eligible voters whether they voted or not).

Instead, Stephane Dion's act of fraud essentially says "the losing side will determine after the fact what the rules are."

Under the terms of the so-called Clarity Act, a perfectly clear question (ie, "Do you wish Quebec to be an independent and sovereign state, legally and politically separate from and no langer part of Canada?) could carry a majority of 99% and the federal government would have the absolute authority to say that the question was not clear enough and/or the margin not wide enough.

Second, the means of defeating separatism in Quebec is NOT by playing silly bugger with the rules or by fixing the outcome after the fact, but by persuading Quebeckers (ALL Quebeckers) that they would rather be part of Canada.

The fact that the Liberal Party are trying to rebuild by provoking a constitutional crisis is the clearest evidence yet that every single person in a ledaership role with the Liberal Party - INCLUDING Stephane Dion - is completely morally bankrupt.