What lengths (if any) would you support to prevent part of your country from seceding?

In My Humble Opinion
61

The federal government can simply make unacceptable demands at the negotiation table. What happens then? I suppose the idea is that if the Canadian government and the secessionist province cannot reach an agreement, then secession cannot occur, but this means that the feds can block any attempt to secede, subject only to Parliamentary oversight and the electorate’s will which can be overwhelmingly against separation outside of the province in question. I’m sure you’ll understand why some people may believe this solves nothing.

Realpolitik is what will determine the outcome. Suppose we reach the kind of deadlock I described earlier (which would certainly happen). If the secessionist government has allies among influent foreign governments, it can use them to exert pressure on the federal government to offer acceptable terms. If, on the other hand, it doesn’t, then there is nothing the secessionist government can do. If it leaves the “negotiation” table and unilaterally declares independence, then it better hope it can defend its territory, and since it presumably cannot (let’s be realistic) the only thing left is to accept the failure and make some angry speeches.

As much as you may think the rule of law will prevail, really, it’s all politics. Why do you think the Parti québécois tried to cultivate links with French politicians, especially Gaullists? At a glance they had slim common ground, since Gaullists were some sort of French neo-imperialists who only saw an independent Quebec as a pied-à-terre for the French Empire in the Americans’ backyard. But the PQ strategists knew that a Gaullist French government could exert pressure on the Canadian government to accept the result if there was ever a vote for independence. Once you’ve got recognition (by an important world player, which France is) you’ve got everything.

Well, I don’t think a Canadian province could defeat the Canadian Forces without outside help even if all the military personnel from the province defected. And if they happen to have outside support from a major player, it won’t reach the level of military action since the feds will have to compromise. So it’s all moot. But if we keep fantasizing about it for an instant, what I say is that if it seemed like the secessionist province could actually pull it off militarily, you’d see a fair number of soldiers defect. The better their position, the more defections you get. If they’re in a bad position then of course nobody will take the risk.

62

What would we consider as a fair portion of the debt?
1/10th as 1 of 10 provinces? A non-starter with the ROC and given the way Quebec thinks of itself, it would be hypocritical for them to take this position.
As a % of population?
As a % of the land area that secedes?
Or, my favorite, and it agrees with how Quebec sees itself as one of the two founding nations - 50% of the debt.
There would be lots of room for debate and prior to the next neverendum it should be made clear by the ROC what they expect that number will be.
But then most of that would apply to any other province who chose to leave, too. Other than the two founding nations hogwash. That is primarily a Quebec delusion.

63

This post is probably off-topic, but this comment merited a response.

Quebec is a founding nation of Canada because in 1840, there were two Canadian provinces: Lower Canada and Upper Canada. Upper Canada for anglophones, and Lower Canada (mostly) for francophones. In 1867 New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were added to consolidate British North America into one country, but the promise of Confederation remained that both anglophones and francophones were majority groups in this country. Basically, it was both “their” country. But then Canada went into an expansionist frenzy and most new provinces were able to prevent francophones from claiming their rights there. Even Ontario made education in French illegal at some point. Even in Quebec francophones became a low status group. By 1960 it was decided that as francophones had been mostly successfully kept out of Canada outside Quebec (yeah, we all know you’ve got French speakers over there as well, but they’re minorities) Quebec inherited the status of the francophone national group. Quebec then managed to revive French as the main common language of the province.

But then we figured out that outside of Quebec, the promise of Confederation, the very nature of this country had changed. You had of course Trudeau who made both English and French official languages, angering a lot of people in the process, but at the same time people now didn’t consider francophones to be a national group in Canada, but merely a minority group, like the Ukrainians or Chinese. And not only that, but a minority group who should be very grateful for what they have, since their language somehow is official all across Canada, and (now) they’re guaranteed education in their language, at least where the numbers justify it, and most importantly we’ve got cereal boxes in French, man, cereal boxes! ;). Et cetera. For this I blame the fact that in Western Canada, francophones are truly a minority, less important than the Ukrainians or Chinese, and mostly (and rightfully) accept this status, so Western Canadians can’t imagine it can be otherwise elsewhere.

So just as Quebec is now doing its job as the national territory of Canada’s francophone people, even evolving into a secular, multiethnic, but nevertheless French-speaking nation, which would have been unthinkable 50 years ago, many anglophones now don’t consider Canada to really be the francophones’ country anymore. Well, of course it is anybody’s country as long as they accept Canada’s values, but these anglophones don’t like that francophones in Quebec are deciding what “Canada’s values” are with respect to Quebec, because it conflicts with what they think those values should be, and they don’t accept that francophones in Quebec own a part of this country by design.

So when you see the Quebec government encourage immigration from French-speaking countries and not offer school in English for immigrants, and when you see anglophone Canadians move to Montreal, not learn a word of French in 10 years there and cry racism when you tell them that maybe they should, remember that what they’re doing makes sense if you view Canada as they do. For the Quebec government and for most Quebecers, Quebec is the national territory of Canada’s francophone nation. This nation definitely exists: the whole reason why Canada is a federal country in the first place is the existence of both nations. Every nation-state targets immigrants who can best adopt the nation-state’s values, and have you ever seen a nation-state offer public school in not the state’s official language? Or better yet, assimilate immigrants into not the national culture? No, of course you haven’t. But for the anglophone, Canada is an English-language country, with a francophone minority which he may or may not value, and with the polite fiction of bilingualism. Should he learn French when moving to Montreal? Well, should he learn Spanish when moving to Miami? There would be no question if you’d said “Mexico City”, but in the case of Miami or Montreal, while it might be a good idea, it’s his decision and you’re a jerk if you question it. And since he’s quite proud of how his country treats francophones, you’re a jerk if you question anything, really.

If you want to understand why there is a separatist movement in Quebec, this is the reason. Two distinct peoples see their country in wildly different ways. And yes, francophones are one founding people of Canada, Quebec their territory, anglophones another, the rest of the country their territory. Despite the diversity of today’s Canada where many “francophones” don’t have French as their first language and many “anglophones” don’t have English as their first language, and where other divisions than the national ones have appeared. And today we’d add the First Nations to the mix of founding peoples, but in the 19th century they were neglected and just naming them isn’t enough, since many of them have problems that will require some serious discussion.

Most people here will probably disagree with what I wrote, but I think I can at least make people think.

64

Ah, so you’d agree that you should assume 50% of the debt when you leave then? Two founding nations and all that. Excellent.

65

Ooooh, new word! Like! Mind if I borrow it?

66

I’d like to say I was brilliant enough to have thought of it first, but it is old hat in Canada when referring to Quebec’s separatist (extortionist in practice?) goals.

67

Figured it might be, but I still like it. Applies equally well to PNV’s intent to keep having separatist referendums until they get a “yes” (or until the sun switches off while they’re still trying).

68

I wouldn’t support any action to prevent any part of my country (US) from seceding, because no action is necessary. The size and reach of the federal government in a modern social democracy already makes secession impossible.

Yes, I know that there are “secession movements” in social democracies–in Quebec, Scotland, Flanders, Lombardy, Corsica, Catalonia. All of them have two things in common–they haven’t seceded, and they never will secede.

69

Posting before I’ve read the whole thread, will the seceding territory accept responsibility for any part of the national debt? If the Southwest decides to form the nation of Aztlan, will they still be in debt to China, and will they be presented with a bill for all the infrastructure (highways, dams, schools, etc.) the federal government has financed in the region? What about all the elderly receiving social security checks? Will they go on receiving them?

As far as the United States is concerned, the only realistic scenario I can see for secession would be the collapse of the federal government .

70

That’s what happens when you post in a thread without reading it - all your questions get answered before you ask them.

71

An an Ontarian, no. But as a lifelong resident of Ontario, I’m just not in the same position as a Quebecer would be; like most Ontarians I have little allegiance to my province as distinct from my identity as a Canadian. It’s not an equivalent situation and I don’t pretend to think my experience is the same.

The law is nothing but a form of words once part of a country has decided to leave. Canada isn’t exempt from human nature and the history of these sorts of things should tell you the Clarity Act would no more stop a UDI than it will stop the sun from rising. It’s already been said; realpolitik would be the only law that would matter.