Has the happy little boat of Canada sprung a leak?

[Agathon]

The only defence federalism needs is that it is the desire of most of the people in most of the provinces that that be the way we govern ourselves.

That is not a defence of the practicality of federalism. People can want silly things, even though they aren't very practical.

For example, most people want to pay less tax and have increased government services. Just because people want it doesn't mean that it is a good idea.

Now, if you can get a majority of all provinces to go along with your fancy that federalism be changed to a strict central power and strip the provinces of most of theirs, then by all means feel free to amend our constitution.

That's not my suggestion. My suggestion is that the Federal government should use regular political means to strip the provinces of their power - by bribery, threats, etc. You know.. the normal run of politics.

You need to show me that Federalism makes Canadians better off.

[notyoueither]

You didn't answer the real question, Aggy.

You say there is no law governing seperation of a Canadian province. Please say that is the case, or state any differences.

[Agathon]

You say there is no law governing seperation of a Canadian province. Please say that is the case, or state any differences.

Nope. I said that there is no law obliging the Federal government to grant separation. They have to "negotiate in good faith", but we all know that in legal terms, this is a fig leaf.

Besides, you still haven't answered my question. Being pwned in two threads must be getting to you.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
That's not my suggestion. My suggestion is that the Federal government should use regular political means to strip the provinces of their power - by bribery, threats, etc. You know.. the normal run of politics.

You need to show me that Federalism makes Canadians better off.

How about this? It's the law.

You want to change it? Fine. Get the assent of 7 provinces representing 51% of the population. If you're lucky, your amendment won't need unanimous approval in Parliament and 10 provinces to agree.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon

You say there is no law governing seperation of a Canadian province. Please say that is the case, or state any differences.

Nope. I said that there is no law obliging the Federal government to grant separation. They have to "negotiate in good faith", but we all know that in legal terms, this is a fig leaf.

Besides, you still haven't answered my question. Being pwned in two threads must be getting to you.

Actually, the SCoC acknowledged that a vote could result in a unilateral declaration if negotiations led nowhere. The legality would then be up to the world to decide.

BTW, why can you not bring yourself to mention the Clarity Act? Is it because you have no clue?

[Agathon]

Actually, the SCoC acknowledged that a vote could result in a unilateral declaration if negotiations led nowhere. The legality would then be up to the world to decide.

The world? Give me a break. That's just vague talk.

How about this? It's the law.

Laws can sometimes make people worse off.

Try again.

[notyoueither]

Still no comment on federal legislation governing processes leading to a Canadian province seperating?

I am not surprised, considering you know **** all about the subject.

[notyoueither]

Such 'vague talk' has been the basis of most nations coming into being under disputed circumstances.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
Laws can sometimes make people worse off.

Try again.

Why? If it's sauce for the goose, it's sauce for the gander...

Originally posted by Agathon
I don't have to. You are the one wanting to make the change, you have to show how this is likely or likely enough to warrant doing something about it.

[notyoueither]

BTW, if you're wondering, that's the smell of your own petard you are being hoisted on, Aggy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Quebec is the only province this applies to, because the founding of Canada was based on the unity of two peoples (we can't bring ourselves to say "nations", as that would clearly imply the right of self-determination).

Actually that wouldn't matter. Self-determination does NOT mean your right to a seperate state. It hasn't meant that since the colonial era. The modern definition of self-determination means that you must have a say in your government, and that's all.

Oh, and calling them nations wouldn't mean anything because the definition of 'nation' is simply a group of people that share common characteristics in religion, culture, etc. So the German nation extends beyond the German state's borders, etc.

[notyoueither]

The SCoC explicitly tossed the 'peoples right to self determinism' argument.

http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/pub/1998/vol2/html/1998scr2_0217.html

The Court was also required to consider whether a right to unilateral secession exists under international law. Some supporting an affirmative answer did so on the basis of the recognized right to self-determination that belongs to all "peoples". Although much of the Quebec population certainly shares many of the characteristics of a people, it is not necessary to decide the "people" issue because, whatever may be the correct determination of this issue in the context of Quebec, a right to secession only arises under the principle of self-determination of people at international law where "a people" is governed as part of a colonial empire; where "a people" is subject to alien subjugation, domination or exploitation; and possibly where "a people" is denied any meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination within the state of which it forms a part. In other circumstances, peoples are expected to achieve self-determination within the framework of their existing state. A state whose government represents the whole of the people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of self-determination in its internal arrangements, is entitled to maintain its territorial integrity under international law and to have that territorial integrity recognized by other states. Quebec does not meet the threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people, nor can it be suggested that Quebecers have been denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development. In the circumstances, the "National Assembly, the legislature or the government of Quebec" do not enjoy a right at international law to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally.

Although there is no right, under the Constitution or at international law, to unilateral secession, the possibility of an unconstitutional declaration of secession leading to a de facto secession is not ruled out. The ultimate success of such a secession would be dependent on recognition by the international community, which is likely to consider the legality and legitimacy of secession having regard to, amongst other facts, the conduct of Quebec and Canada, in determining whether to grant or withhold recognition. Even if granted, such recognition would not, however, provide any retroactive justification for the act of secession, either under the Constitution of Canada or at international law.

Considering that Canada's PMs since 1980 have all been from Quebec (except for some few weeks where a lady from Vancouver served) the claim to national self-determinisim is balderdash on it's face.

They didn't say it never applies. They just said that it doesn't apply to Quebec. Despite that, they found that any province has the right to start the ball rolling on seccession simply as a reflection of the will of the inhabitants of the province. It is then up to the rest of Canada to address the grievances. Failing that, the province goes on it's own by fiat if they can gain support internationally.

That's how I read it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's a bit different than that. The Canadian Supreme Court has said that the secession doesn't just affect Quebec, so the rest of Canada ALSO has to decide by majority of Quebec can leave.

The international recognition option is ALWAYS open, however. If Quebec decides to leave even without a majority refendum and international support is forthcoming, that could be enough if Canada doesn't decide to assert some authoritah! Chances of that, though, are slim and none under current circumstances.

[Ben Kenobi]

The latter part of it clinches this.

Not at all. I understood where you were headed, but for the benefit of everyone I wanted to clarify the point I made earlier.

[Ben Kenobi]

Considering that Canada's PMs since 1980 have all been from Quebec (except for some few weeks where a lady from Vancouver served) the claim to national self-determinisim is balderdash on it's face.

Joe Who?