Boris' pissed off and he's telling you why

[MrFun]

Yeah -- if Quebec can deal with being part of Canada, then Texas sure as hell can TRY to deal with being part of United States.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They do

*points to the White House*

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Since you don't have a clue as to what is Canadian history, French Canadian history, Canadian politics, Quebecois politics and Quebecois culture, I suggest you just shut up on this one. It can only help your reputation.
(In 1995, there was a referendum in Quebec. 49.4% of the population voted for separation).

Was it 50% or greater? NO! So I suggest you shut up on this one. Quebec is NOT a country. It has not declared statehood. It has not been recognized by anyone else as a state. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled Quebec could not succeed due to principles of international law.

Quebec is NOT a country and never will be. So I suggest you deal with it and accept that you are just a province of Canada and nothing more .

Um... Imran. You might want to check that.

If the referendum had passed, it would have been politically impossible not to allow Quebec to separate.

As it stands if any province conducts a referendum with a properly worded question and votes to separate, the Federal Government is bound by law to negotiate in good faith with them.

I don't think this will happen in Quebec in the next 20 years, but it may happen and in that case Quebec would probably separate. The Quebecois are a bolshie lot and I don't think it would be politically feasible to keep them in Canada if they voted to leave.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If the referendum had passed, it would have been politically impossible not to allow Quebec to separate.

Perhaps, but if the federal government decided not to let it go, then Quebec probably could not leave. The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled, in an advisory opinion, Quebec doesn't have the right to unilaterally seceed under international law, in the case of Reference re Secession of Quebec, 37 International Legal Materials 1340 (1998).

Perhaps the Federal Government is required to negotiate in good faith, but if, in the end, it decides not to allow sucession, for whatever reason, Quebec can't leave. And I think the Liberals will do whatever possible to prevent Quebec leaving, even if 50% there say yes.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If the referendum had passed, it would have been politically impossible not to allow Quebec to separate.

Perhaps, but if the federal government decided not to let it go, then Quebec probably could not leave. The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled, in an advisory opinion, Quebec doesn't have the right to unilaterally seceed under international law, in the case of Reference re Secession of Quebec, 37 International Legal Materials 1340 (1998).

If Quebec had not been granted the right to secede in the case of a referendum victory, the FLQ stuff in the 70s would look like a cakewalk in comparison.

Politically I don't think Chretien would have had any choice. This isn't the US, we can't declare war on secessionists.

Perhaps the Federal Government is required to negotiate in good faith, but if, in the end, it decides not to allow sucession, for whatever reason, Quebec can't leave. And I think the Liberals will do whatever possible to prevent Quebec leaving, even if 50% there say yes.

I don't think they could do it. The good faith stuff is from Cretins own mouth.

[Imran Siddiqui]

::shrug:: When faced with it, who knows? I mean we declared a war over it. Sure you ain't the US and you won't start a war, but who knows what pressure will be exerted.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You are an idiot aren't you? GDP Growth IS a percentage increase in GDP! I mean, really, you try to argue things and have no idea what you are arguing about. Uninformed and ignorant is no way to debate, fakeboris.

I suggest you take a look back at the link you have provided.

http://www.dec-ced.gc.ca/Complements/Publications/ADT2003/en/2.html

There are many graphs, but none of them talks about
GDP growth as a percentage.
The graph #11 is about GDP growth in DOLLARS, not percentage points. Seems like only your blindess/inability to read a graph properly can surpass my "idocy".

Because immigrants aren't any drain at all on services?

Immigrants are required to have a few thousand dollars when they arrive, and immigration authorities are likely to reject a candidate with less than an university diploma.
Plus, most provincial social security laws apply only to someone who has lived in the province for a a year.
Most immigrants have a benefic effect on economy, and you have to consider this when calculating growth.

Have you ever heard of an economist spoeak of GDP growth per capita? Seriously, GDP growth is the only viable measure in discussing economic growth of countries. Whether more or less people were added doesn't matter worth a damn.. because those people are also a drain on the system as they are a gain.

Absolutely. Even the link YOU provided offers a per-capita graph (graph #13). And guess what? Quebec's performance is just on par with Ontario's on this matter.
It is definitely a common occurance to see per-capita calculations to determine "true" growth, as taking into account the number of citizens. I'll have to assume you thinking the opposite to be the consequence of your illiteracy. Many, many books use this figure to give an idea of average wealth.

When the US economy grows by 3% and France's grows by 3%, do you ever hear anyone say, but wait, the US had more people coming in, so by GDP growth per capita France had a better year? NO! Because it is silly.

If, relative to each other's population, a country would have had more immigrants coming in than the other, we would definitely see some economists showing interest in the matter. They would compare the "quality" of the immigrants of each country. If one of them had received already wealthier immigrants, economists would surely consider this as a factor helping growth.
And if one of them had received more immigrants but of poorer "quality" (*cough* political refugees), they would also consider this fact in their explanation.

Was it 50% or greater? NO! So I suggest you shut up on this one. Quebec is NOT a country. It has not declared statehood. It has not been recognized by anyone else as a state. The Canadian Supreme Court ruled Quebec could not succeed due to principles of international law.

Quebec is NOT a country and never will be. So I suggest you deal with it and accept that you are just a province of Canada and nothing more .

No, it was not 50% or greater, but can you really believe in all honesty that a nation in which the separatist sentiment has varied between 40 and 60% in the last 20 years (yes, separatist sentiment has reached 60% in the beginning of the 90s) will NEVER secede? This would be prematurate at best.
So prematurate, in fact, that most separatists would be glad to see this opinion shared by federalists. Just to benefit from their reduced political efforts.

As for the Supreme Court ruling? The former judge in chief himself has restated that the ruling was an opinion and had no executional power.
-Also please consider that a right to a nation to have its own country is recognized by the UN, and that Canada has signed the vast majority of its charters.
-In fact, the federal government has recognized Timor, and supported most plans for Palestinian independance. They would be hard pressed not to do the same for Quebec.
-French president Mitterand was willing to recognize Quebec's indepedance. Chirac's position is unclear.
-Know that in any case Quebec's premier, Parizeau, was willing to secede unilaterally if Canada was unwilling to discuss. Canada, the champion of human rights, sending the army in Quebec?
-Also know that there are some French-Canadian only units in the army. Many of those soldiers, according to a sergeant I spoke too, would not have followed such orders from the federal.

I could go on for hours. Since the international press seldom echoes ongoings from provincial politics, I suggest you recognize your knowledge of the topic cannot be sufficient to discuss it on the level you are bringing it.

For now, I will admit my wrong in introducing it, and apologize for being rude in my previous statements.

[DinoDoc]

Are we still paying attention to fakeboris? I forget these things so easily.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
::shrug:: When faced with it, who knows? I mean we declared a war over it. Sure you ain't the US and you won't start a war, but who knows what pressure will be exerted.

None, it's not the Canadian way.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There are many graphs, but none of them talks about
GDP growth as a percentage.
The graph #11 is about GDP growth in DOLLARS, not percentage points.

Look at the DIFFERENCE in GDP from 1981 to 2001. Can you not see the differences in how they rise?! That is your percentage growth! DUH!

And guess what? Quebec's performance is just on par with Ontario's on this matter.

Compare it with the rest of Canada. I never said Ontario was an economic juggernaut either.

If, relative to each other's population, a country would have had more immigrants coming in than the other, we would definitely see some economists showing interest in the matter.

Not really. Immigration helps and hurts! For example, US immigration is not just the people that have good degrees... we get plenty of illegal immigrants that don't have many skills.

Also please consider that a right to a nation to have its own country is recognized by the UN

Um... no. That's what the ruling was about. A nation has the right to its own country if it is being oppressed under current occupation.

[Fake Boris]

Look at the DIFFERENCE in GDP from 1981 to 2001. Can you not see the differences in how they rise?! That is your percentage growth! DUH!

Please, Imran.

I saw that the rise was higher, in DOLLARS of course.

But so was the population increase!!!
Why do you think the document gives something like 5 demographic tables before talking economy? Because they want to show the importance of higher immigration to Ontario's economy!
And their conclusion with the last graph: more GDP true, but individually the wealth of the Ontarian inhabitant has not increased more than the wealth of the Quebecer citizen. Figures for 1961 to 2001 are similar.
And you know what? Quebec was anything BUT a Welfare state before the 60s. And it was poor. We got richer because we needed some laws to protect ourselves against tycoons. And what did the tycoons do? They bribed the police to beat every striker the province had. They wanted us to be the unskilled part of their businesses, just like they are doing to the third world. We said no in 1961. Trust me, we have had the "benefit" of the most bigoted Catholic right-wingers before, and no one in Quebec fvcking wants them back! NEVER!

Is that so hard to understand? Now back to less literature and more bread.

Even if some guy came in and created 6,000$ of wealth a year, that would show up as GDP growth in this graph. This is why what counts the most is PER CAPITA increase!!! Because having plenty of people who create 6,000$ a year is NOT enriching your country, while having few that produces more is, of course.

Now, of course the 6,000$ statement is gross and over-simplified, but it is used to show the importance of GDP per inhabitant as a statistic.

And as for Ontario: Alberta and Ontario are the economic powerhouse of Canada. But Alberta has only risen in the 90s mostly, so in fact comparing to Quebec to Ontario is more than fair, especially since the graph starts in 1981.
In fact, Ontario is much richer than the Canadian average.
Look at graph 12: Ontario's part in the Canadian economy has risen between 1981 and 2001 (first because its population increased faster, and then because it still managed to have a decent per-capita growth). It beat the Canadian average. And you claim it would be more appropriate to compare Quebec with the Canadian average!
So be it. The stats would favor me even more

As an interesting sidenote, did you know Canadian economic growth has surpassed the American one in the last 10 years?

My stance has always been: there can be very decent economic growth while at the same having more welfare than in the US. How many poor are you willing to sacrifice for these few points of GDP increase?

[Fake Boris]

Ned:

When I complain against US corporations, I do the same for European, Japanese and Canadian ones. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the nationality of a corporation has anything to do with its behaviour. They're just all the same.

JohnT:

I find it funny that you are too busy to explain your views. So be it.
I can resume my point of view: Corporations are an extension to an individual, aimed at fulfilling its right to profit from his work. In such, their political rights only exist by those the individuals are willing to give them. Of course, things are not evolving this way, because Corporations can use political donations or outright bribery to influence politicians. Media trusts can use their even more dangerous influence to manipulate the masses.
Corporations (especially public ones) have become meta-citizens with an "artificially gained political influence" whose sole political goal is to gain profit (because the only thing that can unite so much shareholders together is money), and quite powerful at that because of the big cash they already hold.
Because of this, we are becoming more and more a "Corporocracy" and less of a Democracy. Corporations are buying the public place: advertisements everywhere, even in SCHOOLS. A single message everywhere: prosperity. Get rich. Hell, Imran can claim such things as having children working in sweatshop ALTRUISTIC, while accusing me of EGOISM because I'd like them to go to school instead. Thus, the assumption that school is there to make us economical tools rather than informed citizens is becoming more and more widespread. How many go to school for Plato, compared to those who go for the cash they'll get in the future?
The "economical tool" citizen is alienating himself in his work, because its aim is money, not personal fullfilment of his dignity. In the Western world, we have a compromise on this: alienating jobs, but decent working hours and wages to do other stuff on your free time. Like? Buying goods. Over-consumption is a symptom of this alienation.
And this same citizen, out of resentment, would like others to alienate themselves the same way he does. You better be productive, because I AM! Sounds like it may be your case.

I am over-simplfying here for sure. But let's see prosperity as a tool helping a greater goal, not as a circular, forever unending objective.
My basic point: "un-poverty" is preferable to "wealth".
This is the thinking behind Social-Democracy. And the Corporations won't agree for sure.
Instead of letting them dictate economic policies, let's intervene ourselves. It's ridiculous to think that gradual, pragmatic rulings in favor of social protection will prevent economic growth. It will just make it more acceptable and fair to everyone.

[JohnT]

I find it funny that you are too busy to explain your views. So be it.

Too busy and too bored. I used to go 'round and 'round on these debates more than a decade ago when I was in school myself. Out of all the talk, debate, and near-fistfights I learned two things:

1. People believe what they want to believe for whatever reason they want to believe it.

2. That's a good thing.

It's Christmas week and I've put in 60 hours since last Friday... do you really think I have the time or the inclination to bandy semantics, parse phrases, and reference musty old tomes that have little to do with the world today or the way people behave? Not really.

[Fake Boris]

1. People believe what they want to believe for whatever reason they want to believe it.

I don't. I want facts, facts, facts, and then arguments. I have changed my views so often in the few years of my high level studies that I really don't believe in anything, apart using politics to ease some people's suffering.

You don't want to enrich myself with your views? All right. It might be to my benefit anyway.

[JohnT]

Honestly, Oncle. Let me ask you a question: what could I or anyone say that would make you change your mind?