[samuel]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] Just because ONE sovereigntist here shoots off his mouth about things he doesn't understand, doesn't mean ALL sovereigntists are of such a stripe.<br /> <br /> Quebec's 'bureaucracy' leaves Switzerland looking like an anarchy, in fact the largest problem with Swiss democracy (and nobody said it was perfect) is the LACK of bureaucracy. One swiss government historian said the most boring job in the world is a swiss government historian. The swiss have literally indoctrinated corporatism into their political system, in other words, it is commonly considered that what is good for swiss corporations is good for Switzerland.<br /> <br /> Quite correct that the current government, like ALL current liberal democracies, leans toward centralism. UNLIKE other liberal democracies, the swiss actually have tools to combat such federalism. As I pointed out, in the new Quebec there is no mechanism for the PEOPLE to get involved in politics, just as there isn't in Canada. In Canada there are very few ways, but the assertion that nobody in the ROC is trying is WAY off base. The BQ itself is proof of that as it exists within canadian federalism, it became a power using the mechanisms canadian federalism.<br /> <br /> Likewise the conservative party is much the same, it continues to morph as westerners continue to bash their heads against the Ontario-Quebec sealing.<br /> <br /> So 'sovereignty' is an apt word, notice how nobody is saying 'democracy' for the 'new' Quebec. In many elections voter turnout is no better in Quebec, and many people were severely irked when the PQ dumped all its grassroots political mechanisms as soon as they were elected.<br /> <br /> So no need to dumb everything down, we've got politicians to do that, likewise, one sovereigntist here does not speak for an entire province or group. Sovereigntists have VERY legitimate claims, no matter HOW they are voiced.[/QUOTE]<br /> What exactly are you refuting? Read your quote:<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Marcarc]If the PQ were saying that they were going to adopt Switzerland's model of direct democracy and regional autonomy I'd be MOVING to Quebec and spearheading the campaign to get them out of the country.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Not only is Switzerland's system unperfect, extremely complex and strips government of autonomy, the PEOPLE are growing less comfortable with it. The Swiss will tell you they just can't get rid of the heavy bureaucratic overload. Political groups have been marginalized when this 'ideal' system is supposed to achieve the opposite. This may be YOUR idea of a desirable system, but don't take the moral highground on account of it.

[gaulois]

One point about this argument that constantly comes about is the one about Quebec not trying hard enough to fix Canada, i.e. decentralize.<br /> <br /> It is quite clear to me that 9 provinces where English is the majority language (&let's lump culture too) will pool (or centralize) their resources in a way that is very different from how a province with a diffferent majority language (&culture) will pool. Think of the CRTC and the public broadcaster, for example.<br /> <br /> It always go back to this distinct status and Meech Lake that the ROC refused to grant. I don't think nobody ever wants to revisit this and that is very a strong case for Quebec sovereignty.

[Marcarc]

[QUOTE]Not only is Switzerland's system unperfect, extremely complex and strips government of autonomy, the PEOPLE are growing less comfortable with it. The Swiss will tell you they just can't get rid of the heavy bureaucratic overload. Political groups have been marginalized when this 'ideal' system is supposed to achieve the opposite. This may be YOUR idea of a desirable system, but don't take the moral highground on account of it.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> This makes it clear that you have NO idea what you are talking about, but I'm glad you keep at it because as always I enjoy talking about it and hopefully more people will read about it (also hoping more than four people are reading this thread).<br /> <br /> In virtually every poll the swiss rank highest in support for their form of government, it is the longest running democracy in the history of the world, and the idea that somehow Canada or Quebec's archaic version of 'responsible government' would attract ANY swiss' attention as being more desirable is just HILARIOUS. <br /> <br /> If you actually do some research, as I know you have in the past you will note that the Swiss system is remarkably UN-complex. THeir constitution is one of the shortest of any country. The idea that a political system is 'too complex' is simply another way of saying that canadians, and Quebecers, are too stupid to be democracies. If you actually KNEW any Swiss people then they'd inform you that the swiss follow politics the way north americans follow sports. They have the highest per capita number of newspapers of any country in the world.<br /> <br /> It's kind of hard for ME to take moral highground for a country which I am not a citizen and play no part in, so that's an odd remark. <br /> <br /> Of course the reality is that if the swiss, or even the american states who have them wanted a citizens initiative to get rid of citizens initiatives then they would have a referendum on it. Gee, guess what, none of the places that HAVE democracy, want to get rid of it. I have no doubt that there are SOME swiss, just like there are SOME americans who want to do away with democracy altogether, as there always are in every society, unfortunately, those people have control of Canada-and Quebec.<br /> <br /> <br /> Finally, it's quite ironic to hear somebody who doesn't like the autocratic form of canadian federalism, to be arguing in favour of an autocratic form of Quebec association. Shouldn't Quebec be for Quebecers?

[Brother Jonathan]

[QUOTE by Marcarc]</b> as far as I know Canada is the ONLY country to have such a legal means of dissolution.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> The Soviet constitution had a defined process for secession of the constituent republics. (That’s perhaps the most important reason why there were no armed attempts to keep Ukraine, the Baltics, the -Stans, &c. from pursuing independence.)<br /> <br /> The “divorce” of Czechs and Slovaks was a model dissolution. I don’t know whether that was guided by the Czechoslovakian constitution, though.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Marcarc]</b> Hawaii was clearly annexed by the states …<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> Quite — nothing like a well-timed revolution to ease the annexation process. (It worked with Texas, too.)<br /> <br /> In 1959, the territorial residents of Alaska and Hawaii voted on whether to remain territories or become states. However, since the USA was a member of the UN, we were obligated by treaty to provide independence as a third choice on those ballots — which we failed to do, of course.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE by Samuel]</b> Funny you should mention Hawaii. It seems even the evil USA is considering granting the Kanaka Maoli all the sovereignty and distinct society recognition they seek …<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> My understanding (which could well be flawed) was that a significant number of indigenous Hawaiians seek a situation similar to that of the Nisga’a in British Columbia. (Similar in concept, if not in scale.)<br />

[Marcarc]

Mine contribution seems to be AWOL above so I'll quickly precis it again. As usual it is about direct democracy:<br /> <br /> Switzerland:<br /> is the longest existing democracy in the world<br /> <br /> has the highest per capita number of newspapers in the world<br /> <br /> had one of the highest voter turnouts at referenda and polls consistently show the country has one of the highest ratings of any form of government<br /> <br /> the idea that the Swiss are somehow 'getting tired' of democracy and are thinking of adopting Canada or Quebec's version of 'non-political participation' is just hysterical. We see 'stories' similar to that, close to home from the states in the US where they citizens initiatives. Those who fear the wrath of the voters are always coming out with 'scare stories'. Of course, all it takes is a petition to have voters vote on getting rid of citizens initiatives to see how they truly feel, oddly enough there have never been any such petitions. In other words, voters like them, the parties who like to control voters, don't.<br /> <br /> The Swiss constititution is one of the shortest of any country, it's federation is clearly one of the most 'un complex'. Canada's is so complex that it is virtually impossible to even get the three levels of government in the same room together. Democracy is quite easy as it does away with all the 'pomp and circumstance' and focuses on one thing-what the people want.<br /> <br /> The swiss follow politics like north americans follow sport, in its wildest hopes canada can't hope for that kind of societal involvement, and of course there's good reason. If you have no power, then why get involved? It's like the landlord inviting you to come and discuss rent increases, you know what that means. The biggest difference is that in poll after poll the swiss say they are fiercely proud of their government, does even ONE canadian ever say that? <br /> <br /> Again, it's odd to hear a sovereigntist make such arguments, I always thought the whole idea of Quebec independence was for the benefit of Quebecers, not party officials. Of course there are many sovereigntists who do not subscribe to such views, one of the main platforms of the PQ until they got elected was citizens initiatives and ballot voting on resolutions, as well as proportional representation. These were promptly done away with once they got in power.

[samuel]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] The idea that the Swiss are somehow 'getting tired' of democracy and are thinking of adopting Canada or Quebec's version of 'non-political participation' is just hysterical. We see 'stories' similar to that, close to home from the states in the US where they citizens initiatives. Those who fear the wrath of the voters are always coming out with 'scare stories'. Of course, all it takes is a petition to have voters vote on getting rid of citizens initiatives to see how they truly feel, oddly enough there have never been any such petitions. In other words, voters like them, the parties who like to control voters, don't.[/QUOTE]<br /> What is it with you people and distorting others' views?.<br /> <br /> I said the Swiss PEOPLE are fedup with the bureaucratic overload as a result of their system. It's a running gag in Europe and among the Swiss themselves. I never even slightly suggested they're looking to Canada or Québec for reform. I said I like to think the PEOPLE of Québec would strike a better balance. If you're suggesting their system would solve all your problems that's fine, it's your opinion.

[Marcarc]

Again, that's a lot of talk, how about some facts to back it up, or do you simply happen to have all the swiss people on your speeddial. That's the typical 'I don't really have any information but I'll say things like "most canadians" or "most Quebecers" or "most swiss", to make it seem like vast populations actually agree with me so I must be right'. It's not opinion that Canada and Quebec have a FAR bigger bureaucracy than Switzerland. If you have some facts about Quebec's new constitution I'd be interested, but the last thing I saw had NO provisions for democracy in Quebec. How excluding the PEOPLE of Quebec is considered 'a balance' is beyond me.

[samuel]

[QUOTE BY= Marcarc] If you have some facts about Quebec's new constitution I'd be interested, but the last thing I saw had NO provisions for democracy in Quebec. How excluding the PEOPLE of Quebec is considered 'a balance' is beyond me.[/QUOTE]<br /> You read one adhoc version of a preliminary Québec constitution and suddenly it's a fait accompli that "excludes the people of Québec". You're a bigger fool than what you try to project onto others. Québec's new Constitution will be the result of EXTENSIVE cunsultations with the PEOPLE of Québec in all its regions and municipalities. You're commenting fiction and asking me for facts? Get off your soap box.

[Marcarc]

No, I don't think so, I quite like my soapbox. Extensive 'consultation' means nothing, in Canada EVERY bylaw which is passed by municipalities must be 'consulted' by government in the form of public meetings. However, that doesn't mean people actually have any power, it simply is a bureaucratic rule. It's not as if public meetings are held and then they have a vote on what the government is proposing, in fact the main reason why there is generally such low turnout municipally is that everyone KNOWS its just a formality. People can show up and make noise and do all they want, the government, usually six or seven guys, will make the final decision. And even if they had their way there are usually provisions which let the provincial government have the final say if it's that important.<br /> <br /> As I've said, if there has been ANY talk of democracy in Quebec's new federal government I've never seen it, and I looked quite extensively about a year ago when we had pretty much this same conversation. As a province Quebec is quite free and able to at least bring in proportional representation but it has refused to do so or even have a referendum on it like BC and PEI. Even the PQ never did that. Likewise they can do like half of the states and have citizens initiatives where Quebecers would actually have a say in forming policy. Or they could at least have a referendum on whether to bring in such initiatives, and yet there is not a peep. So in this Quebec has shown that it is as disinterested in democracy as the rest of Canada, the proof is in the pudding as they say.<br /> <br /> I've read constitutional proposals that were referenced by the main media, so that's all I can go by. I've noticed the BQ and PQ are quite silent about the whole thing. Again, if somebody has information to the contrary I'd love to see the links. I've never even seen the main parties make that promise of 'extensive consultations' with Quebecers, so even that's not a given, though I do agree that it's likely and has probably been mentioned often. What ISN"T likely is that Quebecers will have any mechanisms to implement policy, so they can have all kinds of 'consultations' and simply ignore the ones they don't like and keep the ones they do. Again, that creates MORE bureaucracy, and isn't democratic.<br /> <br /> Don't fault me if my soapbox happens to not be as slippery as yours.

[gaulois]

Wars do get fought over and over. I wonder how many corrupted sleezeballs will still go on in a sovereign Quebec and hide behind a different flag for their misdeeds. There must be some ground why people gets disenchanted. There is always scum that ends up hijacking power. Perhaps DD would have been a better platform to bring up Quebec Sovereingty and guard against the same type of scum? <br /> <br /> Samuel: tell us how is the PQ guarding itself from a few people hijacking the party.

[samuel]

[QUOTE BY= Brother Jonathan] [QUOTE by Marcarc]</b> as far as I know Canada is the ONLY country to have such a legal means of dissolution.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> The Soviet constitution had a defined process for secession of the constituent republics. (That’s perhaps the most important reason why there were no armed attempts to keep Ukraine, the Baltics, the -Stans, &c. from pursuing independence.)[/QUOTE]<br /> Just noticed this statement, you have been misled by Mr. Moral Highground, Brother Jonathan.<br /> <br /> America was founded upon the right and process of secession. The Declaration of Independence was an affirmation of secession from the government of England. Ironically the Fed's own denial or unacceptance of this same right would later lead to civil war.<br /> <br /> Canada DID NOT enact a legal means or right and process of secession. The Supreme Court contends Québec has an obligation to negotiate a right and process of secession with the other Provinces if it initiates and wins a referendum on the issue. This, of course, is quite different and with an ounce of ill will can turn into the absurd. But that's what democracies tend to do, they protect themselves from the people.<br /> <br /> Similar to the USA, Québec will AFFIRM its right and process of secession. The difference in this case is that Canada is in no position to afford initiating a war over it.<br /> <br /> If that wasn't "clear" enough, the Canadian Clarity Act starts off with: <br /> <br /> WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that there is no right, under international law or under the Constitution of Canada, for the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally;

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Samuel] [QUOTE BY= Brother Jonathan] [QUOTE by Marcarc]</b> as far as I know Canada is the ONLY country to have such a legal means of dissolution.<b>[/QUOTE]<br /> The Soviet constitution had a defined process for secession of the constituent republics. (That’s perhaps the most important reason why there were no armed attempts to keep Ukraine, the Baltics, the -Stans, &c. from pursuing independence.)[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> America was founded upon the right and process of secession. The Declaration of Independence was an affirmation of secession from the government of England. Ironically the Fed's own denial or unacceptance of this same right would later lead to civil war.[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> And you'll note, after their Civil war, the right of any State to succeed from the Union was revoked.<br /> <br /> I might also add, that the International Law many seperatists are fond of quoting that recognizes states from suceeding from a union they were forced into, was written to allow the Baltic States to suceed from the Soviet Union. There was no fighting to keep them in the Union, because the Soviet Union couldn't pay, feed or equip it's troops.<br /> <br /> [QUOTE BY= Samuel] <br /> If that wasn't "clear" enough, the Canadian Clarity Act starts off with: <br /> <br /> WHEREAS the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed that there is no right, under international law or under the Constitution of Canada, for the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally;[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> Looks pretty clear to me.<br /> <br /> Did anyone notice what this thread started off being about? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'><br />

[samuel]

[QUOTE BY= Dr Caleb] There was no fighting to keep them in the Union, because the Soviet Union couldn't pay, feed or equip it's troops.[/QUOTE]<br /> Sure sounds like Canada to me <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'>

[Aldebaran]

[quote by Samuel] If u dont understand, imagine that all america is french and u have only one little province called Quebec where english is in majority. What would u do?[/QUOTE]<br /> <br /> <br /> There are millions of Spanish and Portuguese speakers in America also.