1995 quebec referendum - yes victory!

Again, I apologize if this has been done before, but what do you guys think would have happened of the yes side won in the referendum on independence for Quebec in 1995? Would there have been a quebec-canada war? Would there have been a federalist-seperatist war within quebec? would canada have negotiated? would other provinces have left? would the result of the negotiatons mean all provinces get more autonomy?
 
It would have been a total mess and a disaster. But beyond that, I'd hate to guess.

Oh, this is the SECOND referendum, the one with a clear question. Ya, still... Hmm...

OK. there's a couple possibilities. 1) the referendum is a razor thin win for the Oui side. This gets really messy, as a lot of people in Quebec really want enhanced status for Quebec (what in other jurisdictions might be called an Autonomous Republic, what Quebec calls Sovereignity Association) rather than full independence. The Federal government would probably refuse to accept the result, and Federal/Provincial relations would drop to all time new lows. Quebec would proclaim a UDI which France would recognize - but likely few other countries. Feds pull offices out of Hull, causing a massive local depression...

2) the margin is, say 55% Oui (probably ASB, but possible).


I cannot see the government resorting to force for several reasons. 1) the Canadian Armed Forces aren't large enough to hold down an entire rebellious province (well, PEI, maybe)
2) the Forces have a disproportionate number of Quebecois - many of whom would refuse to fight their natal province.
3) It's just not the Canadian way - any PM whose first thought was violence would likely be thrown out of office by his own party - let alone by the electorate in the next election.


What I can see is a whole lot of dithering and negociation. I think the Federal position in negociations would be 'OK, we accepted the will of the people, you can go - as long as YOU accept the will of the people. You lose all of Northern Quebec (Cree), Eastern Townships (Anglo), (parts of) Montreal (anglo & allophone), the Outaouais (anglo, close ties to Ontario)' And/or 'you came into Confederation with a thinnish strip along the St. Lawrence, you can leave with the same land'.

Oh, and Quebec would be startled to discover that some of the protectionist measures she can get away with INSIDE of Canada would be illegal under, e.g. GATT! Nor would she automatically be dealt into NAFTA, which she just assumed she would.


I would imagine that there would be a rather dramatic repealling of bilingualism, almost immediately. Quebec citizens would lose their Canadian citizenship (yes, they thought they could have both!).

What happens to RoC (Rest of Canada, not Republic of Canada) is a very good question. Certainly the lack of connexion between the Atlantic provinces and Ontario and the West would lead to problems. So, too, would the rather overwhelming dominance of Ontario.

I can certainly see several 'Canada's forming over the course of the next 50 years - nothing immediate.
 
What happens to RoC (Rest of Canada, not Republic of Canada) is a very good question. Certainly the lack of connexion between the Atlantic provinces and Ontario and the West would lead to problems.

I've heard the argument that RoC would join the USA. I suspect, however, that that USA would overplay its hand and insist that RoC join all as one state. The Republicans who controlled Congress at the time wouldn't like the idea of a flood of new Senators who would probably align as Democrats, and since RoC genuinely has very few people, it would be a hard argument to refute. The RoC, insulted, would withdraw their request and either muddle along with Canada or else would form their own Confederation.
 
I've heard the argument that RoC would join the USA. I suspect, however, that that USA would overplay its hand and insist that RoC join all as one state. The Republicans who controlled Congress at the time wouldn't like the idea of a flood of new Senators who would probably align as Democrats, and since RoC genuinely has very few people, it would be a hard argument to refute. The RoC, insulted, would withdraw their request and either muddle along with Canada or else would form their own Confederation.

Canada would never join as a single state. Canadian provinces are the most independent "pieces" of any federation on the planet. They'd each demand statehood, with some exceptions made for regionalism.
 

boredatwork

Banned
I've heard the argument that RoC would join the USA. I suspect, however, that that USA would overplay its hand and insist that RoC join all as one state. The Republicans who controlled Congress at the time wouldn't like the idea of a flood of new Senators who would probably align as Democrats, and since RoC genuinely has very few people, it would be a hard argument to refute. The RoC, insulted, would withdraw their request and either muddle along with Canada or else would form their own Confederation.

Never happen for the ROC(assume this refers to the Maritime provinces?) or Canada as a whole.

Maritimes only - The Maritimes are poor and sparsely populated. They would be a net drain on the Treasury and have minimal strategic value. Accession (as comonwealths, not states) would likely be offered instead of statehood - if only to prevent them ending up as part of the EU.

Canada as a whole - That would lump the western provinces (pretty repub friendly) with Ontario - thus depriving the repubs of potential Senate seats.

I could see the US either expecting the provinces to join into an intermediate number of territories (AFAICR there is a mandatory territorial period before qualifying for statehood - could be wrong), or simply offering accession only to select provinces.

BC, Yukon, Alberta, maybe one or more of Sasketwan or Manitoba. Ontario wouldn't be offered, and wouldn't join if it was.

Nova Scotia/New Brunswick is a possibility - but the commonwealth option is still more likely. I doubt PEI, New Foundland (is that even a separate province?) or Labrador would ever be offered full statehood - too small, and no real benefit to the US - they'ld be better off economically with PR style commonwealth status in any case.

Quebec would not be offered membership - language fears, combined with a desire to avoid repeating ottawa's mistake.

Some arrangement with the northern territory (Or whatever it would end up being called) would be made, if only for the early warning sites.

I like to joke as much as the next member (if not more) about absorbing Canada - but the fact is that large parts of it would bring little if any benefit to the US. Providing Canada doesn't turn hostile or descend into anarchy, the present situation works to the average American's benefit.
 
I seem to recall that when this entire issue first surfaced, the Maritime provinces were openly discussing applying for statehood. To be sure, those four would-be states would be among the least populated and smallest--but then, consider the existence of Vermont and New Hampshire, so there's ample precedent. Perhaps it's true that the Canadian electorate is significantly to the left of that in the US, with many of the resulting new representatives and senators aligning with the Democrats. However, I can't buy that there wouldn't also be a number who would align with the Republicans: granted, they'd be along the same lines as Chafee of Rhode Island (or the late Nelson Rockefeller), but they might just lead to a revival of the less conservative wing of the GOP.
 
I've heard the argument that RoC would join the USA. I suspect, however, that that USA would overplay its hand and insist that RoC join all as one state. The Republicans who controlled Congress at the time wouldn't like the idea of a flood of new Senators who would probably align as Democrats, and since RoC genuinely has very few people, it would be a hard argument to refute. The RoC, insulted, would withdraw their request and either muddle along with Canada or else would form their own Confederation.

RoC even considering joining the US is ASB, let alone actually being accepted. Much as we like to joke about our differences, Canadian identity is almost always defined as 'Not American'. Only if Canada was on the brink of a full scale civil war/economic depression would the idea of joining the US even be considered a semi-viable option. I don't see this doomsday scenario happening.

What will happen is pretty much what Dathi THorfinnsson wrote -- expects LOTS of arguing over just what the hell the referendum results actually mean plus LOTS of arguments over just what Quebec gets to keep (and more important--give up).
 
The immediate result, no matter how slim of a mragin for yes is an economic collapse for Canada.

It's impossible to say what will even happen. Canada would not act military, but it could justifiably seize federal assets within Quebec, or demand a federation from the "no" regions as someone stated earlier.

Regardless though, the Liberal party is destroyed (an election WILL be called), expect a revitalised PC party and a powerful NDP... but I think Reform will win win a massive majority, so we have Preston Manning as PM. Bilingualism will be dead in the water, and a lot of anti-French feeling will be there for decades to come.

No matter the result, it would be ugly, this would be anything but a velvet divorce.

Also, Canada would not join the United States, it's a pipe dream.
 
Canada would never join as a single state. Canadian provinces are the most independent "pieces" of any federation on the planet. They'd each demand statehood, with some exceptions made for regionalism.
I never said Canada would join as a single state; I said The RoC (AKA, Atlantic Canada) would be offered that, and would refuse it.
 
Again, "Canada" does not equal "RoC". "RoC" stands for "Rest of Canada", it's a joking term to refer to how the Atlantic provinces are isolated from the rest of Anglophone Canada.
And all this time I thought you were talking about Taiwan joining the US! :mad:

I don't think it's likely any of Canada would join the US- actually, I wonder if a yes vote would even mean an independent Quebec... my guess is there would be some sort of compromise, though what I'm not exactly sure...
 
Hmm, if Quebec joined Canada, then expect Northern Quebec, Oka, and a few other places (including the Beauce and Chaudière region) seceding from Quebec in an attempt to retain in Canada. The Beauce and Chaudière regions in particular would not want to be part of what they see as a "Communist" country (not joking - a good deal of people from the Beauce and the Chaudière regions, especially the older generations, believe that the PQ is the Communist Party).
 
If Quebec becomes independent then the border dispute with Newfoundland suddenly becomes important. Meanwhile relations with the First Nations in Quebec will go bad. I don't expect that Canada will go down in flames, but things up in Nord-du-Quebec might take October Crisis/Troubles/Years of Lead/German Autumn proportions.
 
RoC is a term used in Canada to mean "Canada without Quebec"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rest_of_Canada

Fair enough. I admit that I was relying on my personal experience, as the term was explained to me by some New Brunswickers and Quebecois I know, who all said that RoC referred only to the East, and not to Ontario, BC, or the Canadian Prairie. I guess that explains why everyone thought I was talking about "Canada" joining the US as a single state, which obviously would be ridiculous.
 

Neroon

Banned
I wouldn't could on the RoC not joining the US - in the long run. Initianlly the "we ar not Americans" thing would prevent them. But in the long run: Would they be economically viable without any land connection to the Eastern parts. The closest connection would be all the way via the Panama Canal. And i think emotions and stubborness would only last so long once the econony goes down.
 
I wouldn't could on the RoC not joining the US - in the long run. Initianlly the "we ar not Americans" thing would prevent them. But in the long run: Would they be economically viable without any land connection to the Eastern parts. The closest connection would be all the way via the Panama Canal. And i think emotions and stubborness would only last so long once the econony goes down.

WHAT????? For one thing, Ontario is on the great lakes which connects to the St.Lawrence. If you believe that Quebec would close the St.Lawrence to Canadian shipping, I don't know what land you live in.
Secondly, we are living in the era of air travel so it's not like people would have no way of getting there.
Finally, Canada would probably cut a deal with Quebec wherein Canadians can travel easier through the province.
On another note, as others have already specified, Quebec is not homogenous in wanting independence, so there could be portions (like the northern half) that stay with Canada.
Another interesting side is would 51% yes even count for independence. Couldn't Canada argue that theres gotta be like two thirds majority for it to truly succede.
 
It never fails to amaze me how many people seem to think that somehow without a land connection between all of its parts that Canada would simply fall apart and be absorbed by the US.

First, that kind of logic ignores a number of situations where countries already have non-contiguous parts, including the USA itself (Alaska and Hawaii anyone?:rolleyes:). Also, for some strange reason, West Berlin wasn't clamouring to join the GDR, Kalinigrad is still a part of Russia (and Russia's economy in the 1990s was far worse than anything Canada might go through in 1995 from Quebecois independence since Russia started from a lower base to begin with), Nakhchivan is still a part of Azerbaijan despite being seperated from Azerbaijan proper by Armenia (a country with which Azerbaijan has a dispute), Corsica is still a part of France, Cabinda is not trying to join either of the Congos instead of Angola, Oecussi-Ambeno is part of East Timor instead of joining Indonesia and Alaska isn't joining Canada because it has no land link with Washington state (which isn't true since there is a road, it just has no direct political territorial link but that is not necessary and has never been even before the age of cars and planes).

Second, considering that the Turks and Caicos Islands have variously considered joining Canada despite being thousands of miles away in the Caribbean, I don't see how on one hand those islands wouldn't have a problem, whereas New Brunswick would despite retaining road, rail and air links with Canada.

Finally talk of Canada or parts thereof joining the USA just for the sake of it because Quebec finally left or because the USA was in competition with the EU or something starts to push this thread to the ASB section.
 
Hmm, if Quebec joined Canada, then expect Northern Quebec, Oka, and a few other places (including the Beauce and Chaudière region) seceding from Quebec in an attempt to retain in Canada. The Beauce and Chaudière regions in particular would not want to be part of what they see as a "Communist" country (not joking - a good deal of people from the Beauce and the Chaudière regions, especially the older generations, believe that the PQ is the Communist Party).

Well all of the regions that want to stay in Canada and would thus try to separate from Quebec, that could set off a civil war, even if the Actual Quebec separation would not. (It would be just as much of a Quebec Civil War as a Canadian one)

That and there is no way that the government in Ottawa is just going to give Quebec all of that military equipment either. Everything that wasn't bolted down was to be shipped to locations outside of Quebec, and if it was bolted down, well that is what bolt-cutters are for. (AFAIK there were actual plans to do this if the 'Yes/Oui' side won...) And if it couldn't go, the armed forces would probably have blown it up. The Government of Canada would become the very definition of "sore losers". Besides, things like tanks and fighter-bombers are very expensive, and why would they want to have to buy new ones? If a 'Republic of Quebec' wants an army and an air force, they can bloody well buy their own equipment.
 
Last edited:
It would have been a total mess and a disaster. But beyond that, I'd hate to guess.
.
.
.
.
.

Oh, and Quebec would be startled to discover that some of the protectionist measures she can get away with INSIDE of Canada would be illegal under, e.g. GATT! Nor would she automatically be dealt into NAFTA, which she just assumed she would.


I would imagine that there would be a rather dramatic repealling of bilingualism, almost immediately. Quebec citizens would lose their Canadian citizenship (yes, they thought they could have both!).

Oh that's funny. The yes supporter thought they could have their cake and eat it too? LOL. That reminds of those Puerto Ricans who advocate "enhanced Commonwealth" status whereby Puerto Rico would in effect be independent but Puerto Ricans would still be US citizens. In both cases (Puerto Rico and Quebec) the expectations are outrageously unrealistic.

And Quebec discovering that the wider world wasn't as amenable to its protectionist measures is par for the course. Every previously separatist region soon comes to realize independence isn't exactly what they thought it would be (that's when reality bites). It's still funny though when they do realize that their dreams were just that....dreams.
 
Top