OUI: Vive le Québec libre
- Thread starter DStecks
- Start date
He would want to, but a head of state has checks and balances on them, not to mention teams of advisors. From a pragmatic point of view, he stood to gain nothing from prematurely recognizing Québec, and quite a bit to lose. The Canadian government would have been pissed, and the UK would probably side with Canada. And that doesn't even mention flaring up regional nationalist movements.
Wait-and-see is the best course of action, and it's the only one that a democratic government in France's position would take.
I've got to mention how different Americans will react such as Democrats and Republicans. Would Democrats recognise Quebec first rather than Republicans or vise versa?
My gut instinct is that reactions wouldn't be predictable along partisan lines. Quebec sovereignty was an issue at the periphery of American consciousness, not nearly prominent enough to be politicized. Yet.
Popular opinion will probably be in favour of an independent Quebec. "Freedom" is an ingrained national value of America, and Americans have a history of idealizing regional independence movements; most notably the Irish republican movement:
Bono said:
It wouldn't be a war, it would be an occupation. The military was just about the only federal agency to plan for the possibility of a "yes" victory, and withdrew all jet fighters from Quebec in anticipation of the referendum. Quebec voting "yes" would very likely result in the military immediately pulling out all assets from Quebec military bases.
The real threat is FLQ resurgence.
Na-na-na na
Na-na-na na
Hey, hey, hey, GOODBYE!
Vive le Quebec. I am subscribed..
"Oui, hello...I am Lucien Bouchard"
Na-na-na na
Hey, hey, hey, GOODBYE!
Vive le Quebec. I am subscribed..
"Oui, hello...I am Lucien Bouchard"
He may have wanted, but it would have been politically unwise.
While the inner politic consequences would have been relativly soft (independentist/autonomists movement, all thing considered never go further than 5% in whole Brittany, 10% in Corsica), except maybe for New Caledonia and Corsica; it could be a blown to cultural policy of France.
A Quebec-less Canada would be less a support for Francophonie policies, without real diplomatic gains (and actually issues if a support is made too fast, at the risk of having UN, UE and/or US frowning upon), and the boundary disputes could knew a revival (unlikely to full develop, of course, but still a possible outcome) while exchange and trade treaties could suffer from this.
Subscribed
If Quebec chose independence, Newfoundland will come to an issue along with Montréal
That's also a good point. I still wonder why there's such a dispute there. Does anyone live in that part of Labrador?
I'm sorry, but French society is hardly polarized about Québecois sovereignty movements: Chirac, Mitterand, the right, the Socialists, this was an non-issue with multipartisan support in France. Championing the rights of a historically romanticized Francophone population against the Anglo-Canadian is nothing comparable to the in-name-only separatist movements in Brittany and Normandy, and by the 90's Corsica as well.
A good point on New Caledonia, but still, in popular imagination, white Francophones in Québec is drastically different than a 'retreat from empire' in New Caledonia. And even still, IOTL many in France would not really care if New Caledonia were to become separate, it already has a unique and autonomous status within France. In sum, French separatist movements pose no serious threat or thought to the French state; unlike Basque, Catalan and Scottish movements.
Based on the decades of Franco-Québecois relations, history of speeches, popular opinion, etc. it is fairly certain France would be perhaps the first nation to recognize Québecois independence: as would many other Western nations. The referendum was recognized as legitimate when the Federal government agreed to go into it.
French military and manifestation of its support for Québecois independence is a completely separate issue. You can still have your concept of a complicated not-necessarily-independence TL with French support: they will have to recognize the de facto and constitutional situation to come.
But Chirac and advisors reneging on statements made only weeks prior to the referendum, which was highly followed in France, does not seem plausible.
A good point on New Caledonia, but still, in popular imagination, white Francophones in Québec is drastically different than a 'retreat from empire' in New Caledonia. And even still, IOTL many in France would not really care if New Caledonia were to become separate, it already has a unique and autonomous status within France. In sum, French separatist movements pose no serious threat or thought to the French state; unlike Basque, Catalan and Scottish movements.
Based on the decades of Franco-Québecois relations, history of speeches, popular opinion, etc. it is fairly certain France would be perhaps the first nation to recognize Québecois independence: as would many other Western nations. The referendum was recognized as legitimate when the Federal government agreed to go into it.
French military and manifestation of its support for Québecois independence is a completely separate issue. You can still have your concept of a complicated not-necessarily-independence TL with French support: they will have to recognize the de facto and constitutional situation to come.
But Chirac and advisors reneging on statements made only weeks prior to the referendum, which was highly followed in France, does not seem plausible.
You're listing a lot of emotional reasons, but not a whole lot of practical ones to justify France alienating Canada, and potentially the rest of the Commonwealth. If Quebec becomes independent, then France can recognize it as a country when Canada does, there is nothing to be gained by jumping the gun.
My guess is that Chirac made his statements not fully understanding the mess that would unfold, or believing that the separatists had a better plan for independence than they actually did.
EDIT: Also, re: "The referendum was recognized as legitimate when the Federal government agreed to go into it." the validity of the referendum is still very much in dispute, since, like I said in update 1, the margin required for victory and the legality of unilateral seccession were both undecided when the vote was held.
Last edited:
Assuming an ASB scenario, Some of the francophones units might mutiny and prevent the asset from leaving.
what FLQ ? There was nothing coming even close to an organised terrorist movement at the time.
but the KKK never really went away, just underground. the FLQ was maybe 2 dozens folks all things told and after some were arrested or went into exiled, they were disowned by mainstream sovereignist and were never a going concern afterward except as a boogeyman bandied about once in a while in the anglophone press.
It wouldn't be a resurgence, it would be a brand new organisation started from scratch who might take the name for propaganda purpose.
I agree with you 100%, "a brand new organisation started from scratch who might take the name for propaganda purpose" is what I meant by "resurgence". Perhaps I could have been clearer.
fair enough.
On second thought though, if armed individuals organised themselves to resit the invaders, they might give themselves a name that sounded more legitimate like "L'Armée Provisoire de la République du Québec" or something like that.
