France Shifts Quebec Policy

[saxitoxin]

In a meeting with the new Premier Marois, President Hollande has reversed President Sarkozy's policy of opposing independence for Quebec. France will now be officially indifferent.

What is the correct French position on this Quebestion?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012 ... ml?cmp=rss

[saxitoxin]

mods - please move this to the U.S. Politics sub-thread out of an abundance of caution

[nietzsche]

I'm stupid.

Would Quebec do better by itself, without Canada?

[Timminz]

Would Quebec do better by itself, without Canada?

Maybe. Maybe not.

What's for certain, if saxi's article can be trusted (that CBC is a shifty organization), is that they would piss off about 72% of the population if they seceded.

[jimboston]

Option 3... in this day and age it is none of France's business whether or not Quebec is part of Canada or not.

Perhaps in the 19th Century they had a valid reason to have an opinion... at this point they have none.

[jimboston]

I'm stupid.

Would Quebec do better by itself, without Canada?

That's not the question posed by the OP.

Please create another thread to discuss this question... please exclude everyone from participating except Canadian Nationals.

[Timminz]

Hey Jimmy, are feeling alright? You don't seem your usual happy-go-lucky self, today.

[/]

I vote yes; entirely because losing Quebec would make Canada smaller than the United States

[jimboston]

Hey Jimmy, are feeling alright? You don't seem your usual happy-go-lucky self, today.

LOL

[jimboston]

I vote yes; entirely because losing Quebec would make Canada smaller than the United States

The question is NOT whether or not Quebec should separate (or even if the rest of Canada should dump Quebec). This is NOT the question asked by the OP.

The question is whether or not the sovereign nation of France should have an official position on the status of the relationship within Canada (or between Canada and Quebec if you prefer).

[saxitoxin]

When Hollande, while at a fancy party he's thrown for Marois in which he treats her like a jar of prize Marmelade and blows kisses at her, says "we're neutral" does he mean ...

(a) "we're neutral"

or

(b) "we're neutral - *wink wink* - LOL"

[/]

I vote yes; entirely because losing Quebec would make Canada smaller than the United States

The question is NOT whether or not Quebec should separate (or even if the rest of Canada should dump Quebec). This is NOT the question asked by the OP.

The question is whether or not the sovereign nation of France should have an official position on the status of the relationship within Canada (or between Canada and Quebec if you prefer).

Sorry, I think any nation has a right to give an opinion, it doesn't mean anyone needs to listen.
Also I think that France should support Quebec freedom for the aforementioned reason.

[jimboston]

I vote yes; entirely because losing Quebec would make Canada smaller than the United States

The question is NOT whether or not Quebec should separate (or even if the rest of Canada should dump Quebec). This is NOT the question asked by the OP.

The question is whether or not the sovereign nation of France should have an official position on the status of the relationship within Canada (or between Canada and Quebec if you prefer).

Sorry, I think any nation has a right to give an opinion, it doesn't mean anyone needs to listen.
Also I think that France should support Quebec freedom for the aforementioned reason.

I disagree.

I think people have opinions. I think the status of the relationship here is no one's business except the Canadian people.

[/]

I vote yes; entirely because losing Quebec would make Canada smaller than the United States

The question is NOT whether or not Quebec should separate (or even if the rest of Canada should dump Quebec). This is NOT the question asked by the OP.

The question is whether or not the sovereign nation of France should have an official position on the status of the relationship within Canada (or between Canada and Quebec if you prefer).

Sorry, I think any nation has a right to give an opinion, it doesn't mean anyone needs to listen.
Also I think that France should support Quebec freedom for the aforementioned reason.

I disagree.

I think people have opinions. I think the status of the relationship here is no one's business except the Canadian people.

Why is that? It, at the very least symbolically pertains to European politics, Nearly a third of the population of Quebec considers themselves ethnically French, it was a French colonized territory until conquered by the British, and to this day it remains a symbolic monarchy under Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada.

[maxfaraday]

There's no such thing as "France's policy on Quebec".
They can do what they want, as far as we're concerned they're just cousins, the hybrid of French and seals with a funny accent.

[keiths31]

It really doesn't matter what France decides to do in siding with or against Quebec sovereignty. It will never happen. There isn't enough support in Quebec to gain the winning conditions to separate from Canada. There is a better chance of Northwestern Ontario splitting from Ontario and joining Manitoba (and that is slim to none). Quebec gets huge amounts in transfer payments (they get more back from the federal government than they send to Ottawa), they have language protection set out at the federal level (Canada has two official languages which results in all government services available in both languages and all retail products being labeled in both English and French are a couple of examples). Not to mention that a large part of the population are first or second generation Canadians that consider themselves Canadian first and not Quebeckers first. Not to mention the first nations peoples of the north who at times have stated they would separate from Quebec. If that happens, so goes a lot of the natural resources that Quebec depends on for their exports.
Separating is a pipe dream of some extremists. There are moderates who "support" separation largely because they know it will never happen.

[jimboston]

Why is that? It, at the very least symbolically pertains to European politics, Nearly a third of the population of Quebec considers themselves ethnically French, it was a French colonized territory until conquered by the British, and to this day it remains a symbolic monarchy under Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada.

The population of Quebec certainly should have an opinion.

In my view France shouldn't... nor should England / UK.

It was a colony of France in the 18th Century... at some point we have to stop looking backward, and start looking forward.

If you believe France has a valid in "interest" in Quebec, maybe they should have an interest in the affairs of New Orleans? Maybe Spain should have an interest in the affairs of Florida and California? Where would it stop?

The Celtic people in Ireland and Scotland originally populated Northern France... maybe the Irish should have a claim there? Maybe we should return all land to the "original" inhabitants? Oh wait... but where do we define who the "original" inhabitants are? If you keep going back you will keep finding one population forcing out another. This Quebec thing is the same idea... only it's more "recent" being "only" 300 years old. Do we draw a line in the sand at some arbitrary point in history, or do we stop looking backwards and instead look forward?

[jimboston]

It really doesn't matter what France decides to do in siding with or against Quebec sovereignty. It will never happen. There isn't enough support in Quebec to gain the winning conditions to separate from Canada. There is a better chance of Northwestern Ontario splitting from Ontario and joining Manitoba (and that is slim to none). Quebec gets huge amounts in transfer payments (they get more back from the federal government than they send to Ottawa), they have language protection set out at the federal level (Canada has two official languages which results in all government services available in both languages and all retail products being labeled in both English and French are a couple of examples). Not to mention that a large part of the population are first or second generation Canadians that consider themselves Canadian first and not Quebeckers first. Not to mention the first nations peoples of the north who at times have stated they would separate from Quebec. If that happens, so goes a lot of the natural resources that Quebec depends on for their exports.
Separating is a pipe dream of some extremists. There are moderates who "support" separation largely because they know it will never happen.

It's like the "party" that Sarah Palin's husband belonged to... the group that wanted Alaska to secede from the US.

It's not gonna happen... no one in the lower 48 ever heard of this "party" till Sarah got put on the ticket.

Hawaiian Independence is more likely... but that's not gonna happen either. Puerto Rico... that's a long shot possibility.

(OK... now the thread can be moved to US Political Sub-forum.)

[/]

Why is that? It, at the very least symbolically pertains to European politics, Nearly a third of the population of Quebec considers themselves ethnically French, it was a French colonized territory until conquered by the British, and to this day it remains a symbolic monarchy under Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada.

The population of Quebec certainly should have an opinion.

In my view France shouldn't... nor should England / UK.

It was a colony of France in the 18th Century... at some point we have to stop looking backward, and start looking forward.

If you believe France has a valid in "interest" in Quebec, maybe they should have an interest in the affairs of New Orleans? Maybe Spain should have an interest in the affairs of Florida and California? Where would it stop?

The Celtic people in Ireland and Scotland originally populated Northern France... maybe the Irish should have a claim there? Maybe we should return all land to the "original" inhabitants? Oh wait... but where do we define who the "original" inhabitants are? If you keep going back you will keep finding one population forcing out another. This Quebec thing is the same idea... only it's more "recent" being "only" 300 years old. Do we draw a line in the sand at some arbitrary point in history, or do we stop looking backwards and instead look forward?

I suppose I can agree with that, I would still hold that if a country’s opinion is requested by the territories involved, it may be rightfully given.
I don't agree that historical context should be completely excluded in every case though. Many territorial claims are heavily rooted in history, such as the Pinnacle Islands and Falkland Islands sovereignty disputes

[notyou2]

I vote yes; entirely because losing Quebec would make Canada smaller than the United States

I vote yes too, because it would make the drive from the Maritimes to Toronto a lot quicker.