The Nation of Greenland?

[Fake Boris]

I think the major problem would be to define what is a valid part. Is it a voting district?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
This is not the basis of my argument. It's just the legalistic part of it. There is just no way to pretend that Canada right now has any more legitimacy than Quebec, because in effect there was never any strong and consensual choice, done in a democratic manner choice.

Quebec had a legislature. That legislature was elected by the people of Quebec. That legislature opted for Confederation. Democracy's a ***** when you don't like the result.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The UN clearly recognizes the right to "self-determination", though.

A common misconception is that self-determination in this, the 4th age of self-determination means the same as it did in the 1st or 2nd ages of self-determination (after WW1 - seperate countries for Europeans & after WW2 - seperate countries for former colonies). That isn't the case. The UN does not recognize the right of secession as a part of self-determination. Today it means having a voice in your government.

[Fake Boris]

NYE I believe there are two problems with that conception and I've already pointed them out:

1) the legislature had the choice between joining the federation or remaining a British colony. All of this was done under the authoritarian rule of England, and sovereignty wasn't an issue at the time mainly because of the crushed rebellion.

Back in the time also, French Canadians were culturally and economically oppressed, and the overall climate was not favorable to democratic expression.

2) interestingly enough, why is a referendum required today while it wasn't back in the time? Different times, different habits, maybe. But what does make the past any more legitimate?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
I think the major problem would be to define what is a valid part. Is it a voting district?

More likely regions.

We could start with the land area that Quebec did not gain until after Confederation. I think that would be over half of it.

Then there would be the strongly federalist areas close to the capital and around Montreal.

The more I think about it, the more I dislike the carving that would be attempted. As I said earlier, there are circumstances where a province should consider secession and would be in their rights to do so. However, I don;t see any way for it to end well in any possible case based on 51% or 55% of the vote.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The UN clearly recognizes the right to "self-determination", though.

A common misconception is that self-determination in this, the 4th age of self-determination means the same as it did in the 1st or 2nd ages of self-determination (after WW1 - seperate countries for Europeans & after WW2 - seperate countries for former colonies). That isn't the case. The UN does not recognize the right of secession as a part of self-determination. Today it means having a voice in your government.

So annexion is legal as long as the annexed are granted the right to vote?

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by notyoueither


More likely regions.

We could start with the land area that Quebec did not gain until after Confederation. I think that would be over half of it.

Why would that land belong to Canada? It is clearly settled by Quebecois. Just use common sense. It's not like Quebec will be disputing Labrador or some parts of Ontario because the land was French in 1762 or something.

Then there would be the strongly federalist areas close to the capital and around Montreal.

Yeah, take a street and decide that those living on the right side belong to a federalist area and those on the left to a sovereignist one.

Why aren't the citizens of Montreal bound like the others to the decisions of the larger legistature?

[Imran Siddiqui]

So annexion is legal as long as the annexed are granted the right to vote?

Depends how an annexation is done. Aggressive war for annexation is forbidden by the UN Charter. A peaceful annexation where the annexed country has the vote and agrees to the annexation and where they can practice their culture in peace will be deemed fine under international law.

I don't see why it shouldn't .

Why aren't the citizens of Montreal bound like the others to the decisions of the larger legistature?

Why aren't the citizens of Quebec bound like others to the decision of the larger legislature (ie, Parliament).

Before I forget, international law would also have problems with the fact that there are substantial minorities who are not French Canadians in Quebec and thus a claim of a homogenous culture is not entirely true.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
NYE I believe there are two problems with that conception and I've already pointed them out:

1) the legislature had the choice between joining the federation or remaining a British colony. All of this was done under the authoritarian rule of England, and sovereignty wasn't an issue at the time mainly because of the crushed rebellion.

Back in the time also, French Canadians were culturally and economically oppressed, and the overall climate was not favorable to democratic expression.

2) interestingly enough, why is a referendum required today while it wasn't back in the time? Different times, different habits, maybe. But what does make the past any more legitimate?

re referendums... That's a good question. I suppose that the chaos that could ensue if legislatures were to be able to succeed in a fit of pique would be a bit much. In truth, I dunno. I suppose you could ask people who know more about constitutional law than I to get a better answer though.

re the choices... Quebec had choices, but I agree not many of them were good ones. In the unlikely event that Ontario could have joined with the Maritimes without Quebec, then Quebec today would likely be 2 or so states of the Union after the Americans finally delivered pay back to Britain for actions during the Civil War. Most people pay very little attention to that imperative, but it was certainly there and it was a great motivator.

To be honest, I do believe there was pressure exerted for Confederation to move forward. A lot of that pressure came from London. However, that pressure was used on the Maritimes, not in Quebec. The representatives of Ontario and Quebec (Franco and Anglo) went to Charlottetown in order to win the agreement of the Maritimes, and they prevailed. It was not everyone going to Quebec to get them in.

In fact, it was the representatives of your own province (some of them Franco) who were among the leading proponents of Confederation. The people of Quebec were not the reticent, ugly daughters of Confederation, they were the bold champions of it, and they gained a great deal due to it.

I'm really sorry, but you win no points or sympathy in the origins of this country. There is a reason Montreal was the commercial centre of Canada prior to recent developments where people and capital fled due to uncertainty.

[Heresson]

Quebec, ta nazwa kojarzy mi się z kłakami i bekaniem...

[notyoueither]

Sorry, that's not an official language. We shall have to banish you.

[Fake Boris]

NYE, it's late and my history books are deep in my basement, but I should definitely try to see who in Quebec wanted to join the Confederation.

Possible objections:

1) independance was not considered due to direct oppression and/or informal one (that the French Canadians didn't have the means to take their own destiny because of cultural poverty created by the oppression)

2) not sure of this, but I think that the Canadian Party (the nationalistic one) was forbidden after the rebellion

3) whatever decision did the colony take, it could be canceled by the Britain appointed Governor. So was the Parliament that truly enthusiastic about the measure or simply following the will of the governor knowing that it couldn't be countered?

[notyoueither]

The reps of Quebec actively sought Confederation. Many of them were Franco. There was pressure on some to the Maritimes (NB or NS, I can't recall off hand). PEI simply refused for a time. Quebec didn't need the same pressure.

That might be because of what was to be gained, that being the things desired in both Ontario and Quebec and that thing that had caused rebellions in both. Responsible government. That is what the rebels of Quebec asked for before they rebelled, and those in Ontario.

The Northwest was an added inducement. Quebec more than doubled in size after it received its direct share. On top of that there were the commercial opportunities that were to be realised between the lake head and the Rockies. When Montreal was the headquarters of a great portion of the the nation's major companies, the Northwest was a major issue.

[Ned]

I don't know whether it's been mentioned here before, but the real rift between Copenhagen and Greenland is over the EU. Greenland wanted out and left in '85. I think this might still be the major bone of contention between the two.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/History-of-Greenland

[Harovan]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Sorry, that's not an official language. We shall have to banish you.

Sounds like the language of the savages we recently incorporated into our European Empire. We will teach them manners, don't worry.