Separatist Dream Is A Fantasy

I like the statistic that the same number of people who support separatism support Canada, hilarious.

The whole thing reminds me of Union strike votes. The union says, "we need a strong unified voice for negotiating," so people vote in favour of a strike. But, when it really comes down to it, they really don't want to strike. I think it's all a blufff, just a negotiating tactic to get even more moneyh from Ottawa.

<i> It's one of those only-in-Canada ironies that Bernard Landry resigned as head of the separatist Parti Quebecois because he failed to win 80% approval from party members in last weekend's leadership review (he got 76.2%).</i><p> This is not one would call ironic. It is called integrity, the cause before the person. <p> <i> Ironic, because Landry -- like all hardline separatists -- would have had no problem breaking up Canada after a referendum with a bare majority of just 50% of the vote plus one.</i><p> If this author knew anything about what he/she is talking about, he/she would know that Landry though a separatist is considered a moderate amongst the PQ. It IS the hard-liners who voted in majority against him at the convention. As for the 50% +1 vote, that didn’t stop Canadians from accepting the last referendum now did it, nor in keeping a crooked government in power by just one vote. 50 + 1 you say ? Good enough for Canadians but not for Québécers. Ah Canadian democracy, it takes a Canadian to understand it. <p> <i> Such are the maddening contradictions of separatist politics -- the latest being the dilemma now faced by Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe, who is far and away the favourite to replace Landry.</i><p> There are no contradictions here (see first point) but I concur, Gilles Duceppe is the current favorite to replace Landry.<p> <i>In terms of federal strategy, it might actually make sense for Duceppe to stay in Ottawa, where he has been a credible critic of Paul Martin's AdScam-stained Liberals and is poised to wipe them out in francophone Quebec ridings in the next federal election. </i><p> True. If it wasn’t for the Bloc’s constant demands, (26 motions to be precise), the Gomery scandal might have never come to light and we’d still have crooks running this country. … Oh, I’d forgotten, we still do. True also, unless there is a major reversal, the Liberals will be all but wiped out in Québec come next elections, with no probable gains predicted for either the NDP nor the Conservatives. (Maybe if for strategy, the Liberals started calling Duceppe a coward …do you think that would work ? )<p> <i>But for a politician whose only dream is supposedly to take Quebec out of Canada, it's a no-brainer: All roads must lead to Quebec City. Even Duceppe, who, in another only-in-Canada irony, has been sitting in the House of Commons since 1990, must concede that his work in Ottawa is but a sideline to the main project of separation. </i><p> And that is exactly where the Bloc members will head back to after independence. Duceppe will eventually return to Québec but it doesn’t have to be in 2005 or 2006. My prediction is a return for 2009. He may be well-suited to become the new Republic of Québec's first president.<p> <i>Even he, however, surely recognizes the same stark truth faced by Landry and his predecessor, the erstwhile separatist strongman Lucien Bouchard: The separatist dream remains just that -- a fantasy. </i><p> A desire is not a fantasy, nor is it a dream. ‘ I have a dream ….’ said MLK. So do many Québécers. Just watch us make our dream become a reality. <p> <i>A recent poll that showed 54% of Quebecers would support separation today was in fact based on the same misleading question asked in the 1995 referendum, which promised "an offer of economic and political partnership" with the rest of Canada. The Clarity Act , passed in 2000, makes such dishonest questions invalid. What's more, 56% of those who said they supported "sovereignty" also said they wanted Quebec to stay in Canada.</i><p> How come the ROC keeps saying the question was misleading to Québécers but not to them ? Is it because Canadians are better versed in the art of dishonesty than Québécers are ? Who knows, eh ? * sigh * As for Québécers attachment to Canada, why wouldn't they be ? They had to give up their own cultural appellation to give this country a name. The same was done with their own anthem, celebrating their francophone presence in North America. And maples, aren’t they found in majority in Québec ? At least the sugar producing kind… Of those 56 % who are attached to Canadian institutions, some truly are while for others, it is a question of nostalgia. But nostalgia doesn’t get you anywhere, eventually, you have to move on. <p> <i> Sorry, Gilles.</i><p> If I were you and for what you have written so far, I’d apologize too. <p> <i>The fact is, support for separatist parties is up because of public anger against Liberals -- something Quebecers share with millions of other Canadians. </i> <p> Québécers are angry allright but Canadians ? Can anyone direct me to where Canadians are venting their anger please, because they sure are doing it quietly. <p> <i>The Gomery inquiry's revelations have rightly turned most of them against Martin's gang, and Charest has become unpopular because -- as Bouchard and Landry themselves found out -- governing a province is a lot harder than it looks (never mind a country). </i><p> Except that Bouchard and Landry’s governments never hit rock bottom at 23% popular support like Charest has. The difficulty of governing a province or a country is no excuse for leaving incompetents and crooks in place.<p> <i>Duceppe will no doubt follow his heart, but neither he nor we should make the mistake of confusing Quebecers' rejection of Liberal AdScam sleaze with a rejection of this country. </i><p> On the contrary, this decision calls for political strategy. No one dives into a run for party leadership because one’s heart tells it so. That would be political suicide. Québec sovereignists have never rejected Canada or Canadians, they are rejecting the sytem that governs it and us.<p> <i>Rather, federalists of all stripes shoud join their call for a strong, corruption-free nation -- and make Canada it. </i><p> Since I’m a separatist and my help to clean up the nation is not required, call me back when you have finished. <p> ouhcim, a rogue in disguise

I don't think it could be said any better than the above. Politics never stands still, if the federal government makes concessions or somehow makes the majority of Quebecers happy to stay in Canada then they will do so. What's the big deal?

The idea has also been bounced around that the reason the BC liberals put the 60% passing rate on their referendum was to set a precedent for other provinces and even the federal government to follow. So there's another delicious canadian irony, the last change that got rid of proportional representation in BC was made unilaterally by a Premier and his cabinet, but now even though the majority of BC voters want it and more voted for it than voted for the governing party, it is rejected.

The author above is right, the referendum vote is not for separation immediately, but for the 'gun to the head', so to speak of Quebec's preferable choice of federalism. We know what is occurring right now, each side has their own percentage, and will disagree right up to the voting day. Since seperation is not inevitable it will then be up to the federal government to make a counter offer to Quebec. This will no doubt be tricky, but during that time you can expect that the Quebec government will already be passing laws dismantling any remnants of federalism. Keep in mind that the federal government has seriously been restricting its own federal powers, so we find out that its not such a big step after all.

<blockquote>a rogue in disguise </blockquote> <p></p> so where's the disguise?

I'm glad that you cited this editorial. I read it in The Globe And Mail in June and I really believe that it takes a bite out of the credibility of the PQ and the separatist cause. A group of separatist Quebecois, who are merely the minority in Quebec, are desperately trying to hijack that entire province to satify their own selfish, tribalistic, narrow-minded ends! As Pierre Trudeau said in a 1996 interview with Hana Gartner: "It's like this eternal referendum. 'If we have one and lose it, we will have another one [until we win]. Have one and win it--that's the final one.' You know it's aggravating to any reasonable person." ============================================= Check out the whole interview: http://www.cbc.ca/national/magazine/trudeau/index.html ============================================= Check out Barbara Frum's 1987 Meech Lake interview with Trudeau (select it from the link in the right margin titled "Frum questions Trudeau on his criticism of the Meech Lake Accord"): http://archives.cbc.ca/IDCC-1-74-368-2083/life_society/frum/

I'm glad that you cited this editorial. I read it in The Globe And Mail in June and I really believe that it takes a bite out of the credibility of the PQ and the separatist cause. A group of separatist Quebecois, who are merely the minority in Quebec, are desperately trying to hijack that entire province to satify their own selfish, tribalistic, narrow-minded ends!<br />
<br />
As Pierre Trudeau said in a 1996 interview with Hana Gartner:<br />
<br />
"It's like this eternal referendum. 'If we have one and lose it, we will have another one [until we win]. Have one and win it--that's the final one.' You know it's aggravating to any reasonable person."<br />
<br />
=============================================<br />
<br />
Check out the whole interview:<br />
<a href="http://www.cbc.ca/national/magazine/trudeau/index.html">http://www.cbc.ca/national/magazine/trudeau/index.html</a><br />
<br />
=============================================<br />
<br />
Check out Barbara Frum's 1987 Meech Lake interview with Trudeau (select it from the link in the right margin titled "Frum questions Trudeau on his criticism of the Meech Lake Accord"):<br />
<br />
<a href="http://archives.cbc.ca/IDCC-1-74-368-2083/life_society/frum/">http://archives.cbc.ca/IDCC-1-74-368-2083/life_society/frum/</a><br />
<br />

It may be aggravating to people like Trudeau, 'reasonable' people who have no trouble calling for martial law, but what a delicious irony. Of course Canada was created, not even by a referendum but by fewer than a dozen guys who met in PEI. Then, even though referenda were held to get out, and even though governments whose only election promise was to get out of the confederation were held-there was no way out. Imagine what those 'reasonable' people in the maritimes were saying once all those promised industry protections began being broken.

It's also a complete pile of hooey. So they vote for separation and do so. A new country is formed, say 'the people' start realizing Canada, and even Quebec, isn't living up to it's promise. Well, then what would occur is that in Quebec a political party would be formed that would want to re-integrate, or join the EU or do any of another suggestions that would be out there. Then if Canada were interested you simply have a sort of repeat of 1867 but this time it's negotiated for the people, since referenda would need to be held.

This is exactly why direct democracy makes more sense, you can have federal regulations that are voluntary-if they are good, people would vote for them, if not, they are free to move elsewhere. By creating a country with federal demands you essentiall get a 'take it or leave it' scenario, and Quebec is in a position to leave it. You can gripe at separatists all you want, call them names, or whatever, but in the end, they have power-you don't. All because they figured out how to use the political system, while we keeping bending over.