Should Quebec be its own country?

I hope you are not trying to put words in my mouth. You and Montreal Mark are sure quick to imply that anyone who disagrees with you is stupid.

You said "my family" and "we" like you were there or even knew anyone who was there. I am saying you weren't and have no idea what really went on.

 

First off, the last thing I would ever do is emulate the american system...

Now, to address the first part...

You did not use those words, but yes, you did in fact say just what you think you didn't.

Follow your thinking through to the end...

Support the sepertatist movement in quebec... it becomes a seperate nation...

Northern Quebec decides that they want to seperate from the Nation of Quebec to better reflect their culture.

Those in Hull quebec, who used to be part of the nations capital, are a little miffed at having all thier power getting sucked to quebec city (or whereever the capital is placed), so they want a seperate nation of Hull.

Well, there are a couple of blocks in Hull where it is mostly Italian people... They want to be their own country too...

Where do you draw the line in which separatist movements you will support and which you won't?

If quebec has the right to seperate, then each of the following groups will claim the same right... the end result is that there would be a million seperate communities. What happens when the communites that have farms decide they don't want to trade for anything with those in the cities?

Will those in the city lay down and quietly starve to death?

Or will they take up arms against the farming communities in order to ensure their survival?

Of course the farming community isnt going to just let those city slickers come in and take their food... so they are going to take up arms to defend themself... and from those armed people, a leader will emerge, who now controls an armed force...

and so on...

That is what I read, when I see you saying you support seperatist movements...

What is it that you think will stop this from happening?

The reason I think it WILL happen, is because that is exactly how we got to where we are today.

 

I almost missed this part... Your system did not change to what it is over night.. it did it one step at a time, each one small enough that the people would never get upset enough to do anything... Do you think that those in power will suddenly forget how to manipulate the masses?

 

Some people who agree with me are stupid, so I can't be certain if the reverse is true!

It would not be cool of me to take this thread into a debate about the Confederate States of America, so I'll just say that there would be no such thing as political science if we did not have the ability to learn from other political systems (past, present and hypothetical) in order to visualize how we could make a more equitable situation for the peoples you are hoping to help.

 

Tom, you've made some good points all along, but this is the one big one that keeps me up late at night.

My only hope is that Abe Lincoln was right when he said, "You can't fool all the people all the time".

 

He was right, unfortunately, you don't need to fool all of the people all of the time to keep the masses in control...

 

Then if you have at least some level of de-centralization (not necessarily to the point of statehood or nationhood) you create a vehicle for some people to game the system and create their own personal corrupt fiefdom, but conversely you also create venues where greater levels of civil liberties can flourish.

Iowa and the Dakotas are widely regarded as having superior educational systems.

Massachusetts has by reputation a superior health care system.

Vermont has no laws against public nudity (the freedom I personally think is rather cool).

Arkansas makes it a crime to even verbally advocate nudism. (the down side to local autonomy) but on the whole, some degree of local autonomy has the potential for creating hothouses where exotic freedoms can bloom and be an example and show the way forward to the rest of us.

So does this apply to Canada, Quebec and its vastly divergent peoples, vast distances, cultures, and climates?
I think so, but it's your homeland, you tell me!

 

I don't imply anything. If someone appears to be stupid, I'll come right out and call them stupid. ChronicTom is a good example. He acts like a goof, so I refer to him as a goof.


As for anyone else, I admit I have an arrogant attitude about my intelligence. To that effect, I have a very low tolerance for anyone that obviously has a problem with basic reading comprehension. English is not my first language and I loathe having to teach anglophones how to read and understand it in order to have a conversation with them.

 

Tom, it's first a matter of economy of scale. The question as to whether Quebec could potentially be a viable independent nation is a function of their existing economic base, i.e. is it large enough, diverse enough to provide goods and services for export and local consumption to function relatively independently of the remaining provinces?

If questions of economy of scale can be addressed, then the issue of culture comes into question. Could an independent Quebec function as Switzerland does with French, German, Italian and Romansch cantons? In theory, but it's possibly hampered by how interspersed the various ethnicities are within Quebec.

Now as to the issue of how an independent Quebec could potentially interact with the Anglo provinces...
When India split into Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan there were some peoples so dispersed that they they could not be repatriated to their new country, but the separation was successful. The violence that followed and warfare that continued is not proof that nations cannot be born peacefully. In the case of Czech Republic and Slovakia, it seems to be working okay and commerce is not unreasonably impeded between the newly formed countries. I think the same could be said for the former Yugoslav republics.

 

More insults with nothing of substance to the original topic....

 

Why is the split stopping at quebec? I can guarantee you that the population of northern quebec will not want to be in a separate country with the south part.

 

Tom, I am not saying that splits at regional and local levels would not occur, but a national split could have an entirely different character from an intra-provincial split. A "split" in a neighborhood could have entirely different meaning. I am not proposing nationhood for a hypothetical city state of Montreal for instance.

If Quebec becomes an independent nation, northern Quebec could either:
1. Petition to become a new province of Anglo-Canada

2. Petition to become part of an existing province of Anglo-Canada

3. Achieve a degree of autonomy within the nation of Quebec such as enjoyed by Swiss Cantons within Switzerland.

4. Be completely politically and culturally dominated by a strong central government of Quebec.

5. Become an independent nation. (but for reasons of economy of scale and cultural factors, probably not a likely scenario)

 

a) Why not?
b) Who said you get to decide? What I was trying to get at, is that once it starts, who can say where it will end. Why would you support it for one group (french) and not another group (the northern tribes) or a city?

If you can see that it doesn't make sense for these splits, what is the difference that makes it okay for quebec in your mind?

The idea that because of economy of scale would somehow change anything ignores the fact that quebec CAN NOT afford to separate, which you say you support.

 

Hey Tom, been gone for a while.
I don't get to decide what day they pick up recycling on the curb, much less your situation. I am saying that economic realities will decide this stuff for them.
Either it will work or it will not.
If it works, I would support an independent Quebec. If they crash and burn, I'll say, "sorry it didn't work out, but at least you gave it your best shot.

 

Sorry it didn't work out?

Do you really have any concept of what you are saying?

Destroy a country in order to give a minority a chance to carve their own country out of the carcass? If it doesn't work... oh well...

 

Well, that's why you do feasibility studies before actually trying to implement something like this.

 

I don't think the population base there can sustain all the social programs required. It's just not viable. They'd go broke.

 

you dont understand the mechanics of the global pic

quebec can NEVER separate from canada !
WHY have so many prime ministers been from quebec ?
BUY OFF !

You see its simple ... quebec owns the sea port access which the country
lives off [st lawrence seaway]

that would choke the lifeline.

We would have to kill you all rather tyhan allow separation
think im kidding?

Think German-Anglo-Jew alliance using biological weapons dsiguised as a 'plague' introduced via water system, study other advanced weapons specialized to specific targets ...

An act of separataion taking away the seaway would be seen by anglos as attempted muder and respose would be of like kind but FIRST becase anglo-jew-german intel is far superior to french intel

think cells phones [german anglo owned]
how about microsoft [anglo]

see my point ?

You french have been bought off repeatedly
you get a french prime minister
anglos get the seaway, and control over all canada with a few
exceptions which keep quebec unique
and i do love those differences
viv la differance

but quebec separate ?

an uneducated dream which is in denial of the already in operation world government

did u know HIV is a race selective bio-weapon ?
it is !
developed in africa by a CIA trained doctor
10% of caucasians have immunity
blacks
asians
NONE !

think that couldnt be done with french?
wrong !

tech is about 70 years ahead of what you know
it is 'classified'

and you are trapped.

quebec cannot separate anymore than atoms can be split and remain intact
injoy the tamtam !

 

The way I see it, they could
just do the same as they've
done in the uk with scotland.
Just have quebec within a federal Canada but allow it to call itself it's own country while mainting
the same econimic system,currency etc.
Everything will be exactly the
same except quebec will be a
counry similiar as wales,scotland
are to the uk.
Also,Quebec will get its own hockey team in the olympics etc.
Eveybody will be happy.

 

English Canada is basically the 51st state and anglophone canadians have the exact same culture as the United States. They say they're different because they stick a Maple Leaf in the centre of the McDonalds sign. But a quick look at their politics and you see like penis envy they had George Bush envy and made certain they elected a head of state that was just like hip.

They're a fucking stupid species that complains about learning another language as if they were being ask to perform root canal on themselfs. They get their information from the TV and as such know more about american politics than their own.

The name Canada twas given to us from the indiens because unlike english canadians we made alliances and treaties with them. Today 87,32% of all Québécois de souche have some native north american indien blood because of those origional treaties.

So here is my solution to the problem. We sue english canada for ilegal use of the name 'Canada' because it was ours for 150 years before the english came along. When we get our name back it will effectively mean that the anglophones will be without a nation and that will mean they are free to live out their dream.... The dream of being americans.