Could Clinton have triggered a break up of Canada?

If there were repeated calls for parts of Canada to leave Canada and join the U.S. then it might be appropriate for the U.S. Leadership to make some form of comments ? Saying nothing might also cause issues.
That’s the exact opposite of what I said

@Stenz said it would be considered diplomatically inapporiate for a US president to comment or attempt to interfere with the affairs of a foreign nations. Thus, Bill Clinton nor any other president would say anything about Quebec’s referendum

I said “Trump is on the phone” referring to the fact that Trump has violated several norms and publicly refers to the events of other nations. Like Brexit and foreign ambassadors or trade deals or military actions.

And Obama did the same thing, if quietly

I meant that it’s not inenvietale that a president would do so about Quebec
 
That’s the exact opposite of what I said

@Stenz said it would be considered diplomatically inapporiate for a US president to comment or attempt to interfere with the affairs of a foreign nations. Thus, Bill Clinton nor any other president would say anything about Quebec’s referendum

I said “Trump is on the phone” referring to the fact that Trump has violated several norms and publicly refers to the events of other nations. Like Brexit and foreign ambassadors or trade deals or military actions.

And Obama did the same thing, if quietly

I meant that it’s not inenvietale that a president would do so about Quebec
Ok..

My point is that if there are (serious) calls from Canadians for parts of Canada to join the U.S. then the issue is somewhat of a U.S. issue and IMHO a certain amount of comment by the U.S. authorities may be warranted.
 
Last edited:

DougM

Donor
If Quebec negotiates a departure then odds are it would end up formalizing the manor of departure for any future departures from Canada. I n effect creating the “rules” for departure.

As for going statehood to three new states that are combined between them smaller then many major metropolitan areas... I don’t think would ever get approved. The US is not giving 6 seats (or about 6%) to a couple million people. Yes the US has some low population states but they have been around for a while.
 
If Quebec negotiates a departure then odds are it would end up formalizing the manor of departure for any future departures from Canada. I n effect creating the “rules” for departure.

As for going statehood to three new states that are combined between them smaller then many major metropolitan areas... I don’t think would ever get approved. The US is not giving 6 seats (or about 6%) to a couple million people. Yes the US has some low population states but they have been around for a while.

I suspect that any US politician who advocated statehood for a bunch of mostly white Canadians, while still denying it to DC and Puerto Rico, would piss off a lot of black and latino voters. In a close election, even Republicans couldn't afford to do that.
 
...It occurs to me that both the U.S. and Canada might prefer having a break away Canadian province join the U.S. rather than have another nominally independent country in North America to deal with. In theory the same logic might come into play if a northern U.S. State wanted to leave the U.S.

If by the US and Canada you mean the executive branches of each country's federal governments, you might well be correct. In practice, though, you're going to end up with vocal and serious opposition whether its a Canadian province applying for statehood or a US state that wants to become a province.

On the Canadian side of things, adding an additional province would certainly require amending the constitution. Theoretically, the Supreme Court has set out mechanisms for making such an amendment, but in practice actually passing an amendment using those methods is nearly impossible. It's simply too difficult to actually get the provinces to consent. One of the first and most intractable issues that the process would run into is the senate. Canada's senate is divided to ensure regional representation. The Maritimes, Ontario, Quebec and Western Canada each get 24 senators, the territories each get 1, and Newfoundland gets 6. This arrangement has caused plenty of opposition and complaints, particularly from Alberta, because it gives Atlantic Canada a disproportionate share of senators for its population. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick each get 10 senators, the four western provinces get only 6 each.

Now, any new province is going to require new senate seats to be added, because the provinces will outright refuse to give any of their own up (as the Maritimes did when Newfoundland joined). That wouldn't be a problem on its own, but Western Canada will probably take the opportunity to demand a greater share of representation at the same time. If they do, this will be opposed by the Maritimes, and the usual gridlock that occurs whenever there's a proposal to amend Canada's constitution will set in. There are other reasons why one or more provinces might oppose adding a new province, but the senate issue is one of the most obvious.

As others have pointed out, the American senate is also a potential complication if things are going the other way. New senators for the new Canadian states will dilute the voting power that each state currently possesses. Equally relevant, any Canadian province that becomes a state, even conservative by Canadian standards Alberta, will not be putting Republicans into those senate seats for a long time. Unless the acquisition of Canadian states breaks up the two-party American political system, Republican-leaning states may object to an expansion of America that will give the Democrats more votes and more representation. There will also be issues in the US with allowing a (primarily white) Canadian province to instantly or rapidly achieve statehood while continuing to deny statehood to Puerto Rico. Valid or not, the accusations of racism would be almost inevitable.

If the political issues become too difficult to handle, dealing with another sovereign North American country might seem simple in comparison.
 
I suspect that any US politician who advocated statehood for a bunch of mostly white Canadians, while still denying it to DC and Puerto Rico, would piss off a lot of black and latino voters. In a close election, even Republicans couldn't afford to do that.

DC and Puerto Rico have been long accustomed to neglect even from Democratic Administrations. The real hurdle would be getting bipartisan approval of Nova Scotian or whoever’s statehood if it’s seen as more likely to vote for one US party over the other.

The same reason DC and PR statehood never get anywhere. More likely the Maritimes or Alberta would be left twisting in the wind, or else crawl back to Ottawa.
 

DougM

Donor
You do understand that the whole concept of DC was that it was Not SUPPOSED to be a state. That way no state had the federal capital.
 
You do understand that the whole concept of DC was that it was Not SUPPOSED to be a state. That way no state had the federal capital.

Things are different now, since we're no longer so obsessed with sectionalism, the district has a larger population than two actual states, and yet the alternative arrangements to ensure the population has representation in government are an utter joke. It's all about partisanship now, not framer's intent. I don't think even those opposed to DC statehood raise this point much. But I digress.
 
If by the US and Canada you mean the executive branches of each country's federal governments, you might well be correct. In practice, though, you're going to end up with vocal and serious opposition whether its a Canadian province applying for statehood or a US state that wants to become a province.

On the Canadian side of things, adding an additional province would certainly require amending the constitution. Theoretically, the Supreme Court has set out mechanisms for making such an amendment, but in practice actually passing an amendment using those methods is nearly impossible. It's simply too difficult to actually get the provinces to consent. One of the first and most intractable issues that the process would run into is the senate. Canada's senate is divided to ensure regional representation. The Maritimes, Ontario, Quebec and Western Canada each get 24 senators, the territories each get 1, and Newfoundland gets 6. This arrangement has caused plenty of opposition and complaints, particularly from Alberta, because it gives Atlantic Canada a disproportionate share of senators for its population. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick each get 10 senators, the four western provinces get only 6 each.

Now, any new province is going to require new senate seats to be added, because the provinces will outright refuse to give any of their own up (as the Maritimes did when Newfoundland joined). That wouldn't be a problem on its own, but Western Canada will probably take the opportunity to demand a greater share of representation at the same time. If they do, this will be opposed by the Maritimes, and the usual gridlock that occurs whenever there's a proposal to amend Canada's constitution will set in. There are other reasons why one or more provinces might oppose adding a new province, but the senate issue is one of the most obvious.

As others have pointed out, the American senate is also a potential complication if things are going the other way. New senators for the new Canadian states will dilute the voting power that each state currently possesses. Equally relevant, any Canadian province that becomes a state, even conservative by Canadian standards Alberta, will not be putting Republicans into those senate seats for a long time. Unless the acquisition of Canadian states breaks up the two-party American political system, Republican-leaning states may object to an expansion of America that will give the Democrats more votes and more representation. There will also be issues in the US with allowing a (primarily white) Canadian province to instantly or rapidly achieve statehood while continuing to deny statehood to Puerto Rico. Valid or not, the accusations of racism would be almost inevitable.

If the political issues become too difficult to handle, dealing with another sovereign North American country might seem simple in comparison.
Good points assuming the goal is immediate (or soon with a defined time frame) State hood or provincial status for the new acquisition.

In practice I am thinking that would be unlikely to happen in reality. Still being a citizen living in a territory might be preferable to being a citizen living in a tiny country in a continent dominated by much larger countries (especially if the tiny country was land locked.)

To be transperant I am not entirely clear how Canada could add another territory but I suspect it would be easier than adding another province.
 
...To be transperant I am not entirely clear how Canada could add another territory but I suspect it would be easier than adding another province.

You're probably not alone, since adding an additional territory or province would be unprecedented if an American state wanted to join. Every province and territory currently part of Canada was a British colony before it was part of Canada, which vastly simplified the political process.

Creating a new territory in Canada is actually very simple, and in theory requires no provincial support or changes to the constitution. An act of parliament is all that's required. However, the resulting territory would not have the sovereign powers granted to provinces in the Canadian constitution. Whatever self-government it had would consist only of powers delegated to it by the federal government. I can't imagine the arrangement would recommend itself to most states, especially since they'd know that their chances of ever becoming a full province would depend on getting a constitutional amendment. Even becoming a territory might not be as easy as it sounds. There's substantial political support in the Turks and Caicos Islands for joining Canada, but the Canadian government hasn't made any serious movement to pursue the idea. Nova Scotia even offered to let the islands become part of Nova Scotia, which would have bypassed the need for any constitutional amendments or changes to let them in. However much the isolated, landlocked country might want to join, it's not clear that Canada would be eager to let them in.

Politicians in Barbados, Bermuda and the Bahamas have at various times also looked at opening talks toward joining Canada (though as provinces rather than territories to the best of my knowledge), but all of those islands are either British overseas territories or at least Commonwealth members that already share the monarchy. Similar proposals to join Canada in Maine, Vermont, Iceland and Scotland have all been extremely fringe political positions. For an American state, there would naturally be larger political hurdles than if the applicant was a Commonwealth member.

I can't profess as much knowledge about the American process or how much support there would be toward admitting a former Canadian province into the US as a territory, but I suspect it would be a far smoother process. The US has a long history of admitting and/or annexing territories that have far more political and cultural differences, so I can't imagine it would be a problem. The bigger difficulty in that case would be convincing former Canadians to become Americans, and support for that position might take generational changes to accomplish.
 

dcharleos

Donor
Perhaps then Clinton just doesn't oppose it, not commenting on the matter and saying its up to the Quebec to make a decision, not for him to comment?

Shouldn't be that hard to swing a 1% majority if that's all that's needed.

"Mr. President, what would you say to the people of Quebec in light of the upcoming referendum on independence?"

Great question. You know, it's not the place of me as the American President to tell the people of Quebec how they should vote. But I will say this: the people of Quebec, like all peoples of the world, have an inalienable right to self-determination. And every citizen of Quebec should rest assured, because the United States will always be a friend to the people of Quebec. And should they make the momentous decision to enter into the community of nations, the United States of America will welcome them with open arms."

Something like that might do it. :)
 
Nope. Texas was never a territory. Neither were Vermont, Kentucky, or California. All were admitted to statehood with no territorial stage. (Also true of Maine and West Virginia, but those states were parts of existing states.)



This part is correct.

Kentucky was a part of an existing state like Maine. It was a part of Virginia.
 
DC and Puerto Rico have been long accustomed to neglect even from Democratic Administrations.

Yeah, but it's one thing to be accustomed to neglect when the status quo is in force and 50 states is the accepted number. It might be another story if the government were continuing the neglect of the existing jurisdictions, while actively courting outsiders for statehood.

And, of course, as far as Puerto Rico goes, it would be latinos elsewhere in the USA refusing to vote for a candidate who wants Nova Scotia in while keeping the existing colony out.
 
One thing I feel needs to be pointed out regarding either Canadian provinces or Quebec joining the USA

For the Canadian provinces, a system like the Canadian healthcare system could be retained - we have interstate compacts for a reason, and frankly, this is probably how the US should have persued healthcare reform in OTL, given what a clusterf*** doing it nationwide turned out to be. Hell, you may see blue states on the West Coast and in the Northeast jump in as well.

For Quebec, as pointed out elsewhere, American federalism benefits Quebec in some odd ways - for one, the US has never had a national language, and all of our Francophone populations have mostly been left in peace. Hell, only reason English began being used at the government level in Louisiana was Reconstruction. They would lose some of the measures Canada made to placate them, but also gain much more power over their internal affairs. Though, frankly, given the French language has begun declining even in Quebec, this may be a moot point.

Frankly, I'd lean more towards the Anglo provinces joining the US rather than Quebec. Make Alaska contingous baby!

There should be little issue over them joining - people pointing to Puerto Rico has proof they'd be held in limbo need to remember that limbo is in part by choice of the Puerto Rican voter - both parties in the USA have been pushing for Puerto Rican statehood since the 80s, the voters in PR always chose to maintain the Commonwealth status. That only changed when the choice was eliminated in the more recent referendums when statehood was chosen over independence, and even then, Puerto Rico has dragged their feet.

Frankly, we're more likely to see the Annexation movements in the former Pacific Trust territories succeed and then merge with Guam/NMI to form a Micronesian state before Puerto Rico finally gets it's act together long enough to become a state. More to the point though, aside from Prince Edward Island, due to it's small size and smaller population, there would likely be little issue over admitting any Canadian province as a state on the US side of things. At worst, MAYBE we'd ask the Maritimes to merge into a single state, or at least for PEI to join one of the other two.
 
Last edited:
Quebec whole point of leaving is to get away from the "Anglo's" and be french.

They wouldn't leave to them a "imperialist" Anglo nation just to join a much bigger one with even less regard for their culture.
 
Trump is on the phone.....
Obama weighed in against Scottish independence. That would count too, right?

One thing I feel needs to be pointed out regarding either Canadian provinces or Quebec joining the USA

For the Canadian provinces, a system like the Canadian healthcare system could be retained - we have interstate compacts for a reason, and frankly, this is probably how the US should have persued healthcare reform in OTL, given what a clusterf*** doing it nationwide turned out to be. Hell, you may see blue states on the West Coast and in the Northeast jump in as well.

For Quebec, as pointed out elsewhere, American federalism benefits Quebec in some odd ways - for one, the US has never had a national language, and all of our Francophone populations have mostly been left in peace. Hell, only reason English began being used at the government level in Louisiana was Reconstruction. They would lose some of the measures Canada made to placate them, but also gain much more power over their internal affairs. Though, frankly, given the French language has begun declining even in Quebec, this may be a moot point.

Frankly, I'd lean more towards the Anglo provinces joining the US rather than Quebec. Make Alaska contingous baby!

There should be little issue over them joining - people pointing to Puerto Rico has proof they'd be held in limbo need to remember that limbo is in part by choice of the Puerto Rican voter - both parties in the USA have been pushing for Puerto Rican statehood since the 80s, the voters in PR always chose to maintain the Commonwealth status. That only changed when the choice was eliminated in the more recent referendums when statehood was chosen over independence, and even then, Puerto Rico has dragged their feet.

Frankly, we're more likely to see the Annexation movements in the former Pacific Trust territories succeed and then merge with Guam/NMI to form a Micronesian state before Puerto Rico finally gets it's act together long enough to become a state. More to the point though, aside from Prince Edward Island, due to it's small size and smaller population, there would likely be little issue over admitting any Canadian province as a state on the US side of things. At worst, MAYBE we'd ask the Maritimes to merge into a single state, or at least for PEI to join one of the other two.

Newfoundland & Labrador is also rather sparsely populated among the provinces for U.S. statehood. Also a TTPI plus Guam state would never happen.
 
Last edited:
Top