Yes 50,5 vs No 49,5 - Quebec, 31st. October 1995

Do people really think the US would invade in this case? I'm genuinely intrigued as to whether this is based on anything real or just personal hypotheticals?

If Quebec takes the "Yes" vote as step forward, negotiates with Canada and leaves with an agreement, then there is no need for the US to do anything.

If Quebec declares independence unilaterally, then being unilateral, then Canada doesn't recognise it. Therefore surely if the US invades, it's invading a NATO member, which could theoretically invoke Article 5 and ask for help from the rest of NATO. Whether or not they do anything (highly unlikely, considering they'd effectively be opposing the US), it's an existential crisis which could easily see the destruction of NATO.

Why would the banks need to take control of the hydroelectric dams? Banks don't give a crap about national security, they care about making money. Quebec has a surplus of electricity it needs to export to provide an export revenue stream, the rest of Canada and the US will need to continue importing electricity, it's an easy commercial transaction that has little impact on sovereignty given keeping the lights on is a necessity. I don't see the reason to occupy the dams? Likewise let's be honest, Quebec isn't going to put a barrier across the St Lawrence. What's the need to occupy it?
Thinking about the hydro dam issue a bit more..

Maybe the hydro dams (and other assetts) serve as collateral to guarantee that Quebec will pay their share of the national debt going forwards ?

I suspect Canada would want an iron clad guarantee that foreign debt holders wouldn't go after Canada if an indpendent Quebec defaults on debt payments. The debt holders may also want some certainty as well before they agree to let Canada off the hook
(for portions of loans that were originally made to the Canadian govt.)

Perhaps valuable assets in Quebec end up getting formally pledged as collateral to foreign debt holders ?

I suspect this type of arrangement would not have been popular in Quebec but it might have been popular in the rest of Canada ?
 
Canada might outright collapse; Saskatchewan and the Maritime provinces, at the least, were either looking into joining the United States or even openly talking about it in a few cases.
there would be a huge protest over any plan for former Canadian states to join the US... from the US Republicans. This was at the height of the Clinton Presidency vs. the GOP nastiness... and now the US is suddenly thinking of adding on more states that would elect what would undoubtedly be Democrat congressmen? The GOP would argue about it until the bitter end, although they might lack the votes to really stop it all...
 
there would be a huge protest over any plan for former Canadian states to join the US... from the US Republicans. This was at the height of the Clinton Presidency vs. the GOP nastiness... and now the US is suddenly thinking of adding on more states that would elect what would undoubtedly be Democrat congressmen? The GOP would argue about it until the bitter end, although they might lack the votes to really stop it all...
Perhaps although I suspect rural parts of Alberta and British Columbia might vote for suitable Republican congressional candidates. (Amongst other issues I suspect gun control issues would come into play in those areas.)

I agree that the urban areas would likely be democratic strong holds and the seanate seats would likely go to the democrats.
 
Small quibble - I think the Western provinces would actually gain more autonomy answering to Washington than to Ottawa - American federalism delegates a lot of powers to the states for a reason, and for all America's faults, we are very good about keeping states on equal footing at the federal level.

And as far as healthcare, easy fix: an interstate compact between whatever Western provinces join the USA to maintain regional universal healthcare. Hell, you may see some states like Washington and Oregon sign on. Frankly, how America should have done it rather than forcing it along at the federal level with the ACA.

A Canadian province way far more powers than an American state. And the amount of influence each province has on a Canada without Quebec is greatly enhanced, I really can't see any of them leaving when the primary antagonist to their apparent struggle is now gone.
 
A Canadian province way far more powers than an American state. And the amount of influence each province has on a Canada without Quebec is greatly enhanced, I really can't see any of them leaving when the primary antagonist to their apparent struggle is now gone.

The primary antagonist has always been Ontario - an antagonist whose main countermeasure just swapped the maple leaf for the fleur de lis.

Again, Ontario goes from representing around a third of Canada to over half.
 

Devvy

Donor
Thinking about the hydro dam issue a bit more..

Maybe the hydro dams (and other assetts) serve as collateral to guarantee that Quebec will pay their share of the national debt going forwards ?

I suspect Canada would want an iron clad guarantee that foreign debt holders wouldn't go after Canada if an indpendent Quebec defaults on debt payments. The debt holders may also want some certainty as well before they agree to let Canada off the hook
(for portions of loans that were originally made to the Canadian govt.)

Perhaps valuable assets in Quebec end up getting formally pledged as collateral to foreign debt holders ?

I suspect this type of arrangement would not have been popular in Quebec but it might have been popular in the rest of Canada ?

I still can't see that if loans were made to Canada - can someone confirm? If so, if Quebec leaves unilaterally, the Canadian position will still be "those assets still belong to us, this is an internal matter for Canada to sort", and from a banks point of view, generally speaking the loan was made to Canada anyway. That one of the provinces has left is immaterial; Canada still exists and is liable unless someone else agrees to stump up to cash (ie. Quebec). Where it might get awkward is if (and I'm speculating here as I have no idea about the financial agreements in place) is if Canada is guaranteeing the price of electricity to be paid such that investors can recoup their money.

Only if nobody is repaying the investors, then they might move in to legally repossess the assets, but any such action would surely be a private affair within the Quebecois legal system; it's of no real interest to the US Govt.

If loans were made to Quebec provincial Government, then there is no issue; they will remain liable for the loan, denominated in CAD$.

Taking on part of Canada's debt is likely to be one part of any such secession agreement, amongst hundreds of other clauses defining the rights and responsibilities of the rump Canada and Quebec and their residents.
 
The primary antagonist has always been Ontario - an antagonist whose main countermeasure just swapped the maple leaf for the fleur de lis.

Again, Ontario goes from representing around a third of Canada to over half.
The west (and likely the Maritimes) will almost certainly demand Ontario be broken up, or they will leave.
 
Top