Brother against brother, Doper against Doper…
You’re saying the rights of the rest of Canada supersede the rights of the people of the province in question democratically voting to secede? I’m not sure I support that idea, since probably the only thing that would get Albertans to vote to secede would be the federal government of Canada trying to take too much advantage of us.
What I personally would do would depend entirely on the circumstances and the reasons for a vote of secession starting to look like a good idea.
In my case it would depend on the part of the country. Euskadi wants to go off on their own, without Navarra? Good riddance and take your political parties with you. Euskadi wants to go off and take Navarra? I don’t know what would I be able to do, but any way I can find to fight them, I’ll use. Other parts? I don’t see why any other parts would, as most depend too much on Madrid money - including Catalonia, they have a pretty fat line to that cow’s tit. The fastest way I’ve found to shut up my Catalanist relatives is to ask them how much is Catalonia sending to Madrid per capita (total is cheating, as they’re one of the biggest regions) and how much are they receiving per capita. They receive more than they send.
A country leaving the EU: it happened, IIRC, I just can’t remember who. They wouldn’t receive more “structural funds,” it could create a work permit nightmare, but whatever. They’re sovereign countries, they can go.
Just wondering, given these comments: Did you both miss post number 10, where it was explained that Canada has defined a legal and democratic process for the secession of a province? First, there is a referendum subject to the provisions of the Clarity Act. Then, if the referendum passes, negotiations that set the terms of secession are entered into between the government of the seceding province and the government of Canada. Where, in this peaceful, democratic, negotiated process, is the taking up of arms advocated?
Of course, if Quebec or Canada choose not to play by the rules, then anything goes I guess. But we seem to be unique among federated nations in that by setting these rules, we actually admit that a province may feel it is better off leaving our federation; and thus we allow for a province to secede from the federation, subject to rules laid down by the SCC (when a Quebecer was Chief Justice) and Parliament (when a Quebecer was PM, and in which Quebecers sat and voted). The United States doesn’t admit that a state can secede nor does its Constitution or federal statutes allow for such an event; and neither, to the best of my knowledge, do similar documents in Australia. But we do. So, outside of a few fanatical and independent crazies who may take to the streets, and given that we have these rules that allow for peaceful and negotiated secession, why would we imagine that a military action requiring the CF and some kind of organized armed force of Quebec would be needed?
Really? To take you at your word, if you were of age at the time (and assuming you won’t incriminate yourself), what did you have in store back in '95?
Fair enough, but Canada would be in two big chunks separated by another country, not one state off by itself. Hell, Newfoundland is already like that.
More to the point, the Atlantic Provinces would be in a world where secession had already occurred once. If the Nation of Quebec were doing well, if east/west tensions in the remnant Canada were worsening, going it alone like Quebec might look like a good deal. If the US economy were up and running, joining the US might also look like a good idea to one of the have not provinces, or one that abuts the border, like New Brunswick.
I suppose that, specifically, I might care more, but in general, I would have no issues with any part of any country breaking off or joining another <this is providing it’s pro-active, and not something forced on it by another entity>.
But I also believe that many or most of what might be termed “society’s pitfalls” tend to occur due to overcrowding, or too many people wanting a limited resource, or too many differing ways of life trying to overlap in a way that just isn’t working.
So space is always good, in my opinion, even if it’s just the ‘space’ of having a political barrier between those who want one thing and those who want another.
‘Good fences make good neighbors’, is what I think I’m taking far too many words to say. 
Omniscient seems to have pretty much nailed it. Maybe I am changing my mind.
That is, of course, another big element of the issue. For a long time there was a huge disparity between the wealth levels of Eire and the UK and Eire simply couldn’t have supported NI. By the time they could the EU had bedded in and it kind of made it a little less urgent who owned which bit of land in the long run (one of the many reasons I’m glad the EU is around, it tends to have that effect).
Anything north of Oxford can vanish as far as I’m concerned 
Although that does beg the question who is succeeding from who…
<notes that Bosda is in Tennessee>
If you and your wife move to California and get divorced, would you still be brother and sister?
I think it would depend on the case, and whether I feel like I have a dog in this fight. If Cuba were to become a democracy and Miami were to try to secede to join up with Cuba, I’d at least listen to the advantages and disadvantages.
If Texas were to secede in order to become a more libertarian place, I’d support it, even if it could hurt the other 49 states in the short run. If nothing else, I’d love to see how the Islamists deal with it. You know, you don’t mess with Texas, and all that. I might even start looking for work opportunities in Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin.
I don’t think that the ROI could have absorbed NI at any time in the past few decades, even at the height of the boom. The economy in NI is too much bolstered by British public money, a huge percentage of jobs in NI are public service. Most of these jobs would disappear in a united Ireland. There is also the issue of paying for security. I think if NI universally adopted the Euro* I would have no issue with it remaining in the UK.
*Many towns in NI do take the Euro.
You’re thinking of Arkansas.
I support no lengths to prevent part of the country from seceding. They wanna go, fine with me.
Amazingly though it might seem, I can, in fact, read.
Yes, Parliament has passed the Clarity Act. That is as far as it’s gone. Quebec has never acknowledged its validity **and passed a law effectively stating Quebec was not bound by the Clarity Act. ** If in fact a separatist government can force through a 50%+1 vote on a vague question the odds they will respect the provisions of the Clarity Act are exactly zero.
So whaddya do if Quebec passed a referendum that DOESN’T meet the requirements of the Clarity Act and then declares unilateral separation, as was Jacques Parizeau’s plan in 1995, saying “To hell with the Clarity Act”? That IS what will happen. The legal process will not proceed according to the Clarity Act, in part because Act puts so many barriers in front of separation that it really amounts to saying “You can’t leave if we don’t want you to.” It insists on a lot more than clarity.
We’re talking in hypotheticals, and I wanted to suggest both possibilities.
Your possibilities are, well possible, but I think cooler heads will prevail.
Quebec’s law can be trumped by either Parliament’s Declaratory Power, or by the doctrine of Parliamentary Paramountcy. Of course, if Quebec chooses not to follow those laws, then all bets are off. And if Quebec chooses not to follow the provisions of the Clarity Act, then all bets are also off. But let’s also suppose that not all Quebecers are suicidal maniacs, willing to pit deer rifles against the CF. Perhaps then, they might see reason and be willing to go along with the provisions laid down by Parliament anf the SCC. I see no reason why (the wishes of Jacques Parizeau and his ilk notwithstanding) the Quebec members of the CF would act as traitors against the Crown to which they have sworn an oath.
Of course, if they were to take back that oath, that would be one thing. But, RickJay, as a former member of the CF, would you take back that oath because a provincial politician told you that you should? In other words, would you backtrack on your oath on the directions of someone who is, as a provincial politician, themselves constitutionally subordinate to the Crown?
I’d have no problem with any part of Canada separating. As long as they take their portion of the federal debt with them, that is. It’s like going dutch to a restaurant. You don’t leave until you put your money down on the table.
I cannot guarantee that anyone will play according to the rules. What if the federal government refuses to negotiate? If I remember right, in both referenda regarding Quebec independence the federal government intended to completely ignore a Yes result. And even if the federal agrees at first to discuss, I can guarantee arduous negotiations which may very well not lead to any agreement. What then?
We may like to believe that there is a way to establish a legal framework for the secession of a province, but the fact is that it is a political and not legal question. If secession is politically feasible, it will happen, and if not, it won’t, even if 95% of the population would support it, regardless of what the law says. I don’t believe Quebec will ever be independent (the reasons for this are manifold, but largely because against stereotype Quebecers are an accommodating and insecure people), but if it ever did the Clarity Act would play no role at all. It’s very unlikely that it would lead to military action either; at worst we’d have some posturing on one or both sides.
Interestingly, I’ve heard that the level of support for independence by Quebec members of the Canadian Forces is higher than you may imagine. It’s probably only anecdotic though; I can’t believe anyone ever did a survey on this. And I can’t say where their loyalty would fall if they ever have to choose. Though I have read that during the Slovenian War of Independence, a significant number of Yugoslav military personnel sent to the conflict area was Slovene, and most of them apparently did defect to the Slovenian side. Of course, Slovenians had previously voted 96% for independence, which did give them some legitimacy. Now there’s a people who isn’t shy. 
With the rulings in place, and the constitutional question settled, the federal government is legally and constitutionally bound to operate according to the rules. Will Quebec play by the rules?
No. With the SCC decision and the Clarity Act, it is now a legal question. If Quebec has a problem with that, it has some outstanding lawyers and jurists it can call upon to argue its case, but as I see things, no matter who holds power in Ottawa or Quebec City, the question will be decided according to law. It is not, and no more will be, a political question, subject to the whims of who is in power: Roncarelli v. Duplessis [1959] SCR 121. If Duplessis couldn’t have his way, neither can any Quebec premier (unless his or her wishes are legally and constitutionally carried out, that is).
What is said in passing in the barracks and the mess is one thing; it is another to tell a soldier that if he breaks his oath, he will be a traitor and subject to the sanctions that befall a traitor if he is found guilty at a court martial.
Uzi has the right idea–Quebec may indeed, after the proper procedure, break away; but it then becomes subject to repayment of its portion of the federal debt, as well as reparations for federal government installations in the province (e.g. CFB Bagotville, alll the federal buildings in Hull, etc.).