Posts Tagged ‘Quebec separatism’

IS SEPARATISM DYING?

October 17, 2011

A new poll, just out, contains bad news for Quebec separatists.  According to CROP , 71 per cent of Quebeckers think the sovereignty debate is “outdated”‘ up from 58 per cent last year.  Only 25 per cent want to separate from Canada. Seventy per cent of Quebeckers think independence will not be acheived.

Can you believe that 76 per cent of Quebeckers are very or somewhat proud of being Canadian?

At the provincial level, the group led by Francois Legault, is leading the polls. He has promised not to talk about separation for 10 years.

These are ominous  figures  for the PQ.

Is separatism dying?

What do you think?

SHOULD NDP LEADER, TURMEL, STEP DOWN?

August 3, 2011

It is now clear that NDP interim-leader, Nycole Turmel, was a member of two separatist parties,  the Bloc which she left only in January of this year and Quebec Solidaire, of which she is still a member.

Turmel, a former labour leader, explains that she identified with the social democratic aims of these parties but she never supported their separatist options.  Furthermore she has been a member of the NDP for 20 years.  Is that explanation good enough?

Not for the editorial page of this morning’s Globe and Mail, it isn’t.  The Globe opines:  “Not since Lucien Bouchard and Gilles Duceppe has someone whose loyalty to federalism appeared so tepid and fair-weather served as leader of her Majesty’s loyal opposition.”

The issue of course is not about Turmel’s changing parties.  Many politicians have done that.  Winston Churchill himself switched from the Conservatives to the Liberals, and then back again to the Conservatives.  He famously remarked:  “Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat.”The issue is whether Turmel’s federalist commitment is solid.  She says flatly she has always been a federalist when it comes to the separation of Quebec.

But will that declaration be sufficient, say, for NDP supporters in the West?  Maybe not.  The Globe ends its editorial on this matter this morning with a  snarky comment:  “…. the NDP’s suitability for the role of government-in-waiting is at best tenuous, unless the government in question is that of a sovereign Quebec.”  Ouch!

By the way, Liberal leader Bob Rae was a member of the NDP for more than 20 years.  Does that mean his commitment to liberal principles is tenuous?

Should the NDP cut its losses and ask Turmel to step down?

Or should the NDP circle the wagons and continue to support her as interim-leader?

What do you think?

ARE THE SEPARATISTS FINISHED?

June 7, 2011

This morning in Quebec city a fourth member of the PQ resigned from the party.  This in addition to the three heavyweights yesterday – Louise Beaudoin, Pierre Curzi and Lisette Lapointe, the wife of Jacques Parizeau.  And this in addition to the dreadful defeat sustained in the federal election by the Bloc Quebecois, which dropped from 47 to four seats.

A top PQ strategist, Jean-Francois Lisee, wrote on his blog that these resignation show that “the future of the PQ is behind it.”  He added that the resignations would reduce the PQ’s chances of winning either the next election or a sovereignty referendum.

Ostensibly the resignations are over leader Pauline Marois’s orders that all PQ members must vote to support a bill which prohibits aany citizen from suing over the questionable deal to build a hockey arena in Quebec City.  Actually they are about Marois’ leadership which many PQ members charge is autocratic.  The question now is whether her leadership is fatally compromised.

So where does the PQ  go from here?  Is the party starting to unravel?

Are the separatists finished?

What do you think?

IS 50 PER CENT-PLUS-ONE ENOUGH FOR QUEBEC SEPARATION.?

May 27, 2011

Almost half the NDP caucus in Ottawa comes from Quebec.  There is no doubt there are some sovereignists in this group.  Which is why NDP leader, Jack Layton, is struggling to clarify his position on Quebec’s separation from Canada.

After several false starts Mr. Layton has fallen back on the NDP’s Sherbrooke Declaration of some years ago in which the party outlined its position on Quebec separation.  The Declaration stipulates that in the event of another referendum, a federal NDP government would stand aside and let Quebec’s National Assembly draw up the referendum question , and that it would accept 50 plus one as a clear enough endorsement of succession.

When he was asked directly about this, Layton replied that the Sherbrooke Declaration stands as party policy.

Now there is no doubt that this policy on seccession is supported by all poilitical parties in Quebec (federalist or separatist).  Even federalist Quebeckers support the 50 plus one number.

Our friend, Tony Kondaks, expresses concerns about the NDP position in a well-crafted letter in this morning’s Gazette.  One of Tony’s major concerns is that the NDP policy would enable Quebec to make a unilateral declaration of independence.  That doesn not worry me much.  If the seccession proceedings ever got that far (which they won’t) the question is not whether Quebec would make a unilateral declaration of indpendence but whether anyone in the international would recognize such a declaration (absent a clear question and a clear majority).  I don’t believe they would.

Is 50 per cent-plus one enough for Quebec separation enough for Quebec separation?

What do you think?

SHOULD POLITICAL PARTIES BE SUBSIDIZED?

April 10, 2011

The system we now have  in Canada is that each political party receives a subsidy of $2 for each vote they receive in a general election.  So if the separatist Bloc receives a million votes they are entitled to $2million from  the public  purse.  In fact most of the Bloc’s funding comes from this tax-payer subsidy.

Can you imagine that if there were a separatist party in Texas?  Would Washington subsidize them?  Get real.

Many Canadians strenuously oppose the vote subsidy because they don’t want any of  their money going to a separatist party in Quebec.

Harper  has promised to end the vote subsidy across the board if he wins the next election.

Doesn’t the vote subsidy avoid the millions sloshing around for American  elections?

Should political parties be subsidized?

What do you think?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 75 other followers