JoeLassister Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 What a nasty result. "The word goes to the deputy of the opposition in health. What's your name again?" "The word goes now to the deputy of the opposition in economic development who runs an hardware shop in Candiac." Funny how 1500 persons voted Libs in the early voting process. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 This is a fantastic result, the Liberals will now have to come to agreement with the fiscially-right ADP if they want to enjoy any kind of length of governance for this term. That means economic reforms will be pushed hard, and it will keep things fresh so the party does not become rotten from a long majority term like most parties are apt. The other great news is that the PQ finished in a completely humiliating 3rd place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 http://www.thestar.com/News/article/196333 "Quebecers all but showed the Jean Charest Liberals the door yesterday even as they served the sovereignist Parti Québécois stern notice that its days as a major force in the National Assembly could be numbered." "Given a choice between pondering whether that reflects poorly on its core cause of sovereignty or on its leader's skills, the party will almost certainly zero in on the latter. It is ultimately easier for the PQ to keep on replacing its leaders than to give up on its dream of an independent Quebec. And so chances are PQ suitors are about to come knocking again on Gilles Duceppe's door." "As for Charest, only the fact that minority rule does not lend itself easily to a leadership crisis may shield him from the Liberal knives that will undoubtedly be coming his way as a result of his lacklustre campaign. In many ways, it was reminiscent of much of his first mandate, aimless and ultimately self-destructive." "Between now and the next Quebec campaign, there will almost certainly be a federal election. On that score, Charest's failure to secure a majority will not resonate very loudly on Parliament Hill. From where Stephen Harper sits, the re-election of a federalist government in Quebec, the stunning rise of the ADQ, combined with a historical defeat for the Parti Québécois amounts to yet another green light on the road to a possible federal vote this spring." - Chantal Hébert gosh she's good. Pretty much sums up the whole thing perfectly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Around 9h45-10h the ADQ was leading... I was thinking about moving in Vermont... Anyway, we will have another election VERY soon, 12 to 18 months maximum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 oh and to those who believe automony is just federalism: I give you the definition: 1. The condition or quality of being autonomous; independence. 2. 1. Self-government or the right of self-government; self-determination. 2. Self-government with respect to local or internal affairs: granted autonomy to a national minority. 3. A self-governing state, community, or group. My opinion its like the wide political spectrum of communism-socialism-capitalism sovereignty-autonomy- federalism Autonomy is the middle ground, a third way so to speak. A mixed economy. Autonomy is the way to go for Quebec. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 I disagree with this whole autonomist thing. Either you're an autonomist who leans federalist and wants Quebec to gain certain powers (aka you're actually federalist) or you're separatist who sees autonomism as a first step towards a separated Quebec (aka you're actually a separatist). Black or white, there is no "in-between" as both Charest and Boisclair were quick to point out in the debate. Either you're for or against separation. Either you're for or against abortion. Either you're for or against stem cell research. There is no gray area, not for these kinds of issues at least.. look at the quote... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 even me PTG, the diehard canadian federalist would support an autonomist Quebec like Catalonia in Spain for example. yes you can be 'in-between' its called autonomy. Look at Spain for example. Half the country of Spain is 'autonomous' from each other. Different regions, different cultures etc. autonomy is not federalism and its not sovereignty. Its something completely different, something that has not been tried in Quebec or even talked about until now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Community http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia#Cat...self-government Catolonia has exclusive jurisdiction in: Culture environment communications transportation commerce public safety local governments has its own police force and is in the process of taking over counter-terrorism and immigration Shares with Spain: education health justice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...geRequested=all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cataclaw Posted March 27, 2007 Author Share Posted March 27, 2007 Pierre, we've agreed on many things, but i'm with Joe on this one. Autonomism is bs. If what you REALLY want is Quebec to stay in Canada but have a more assertive Quebec with more power and liberties, you're essentially a federalist, you want Quebec in Canada, aka you're NOT a separatist. If what you REALLY want is Quebec to stay in Canada (for now) but have a more assertive Quebec with more power and liberties, and use these new powers and liberties as a stepping stone to an eventual country, then you're actually a separatist in disguise who's just "being content" with "autonomism" for the time being. There is no in-between.. Either you cross the street or you don't. If you start to cross but hang in the middle, you'll have to make up your mind eventually as to whether you finish crossing or turn back, because cars are coming and they'll hit you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeLassister Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomous_Community http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia#Cat...self-government Catolonia has exclusive jurisdiction in: Culture environment communications transportation commerce public safety local governments has its own police force and is in the process of taking over counter-terrorism and immigration Shares with Spain: education health justice Right on man. Education, health and justice... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Pierre, we've agreed on many things, but i'm with Joe on this one. Autonomism is bs. If what you REALLY want is Quebec to stay in Canada but have a more assertive Quebec with more power and liberties, you're essentially a federalist, you want Quebec in Canada, aka you're NOT a separatist. If what you REALLY want is Quebec to stay in Canada (for now) but have a more assertive Quebec with more power and liberties, and use these new powers and liberties as a stepping stone to an eventual country, then you're actually a separatist in disguise who's just "being content" with "autonomism" for the time being. There is no in-between.. Either you cross the street or you don't. If you start to cross but hang in the middle, you'll have to make up your mind eventually as to whether you finish crossing or turn back, because cars are coming and they'll hit you! Wrong. Federalism or Sovereignism is a false dilemma. There is one "in-between" and it's actually been the traditionnal nationalism position of a big part of the Quebec electorate since for the past 80 years. Autonomism is what Maurice Duplessis, Jean Lesage, René Lévesque (with his Beau Risque) and Robert Bourassa post-Meech all defended. Dumont invented nothing. Autonomism has been there since forever, it was simply never called by its name because polarism dictated that you were either a Sovereignist or a Federalist. Autonomism reflects the ambiguous but traditionnal feeling of a big part of Quebec. Autonomism is: I feel Quebecois first, but I'm also Canadian. Its a two-fold national identity that is, given history, is nothing but natural. The ADQ just gave autonomism a voice, and that way gave an acceptable alternative on the constitutionnal issue to a lot of voters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cataclaw Posted March 27, 2007 Author Share Posted March 27, 2007 No, this time KoZed, I have to stand up for a position which i think is irrefutable: This is not at all a case of "false dilemma". There is no middle ground when one considers the absolute question of "do you want Quebec to be a part of Canada or not". I think you agree that it isn't possible for Quebec to be "half" a part of Canada. Either you are part of a country or you do not. Catalonia is part of Spain, even though it has tremendous freedom and can be considered something of an autonomous state. Still, at the core, it is still part of Spain. Now... if you reject Canada and consider yourself not part of Canada (aka the separatist option), that's one thing. Within the other option, which explicitly states you are part of Canada, there is a large margin you can maneuver in. You can embrace Canada (staunch federalism, aka Charest), and you can seek to distance yourself and gain certain autonomy (aka Dumont). I agree with you on that, and I have all along. But even considering increased power/liberty/decentralization, at the core, you're still accepting Canada, which implies a non-separatist view, hence federalism, albeit weak federalism. This is why, if you accept the ADQ’s position on separation as truth, they are, in the strictest sense of the term, “federalists”. However, I firmly believe they will switch over to the separatist camp sometime in the future. I hope I’m wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Talk to anyone from Texas and you'll here the same thing. "I'm a Texan first, American second." Now do we question these people's patriotism? Is George Bush a traitor then? Because he's said the exact same thing. It's a cultural thing. Newfoundland is like that if the polls are to be believed. 75% of Newfoundlanders say Newfoundlanders first, Canadians second. Its more regionalistic view mind you. And to be honest its the best option for Quebec. Because its the third way the in-between. If goof ball Ian Paisley (someone check his pulse please) and Sienn Fienn can get together, sit down and come up with a sharing powers plan. Quebec can end the question that's been holding it back for years. The answer to THE question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoZed Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 No, this time KoZed, I have to stand up for a position which i think is irrefutable: This is not at all a case of "false dilemma". There is no middle ground when one considers the absolute question of "do you want Quebec to be a part of Canada or not". I understand what you mean, but you're still incorrect. You see sovereignty as a black or white thing. Either Quebec is sovereign or it's not. Problem is: sovereignty isn't black or white. Quebec, as a province, is already semi-sovereign. That's in the Constitution. Its neither black nor white, its shades of Grey. Besides, "absolute" sovereignty never existed, even as a political option. The first referendum was for "Sovereignty-Association". Throughout history, the PQ game plan always been to declare sovereignty then negotiate a partnership with the RoC as an equal entity. So there's a wide margin of factual and historical realities between being in or out of Canada. No black or white, but various grey spots. That's why this is a textbook false dilemma. Sovereignty is never as unilateral as people think it is. And in a federated institution like Canada (or the US or, arguably, the EU) it is implied that the federated entities have partial sovereignty. But in Quebec's case, the Yes or No polarization has been the axis of debate for so long that some people can't imagine anything else exists. Thankfully, some other people's haven't fell for that Manichean perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortcat1 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 it's likely been said and i didn't take the time to read all of the posts previous to this one but i do expect that 'independence', 'sovereignty' or 'sovereignty-association' is put to SLEEP for a bit... it'll wake up again some time down the road GO :hlogo: GO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Something interesting from Wikipedia : da new political map of Québec purple/dark blue = ADQ baby blue = PQ red = liberal Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shortcat1 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Something interesting from Wikipedia : da new political map of Québec purple/dark blue = ADQ baby blue = PQ red = liberal nice map! GO :hlogo: GO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cataclaw Posted March 28, 2007 Author Share Posted March 28, 2007 I understand what you mean, but you're still incorrect. As a HW vet, i respect you KoZed, but that's twice you slap me with an arrogant "no, you're wrong" statement. That's not how you debate an issue... You see sovereignty as a black or white thing. Either Quebec is sovereign or it's not. Problem is: sovereignty isn't black or white. Quebec, as a province, is already semi-sovereign. That's in the Constitution. Its neither black nor white, its shades of Grey. Sovereignty carries certain connotations linked to cultural identity and nationhood, whereas i'm speaking purely in terms of "country" and "not a country". There's a lot of grey when it comes to what constitutes a nation (refer to federal gov't's decision to recognize Quebec as a "nation") but in the strictest sense, there are only two options: "country" and "not a country". Yes you can have varying levels of sovereignty (sovereignty as a quantatative representation of freedoms and self-governing rights; the way you're refering to it as), and hey, i agree with you 100% on this issue, but as a strict matter of "is X a country", there are only two mathematical options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Cataclaw and Kozed's points are both valid. This dilemma is (IMO) fixed or stuck in 1982 and Trudeau's nationalism/federalism which failed in it's application It became more about symbols than substance. Some Quebecers feel a void from this. The problem has never been solved since. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre the Great Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 Basically this means that the ADQ is going to have to come to the centre and try to get Montreal votes ala Harper in trying to break into Quebec and Ontario by going PC instead of going CRAP (Canadian Alliance Reform Party) on us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Athlétique.Canadien Posted March 29, 2007 Share Posted March 29, 2007 CRAP The Conservatives must have been really hung over. No coffee available in the morning when they named the party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.