I suspect you have never spent much time in Quebec. Different language, different religion, different history, different celebrities, different sense of humour, etc. And don’t underestimate language. Having different languages means that people cannot engage in dialogue. Don’t you think that might pose some problems when it comes to running a country?
Anlgo Canadians are far, far closer culturally to Americans than they are to Franco Canadians, hockey notwithstanding.
However, this is irrelevent. Culture or oppression might cause a group to want to leave a country but there is no need to define valid reasons for allowing secession in general. If a large enough number of Californians are convinced that they would be better off as an independent entity, there must exist mechanism for them to do so. Note that I wrote “large number” and not “majority” and “convinced” not “feel like”. The process need not be simple or easy.
For the record I don’t think it would be a good idea for either California or Quebec to secede in the near future.
Once Francophone Canada breaks away, it will lose its First Nations area, who want no part of being part of a free Quebec. The First Nations control most of the hydroelectric resourced. The Newfies control the rest. independent Quebec will be much smaller and poorer than it is now.
I’ve only been to Quebec a few times but I have a friend who grew up there and have spoken to him about this. His opinion is they all have far much more in common than they have differences.
By your angle we could say that the Southern US should separate from the North. Same language (largely) but different religion, different history, different celebrities, different sense of humor than northerners by and large.
Whatever problems these differences pose I believe the country is stronger and ALL parties are better off sticking together. The differences are not that profound and compromises can be made. This may make things a bit more difficult but more difficult than having the US split into two countries? I think not.
Now that the discussion has moved toward the Quebec sovereignty movement and Quebec nationalism in general, I wonder if I should make a post in order to explain this movement, or at least explain it as well as I can as a francophone Quebecer who is interested in politics, but isn’t a political scientist, who considers himself as nationalist (but not necessarily separatist), and who has tried to look at other Quebecers, at English Canadians (including Quebecers), and at francophones from other parts of the country to try to understand what this thing is all about. I think I have something to say that could help many of you understand the issue, and that could lead to an interesting debate. But before I do this, I want to know whether, first, people are interested, and second, whether I should do this in another thread. If you’re interested, feel free to encourage me, in this thread or by PM.
But first I will answer a few comments in this thread that don’t necessarily have to do with the principle of Quebec nationalism.
Nobody says that secession means isolation. Just because you negociate a free trade accord with another country, does it mean that you should politically merge with this country?
Right, geography. :smack: I forgot to mention it, but of course shared geography is of course an important factor to determine the existence of nations. Still, it’s not always the case. Zionism started as the nationalism of a people that was scattered all around the world, but wanted to finally find land.
Now I see that you knowledge of Quebec is in fact quite lacking, and probably coloured from what you heard in the English-language press and form what your (obviously very federalist) friend told you. Did you know that when Quebec’s legislature passed bill 101, which restricted Quebec’s public English-language schools to its own anglophones and not to immigrants or to anglophones from other provinces (this last point caused many debates among the government, and was later found unconstitutional by Canada’s Supreme Court), many other provinces didn’t have accessible French-language public schools? In fact, many of them had made education in French illegal, and I think that in one case (Manitoba) this was only found unconstitutional after bill 101.
Yeah. You’ll note that they didn’t pass.
As I’ve said, secession isn’t easy. But in many cases it’s worth it anyway. (This said, I must say that I think a 50.1% result in a referendum would be the worst possible result.)
What, you think an independent Quebec wouldn’t have an army?
I think the First Nations in Canada are separate nations and probably have the right to independence (although that would have to be negotiated). This said, where did you get the idea that they control our hydroelectric resources? Many of our large dams are in the North, but not necessarily on Cree land, and in any case, Quebecers as a whole paid for this.
From what I have read 85% of French Canadians reside in Quebec. I am not sure how much effort other provinces should adjust their school system to accommodate a very, very small percentage of their their student population. To me that sounds akin to saying American schools should provide Polish language schools (Chicago actually has a sizable Polish population). Quebec however still had a sizable english speaking population.
Actually making it illegal though seems wrong as well. Glad the Supreme Court struck all such provisions down even if it took them awhile to get around to it.
Indeed they didn’t. My point is more that the government is trying to work to accommodate francophones in Quebec. They have been doing so since at least the late 60’s with the Official Languages Act in 1969 and a new and improved version in 1988. You had the Meech Lake Accords and constitutional efforts under way as well. I do not know the ins and outs of it all and perhaps those efforts were flawed in important ways but at least the government is working to address the situation and not ignore it. For someone to secede I’d expect them to be more in the Kurd’s shoes in Iraq under Hussein where as soon as they gripe about something he’d bomb them.
I expect they would but c’mon. Quebec has a population of what? 8 million or so? Unless I am mistaken if Quebec seceded from Canada likely the whole province would not go but would be divided as even within Quebec there seems to be a distinct geographic separation between those who want to go and those who want to stay. French Quebec would be lucky to have 5 million citizens. That is not much of a base for a military. And let’s face it, if anyone actually invaded French Quebec they’d almost certainly have the rest of Canada and the US jumping to their defense (unless of course it was the US or Canada doing the invading in which case I doubt French Quebec could resist…no comment on their bravery…just numbers is all).
Notice that I wrote that I did not believe it would be such a good idea for Quebec to achieve independence in the near future. I simply do not object to the notion that it should be legally possible for it to do so. Not easy, not well-advised, just possible.
I simply wanted to refute the notion that French and Anglo Canadians aren’t that different. The language difference is huge. A much better comparison would be Anglo vs. unilingual Hispanic Americans.
Way to use straw men to reframe the argument. But, WTH, sure. The US stole California in the first place.
In all seriousness, California is an example that’s tough to reconcile with many other potential secession scenarios around the world, especially the groups that actually want to secede. California’s secession would constitute such a drastic blow to the American economy and culture that both would nearly fall apart at their seams. That’s not even close to what would happen if, say, the Basque region of Spain were to form its own country, or the Flemish in Belgium.
If California were to secede, the US would be outrageously stupid not to take it back by force. And if I were from, say, Arkansas, and I had already given lots of money to the federal government to meddle in the affairs of foreign dictators with nuclear weapons, I’d say, hell yeah, you better take California back! Do you really think the average Spaniard would react the same way if the Basques were to separate?
severus, how cruel of you to dangle an explanation in front of our noses like that! This is a board for fighting ignorance! Out with it!
No. See, this is the standard Yankee answer, but it isn’t true. What did the north, Lincoln, or the “Union” do about slavery in Maryland or Delaware?
Answer: Nothing.
So, if the whole reason for the Union to stop the South from seceding was to prevent the “memorable and haunting human rights disaster” then why didn’t it clean up its own backyard first?
Did you know that the last legal slavery in the US was in the state of Delaware when the 13th amendment was passed?
Um, they emancipated the slaves–after taking back the Confederacy so that the rule of American law would free those slaves too.
See above. Next question: If not to end the disaster of slavery–who said “prevent”, BTW? I sure didn’t–why did they invade the Confederacy and reclaim it?
And I’m no Yankee, thankyouverymuch. Have you read my Location tag recently?
If what you’re saying is that language should be a provincial area of responsibility in Canada, then I agree wholeheartedly. But this means that Quebec has the right to set its linguistic policy as it sees fit.
I think around 80% of Quebec’s population is French-speaking. I’m not sure what the proportion of anglophones is, but I assume around 10%. I can try to find the actual numbers if someone is interested. Do note that Bill 101 actually didn’t restrict the rights of Quebec’s anglophones to public schooling in their language. (And it didn’t restrict at all access to private schools – which are I believe financed up to 60% by the government – and of course Quebec has a large network of English-language colleges, as well as three English-language universities.) It only made it clear to immigrants that the language of Quebec is French, and that they should learn this language when they come live here.
I’ll mention that before Bill 101, most immigrants who came to Quebec learned English and very little French. We can’t blame them: English is much more prevalent than French in North America, and even in Canada, and it is the international language of business. The goal of Bill 101 was to ensure that since French was the first language of 80% of the population, it should be the common language used in Quebec; the language of work and business. It’s the same reason why, around the same time, Quebec came to a deal with the federal government that would let the province choose a portion of its immigrants. This allowed us to concentrate on immigrants who already know French (say from North Africa, or Haiti) unlike the immigrants favoured by the federal government (which were in the 60s mostly English speakers and Northern Europeans, with around 3% of French speakers, and now I believe are mostly East Asians). As a result many more immigrants now integrate into Quebec society, although it’s still not perfect.
I know this may not mean much to you. You probably think we should apply a laissez-faire approach, and if immigrants learn English and not French, well, good for them (we are after all in Canada), and if eventually Quebec anglicizes more and more, well, it’s not the end of the world, many ethnic groups immigrated to North America and anglicized completely, now it’s the turn of the French-Canadians. But you’ll understand that me and most other Quebecers don’t see it this way, since we don’t consider ourselves as immigrants, but as a founding people. This is where your understanding may be at odds with ours.
And my point is that while Brian Mulroney’s government – which included many Quebecers like Mulroney himself, even nationalists like Lucien Bouchard – might have wanted to redefine Canada to recognize Quebec’s specificity and give it greater autonomy, the population of English Canada didn’t go along. And after all, if we are after all a founding people, why should we be “accommodated”? You mention the Official Languages Act, which frankly I don’t really care about, since, as I’ve said, I think language should be a provincial responsibility.
First, you assume that Quebec would be divided in case it separated from Canada. We just don’t know how it would really happen, so we can’t say. Second, 8 million people is more than many independent countries. Canada itself has only around 30 million people (including Quebec). And they are the second largest country in terms of surface area. It’s a lot of ground to defend (and indeed, the current government wants to increase the efforts to defend our sovereignty, especially in the Arctic), but yet they do it. Why would it be any different for Quebec? It would have a small army, of course, but after all, who really wants to invade us? Canada or the US, as you say? Well, aside for the unprobability of this, remember that Canada couldn’t do a thing if the US tried to invade it anyway.
I guess this means you’d like me to say more about it. If you look through my posts, you’ll find quite a few where I described Quebec nationalism, but I probably should write another one, since I’ve probably learned many things since last time I talked about it. (I’m currently reading a biography of René Lévesque, founder of the Parti québécois, the main sovereigntist party in Quebec, and I find it very interesting and enlightening.) I want to do a good job of it, so I may take some time. I’ll probably put it in another thread, as it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with what’s bad about secession (in general).
What straw man? The argument was being put forth that a legal means for seceding should be in place. I was trying to define where the line was drawn. Severus responded that he thought the 50.1% bar would be the worst possible case (I agree) and that seceding ought to not be simple.
That said Quebec actually came close to that 50.1%. IIRC the last referendum was something like 48.5%/51.5%. What if it had just tipped over 50% for those in favor of seceding? I have no idea honestly. I do not know if the referendum amounted to a fancy poll or if it would have kicked in an actual drive to see things happen. I am willing to be enlightened but I do not think there was a 2/3’s rule or something.
From speaking to my Canadian friend he has opined that he thinks no new referendum will be as close as the last one. Due to old people (who he says tended to be more in favor of it) dying and immigration since then he feels the numbers are swinging away from that near 50/50 for those in favor of seceding. Just his opinion and I do not know but sounded reasonable when he said it.
It was 49.4% yes, 50.6% no. The No side won by about 55,000 votes. The referendum question asked whether Quebec should become sovereign after having offered Canada a new economic and political partnership. The premier of Quebec at the time was Jacques Parizeau, who was determined to realize the independence of Quebec and in fact fought against the referendum question, thinking it should have been something like “Do you want Quebec to become an independent country?”. Parizeau, a famous economist, didn’t feel it was necessary to ask about the partership, since he thought Canada and Quebec wouldn’t have a choice to negotiate a free trade agreement or something similar, but his partners on the Yes side didn’t agree with him. So no, the referendum wasn’t only a fancy poll, and it’s quite possible that the National Assembly would have declared the independence of Quebec following a Yes victory and a formal offer to Canada, even if Canada had rejected it. But we don’t know.
Well, the political landscape has changed a lot since 1995. It’s true that younger people tend to be more in favour of independence than older people, who are more afraid. But most Quebecers don’t favour either independence or the status quo. Polls consistently indicate that only around 40% of Quebecers actually want independence. But few are those who are happy with Canada has it stands.
ETA: did you mean that your friend said older people are more in favour of independence? If so, I’m not sure what he meant. I guess people who are around 60 today were in their early twenties when the idea of independence first became mainstream, so this generation may tend nationalist, but most older people are strongly federalist, while younger ones tend to be more nationalist.
I didn’t realize that you were arguing against something specific; I thought that was directed at me and my OP. My bad.
Still, the slippery-slope argument is troubling. It seems reasonable that most regional governments don’t have much to gain from seceding–and may have much to lose. For example, as bad as a California secession would be for America, it would probably be at least half as bad for California–our economy depends on selling massive amounts of dairy, electronics, entertainment products and technology (including ideas) to other states, and if we were a separate country that process would be bogged down by red tape; not to mention that many states and maybe the US as a whole would be incredibly bitter about it-- even if the plan worked and California resisted any American attempts to take it back–which would certainly drive down those sales. My point is that your argument seems to assume that if secession were any easier than it is now, everyone and their mother would start seceding. Frankly, I can’t see the logic in that.
I guess no one can say for sure but my guess is you would see efforts at seceding if it were codified and achievable. I could imagine Mexican-Americans perhaps making a stab at it. How about Red states versus Blue states? Southern secession all over again. If not on such a grand scale how about Southern Baptists and such? Perhaps African-Americans would like their own bit. Where is the line drawn? Does a whole state have to go or can some group just say they want to peel off a part of one?
I am NOT saying those groups would do that and I certainly do not think it is a good idea but again where are the lines drawn?
Really? I would have thought that there would be a fair amount of discussion about Brussels, which is mainly french-speaking but in Flemish territory. So straight away you are either carving the country into three, or you have a major bone of contention. Then add in umpteen families and villages who are on the ‘wrong’ side of the line, and watch the arguments start. In theory, it is fine to say that ‘nations’ should be able to form their own ‘state’ if they wish. In practice, however, people own stuff and need somewhere to live - which invariably causes problems. There are plenty of examples of secession leading to big trouble, and not so many of them going smoothly.
Because the loss of the Southern states would have been an economic and political disaster for the United States. And Northerners who saw nothing wrong with working children to death in coal mines and factories can hardly be considered morally superior to Southerners who saw nothing wrong with owning slaves. The only real difference is that Southerners were honest enough to call slavery by its right name.
If Belgium split in two, would both parts remain in the EU?
I think if an isolationist Flanders seceded from Belgium there would be huge problems but if they were to secede and remain in the EU, and to sign up to the Schengen agreement or similar agreements then the upheaval could be minimised. That said, it still mightn’t be a good idea. The same with Scotland, if Scotland leaves the UK but remains a part of the EU (I don’t really know how likely either scenario is) then upheaval could be minimised.
How small would a population have to be before it became ridiculous to call it a nation? A half a million? Fifty thousand? Five thousand? Can I get a few dozen cousins and friends together, declare independence from the US, and form the Polecat Republic?
