Could Quebecois nationalism be exported to the rest of Canada?

[Acajack]

Kool Maudit once made the great observation that independence was not really something that you seek permission for or acceptance of, it's something you take, in a "damn the torpedoes" kind of way.

I think that's very true in the vast majority cases and the exceptions are extremely rare.

Canada in the 21st century has made things either exceptionally clear or exceptionally complex (depending on one's point of view) by adopting the Clarity Act which sets out a road map of sorts for a province seceding from the federation.

But I am not sure that if ever if were to come to a head (either with Quebec, Alberta or any other province) that things would necessarily follow the framework of the Clarity Act as closely as its crafters and cheerleaders imagine.

Because... damn the torpedoes.

[esquire]

^ You are absolutely right Acajack. Once the (metaphorical) bullets are flying and separation is on, it becomes a purely political process, not so much a legal one. The idea that Canada could somehow derail a Alberta separation train chugging along at full steam, assuming it ever got to that point, by raising a bunch of legal technicalities as though it were kind of run of the mill civil suit with a judge in charge of the final decision is naïve.

The Clarity Act laid out Canada's expectations, but it is by no means the final word.

That said, I have no expectation that Alberta would mount a serious attempt at separation, at least under the current set of circumstances.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Kool Maudit once made the great observation that independence was not really something that you seek permission for or acceptance of, it's something you take, in a "damn the torpedoes" kind of way.

I think that's very true in the vast majority cases and the exceptions are extremely rare.

Canada in the 21st century has made things either exceptionally clear or exceptionally complex (depending on one's point of view) by adopting the Clarity Act which sets out a road map of sorts for a province seceding from the federation.

But I am not sure that if ever if were to come to a head (either with Quebec, Alberta or any other province) that things would necessarily follow the framework of the Clarity Act as closely as its crafters and cheerleaders imagine.

Because... damn the torpedoes.

Czechoslovakia is an example of 'orderly' separation.

There's a reason why divorce law is institutionally bound.

That being said, divorce is a pretty serious issue and moreso when you have things that will inevitably bind two people (or countries) together, like kids.

Like divorce, approach separation with caution. You'll find out how much you depend on each other when you try and go your own way. It is better not to divorce your spouse because you don't agree on the colour they painted your kitchen.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Kool Maudit once made the great observation that independence was not really something that you seek permission for or acceptance of, it's something you take, in a "damn the torpedoes" kind of way.

I think that's very true in the vast majority cases and the exceptions are extremely rare.

Canada in the 21st century has made things either exceptionally clear or exceptionally complex (depending on one's point of view) by adopting the Clarity Act which sets out a road map of sorts for a province seceding from the federation.

But I am not sure that if ever if were to come to a head (either with Quebec, Alberta or any other province) that things would necessarily follow the framework of the Clarity Act as closely as its crafters and cheerleaders imagine.

Because... damn the torpedoes.

One notes at that point that Canada has armed forces while the provinces do not. Far-fetched? We've seen in Canada that when the nation feels threatened it reacts (over-reacts?) to protect itself. Although again, no predictions from me. I would, however, have to question the merits of forcing a territory to remain part of a country against its will, although there are examples of that.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by esquire

That said, I have no expectation that Alberta would mount a serious attempt at separation, at least under the current set of circumstances.

We're only 4 days past the election, so I'm interested in how the government will approach this issue. Is this just overreaction by both sides (ever so common in the age of social media today) or an actual thing. I'm betting the former as of right now.

Clearly, the current 'coalition' should be cognizant of Alberta and Saskatchewan's issues. To ignore them would be foolish.

That being said, the CPC should go on a little self-examination and see why they belly-flopped so badly (hint: the leader didn't do them any favours).

[esquire]

^ It's overreaction. It's the usual sour grapes after your side loses an election (same thing happens on the left, although maybe it gets expressed in different ways), combined with crass political opportunism by people like Moe and especially Kenney, who is exceptionally good at sanctimoniously pointing fingers for political gain.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by esquire

^ It's overreaction. It's the usual sour grapes after your side loses an election (same thing happens on the left, although maybe it gets expressed in different ways), combined with crass political opportunism by people like Moe and especially Kenney, who is exceptionally good at sanctimoniously pointing fingers for political gain.

I think our premier did a pretty good job setting out Manitoba’s position in the aftermath.
Everybody West and East just have to chill out. The westerners need to tone down the rhetoric. The easterners need stop their unhelpful critiques.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

I think our premier did a pretty good job setting out Manitoba’s position in the aftermath.
Everybody West and East just have to chill out. The westerners need to tone down the rhetoric. The easterners need stop their unhelpful critiques.

Yeah, it felt like Pallister was the only adult in the room for a moment.

[ssiguy]

No country is going to alienate a country as important as Canada for the sole reason of being swell to Quebec. For the rest of the planet, an independent Quebec is a no-win scenario. Even countries that maybe sympathetic to Quebec's aspirations {such as France}, there is no way, in hell, that they would risk the integrity of the own country to get into Quebec's good books.

English Canada use to be very afraid of Quebec separation because they always saw French Canada as their primary difference between Canada and the US. English Canada has traditionally been very culturally and socially insecure but now that is no longer the case. The US and Canada have gone in socially different directions and that is the result of English Canada's increasing security, not Quebec's. The fear of Quebec separation is long since gone and this time you wouldn't see any English Canadians pleading with Quebec to stay but rather English Canadians demanding that any potential separation terms are dictated by Ottawa and they would be very harsh.

The separatists of the 1960/70/80s are quite different from the ones today and English Canada has also changed and the fear of separation is gone. Due to English Canada being very insecure, Quebec use to make it's demands to Ottawa with at a gun at it's head but the gun has now changed direction. Quebec may be shocked at Ottawa's undiplomatic response and say that they can't act that way but Ottawa simply reply with what the other Trudeau said...…….."just watch me".

[ssiguy]

Another issue that would effect separatism that Quebecers fail to appreciate is CANADIAN politics after separation. Any party that doesn't make very harsh terms that would bring an independent Quebec to it's knees would not only feel the wrath of ROC in the next election but would be the destruction of the party. They would forever be known as the party that said adieu to Quebec with a golden hand shake.

Politically in Canada, the more severe the terms, the better off the political party will be. ANY sign of diplomacy or good will by Ottawa will be seen as a capitulation and all the parties know it. Canadians will DEMAND a separation agreement that will bring an independent Quebec to it's social, political, and economic knees. The ROC will be out for blood and the political parties will be more than happy to oblige them.

[Acajack]

Holy cow. Lots of "issues".

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Another issue that would effect separatism that Quebecers fail to appreciate is CANADIAN politics after separation. Any party that does make very harsh terms that would bring an independent Quebec to it's knees would not only feel the wrath of ROC in the next election but would be the destruction of the party. They would forever be known as the party that said adieu to Quebec with a golden hand shake.

Politically in Canada, the more severe the terms, the better off the political party will be. ANY sign of diplomacy or good will by Ottawa will be seen as a capitulation and all the parties know it. Canadians will DEMAND a separation agreement that will bring an independent Quebec to it's social, political, and economic knees. The ROC will be out for blood and the political parties will be more than happy to oblige them.

You seem to be arguing two opposite things at the same time.

[logan5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascad...dence_movement)

Maybe not quite on topic, but interesting nonetheless. Washington State seems very serious about a highspeed rail connecting Portland, Seattle and Vancouver. If Vancouver was only a 40 minute train ride away from Seattle, that would intertwine the region so closely, their would be a comfort and familiarity that could take such a movement to the next stage.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

You seem to be arguing two opposite things at the same time.

I know..……...I said does and not doesn't in regards to being harsh. Sorry about that, it's now fixed.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Holy cow. Lots of "issues".

Not at all.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I love Quebec and know it well. It IS unique in Canada and indeed in all of the Western Hemisphere due to it's linguistic and cultural background. What applies to Quebec in it's social and political environments are often quite different from those in the ROC especially from Western Canada. I am from London and went to Carleton so I am an Ontarian at heart and so I don't hold this anti-Quebec mentality that you get out here from people who have never even been there. Hell most BCers haven't been east of Winnipeg.

I would very much regret an independent Quebec and would consider it a great loss to Canada and it's soul. That however changes nothing. Canada would impose the harshest of terms and the stereotypical nice and diplomatic Canadian would be thrown out the window.

[kool maudit]

I doubt it. Upper and Lower Canada would quietly reroute a large part of their existing interconnections across the new border while saying whatever words are convenient. The West would be left to simmer in rage and astonishment.

The Canadas, like most regions, consist of individuals, families, and their empires. The containers are just that. Confederation demonstrated this, and so would Devolution.

(This is not an endorsement, as it points to obvious corruption and secrecy. It's just how I suspect it would go.)

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

One notes at that point that Canada has armed forces while the provinces do not. Far-fetched? We've seen in Canada that when the nation feels threatened it reacts (over-reacts?) to protect itself. Although again, no predictions from me. I would, however, have to question the merits of forcing a territory to remain part of a country against its will, although there are examples of that.

That's ultimately what it comes down to, Canada has a viable military while the provinces do not. Whatever happens, Canada ultimately has the final say.

We could imagine a scenario where a village decides to declare independence, which they have just as much right to do as any other region of land. But whatever that village does, the police or military can shut them down and arrest them if this independence causes laws to be broken. Scale that up to a province, and it isn't fundamentally different.

Of course, it probably wouldn't come to the use of military force in the case of a province seperating. But that option is always there, and ensures that Canada is always the party that decides the terms of separation.

[ssiguy]

As far as Quebec exporting it's nationalism the only other place would be in Newfoundland which has always had an independent streak with a very unique culture.

[vid]

Should we be allowed to evict a province?

Suppose a province passes a law that is wholly incongruent with what a majority of the country considers to be acceptable, but a majority of the individuals within that jurisdiction do find it acceptable? Should we be allowed to wholesale ostracize them to the point of involuntary severance of their landmass from our country?

Should we be able to kick them out?

(Important note here: How fucked up would this be! Imagine a Manitoba sized hole in the country because they banned Hallowe'en lolololol)

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by vid

Should we be allowed to evict a province?

Suppose a province passes a law that is wholly incongruent with what a majority of the country considers to be acceptable, but a majority of the individuals within that jurisdiction do find it acceptable? Should we be allowed to wholesale ostracize them to the point of involuntary severance of their landmass from our country?

Should we be able to kick them out?

(Important note here: How fucked up would this be! Imagine a Manitoba sized hole in the country because they banned Hallowe'en lolololol)

I can't see any scenario that would see the country trying to "evict" a province. Far more likely would be the creation of conditions that would oblige a province to bend to the national will or attempt to secede.