• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Vineon

  • Rank
    Full Member
  1. Yeah. Our last elections were a perfect example of this. Remember how francophone Jack Layton ousted anglo Gilles Duceppe out of parliament.
  2. I was under the impression secessionist leaders never believed Canada would use it's military force (against one that doesn't exist save the off chance of a quebec militaries defection???). If Chrétien took some planes and other military assets out of Québec, it wasn't out of fear of them using them to counterstrike, it was out of fear of them being using as leverage for asset transfer during negociations, as in "we think we should get 25% of all federal assets, we'll keep the planes until we come up with a deal".
  3. Hah. As much as I'm sure an 'Army Guy' such as yourself is excited about "spilling blood" and using "direct force" to open up a land route, it is a problem easily solved with a simple free trade agreement. Go lock away your gun, military.
  4. It will carry a similar value. What do you see Québec as? A terrorist hot spot dictatorship led by a tyrant? There would be no reason for countries to look down on a Québec passport whatsoever. Just like countries of similar or inferior size manage, Québec would. Yes, as these taxes already do. I also believe Québec does not proportionally need as much defense nor spending overseas which would save us money rather than cost us more money. There is no chance in hell we'd be putting 30+ and some billions for fighter jets, for instance. Businesses will not flee as long as it makes sense for them to be in Québec. In the end, money talks. I do not believe they will do it out of spite because Québec has just become a country. What makes Québec advantageous for them today will make it just as advantageous tomorrow. Québec's budget is 70 millions WITHOUT money sent to Ottawa. In short, that's pretty much half the budget an independent Québec would have. Something else, you do not seem to much understand how equalization works as Québec does not receive a net 7.4 millions from it. It just so happens that Québec also pays for the equalization program, as do all provinces. At least 3.5 millions of these 7.5 millions come from Québec, which makes it an actual redistribution of 4 mils. Equalization is only a small part of all transfer payments directly transfered from Ottawa to the provinces. Here lays the real numbers you should be looking at. When Ottawa transfers 5 bils to the Ontario auto industry, it isn't something you'll see laid down in the equalization columns. It would help if what is shown and labeled "facts" were actually facts. It is commonly known that Slovakia has done much better since the split and is one of the fastest growing european country largely because of it. Independence has helped them grow, it has not sunk them. They are not reduced to survive on national pride.
  5. I didn't reply to your ridiculous long post following mine understanding the futility of it but I will to this much shorter one. I do not see how a Québec passport would be hindrance to anyone that wishes to travel. It is completely senseless to claim a Canadian one would carry much added value. Whatever duties taken over by Québec aren't extra expense as we already pay for them through our federal taxes. Whatever decrease income you talk about needs to be explained and put in numbers. You said 10% in your earlier post and Québec does nothing close from receiving 10% of its revenue from federal transfers.
  6. Actually, no. I would like to live in a place still called Québec (albeit a republic), that would still be in North America but would have little to do with Lebanon. But Lebanon2 strikes you as a more plausible scenario, right?
  7. As a separatist myself, this is a "gamble" I dream Canada would take.
  8. Is Montréal all there is in Québec? Is "Greater Montréal" actually not interested?
  9. Haven't yet heard of a single Québec souvereignist clamouring to maintain transfert payments after secession. edit : I apologize for bumping a 6 years old thread for this little. Believe it or not, I was linked to it on FaceBook just now and did not realize it was this old.
  10. Say I have a problem with Québec's daycare program being symbolised in an analogy by a man's luxury spendings on drugs and escorts, it is simply that I do not understand sarcasm? You don't understand what is wrong about this, do you? How frankly pitiful. It would never cross your mind that the man could have spent this extra money on something that carries a bit less negative connotation than "escorts and drugs"? That this negative connotation comparison stands a purpose in this text? Of course not... because you're not even interested in trying. You might also want to wait until you actually know people before quickly labeling them.
  11. If you had Martineau's analogy in mind and all you saw was irony and sarcasm and not an attempt to condition imbeciles against any form of extra social spendings, because we receive equalization, using wonderful images such as 'escorts' and 'drugs' to compare them with, I realize you simply do not understand his actual intentions. The "cigarettes and chips" one I didn't appreciate either but it wasn't as sensational. Oh the guy can be ironic without launching a few blows at the programs offered by making such crass comparisons. I could rewrite the whole analogy and only change a few disparaging terms meant to symbolize our social programs and keep all the irony... all the sarcasm. Do you understand this?
  12. He's a crass demagogue and moreso in this particular article than in his usual crap. His analogy is especially painful: Québec's extra social spendings are compared to a man on the party abusing drugs and escorts. Apparently, that is "a bit what is happening". Surpassing himself here in a frankly disgusting way. It'd be nice if he also stopped comparing receiving equalization payments to receiving a welfare check. Should we also say of working citizens that get tax returns through wealth equalization that they are on welfare? Dutch disease now? You are completely all over the place. What is the thread even about? Are you suggesting we should have multiple currencies? What does it have to do with Martineau's article?
  13. I'm wondering if you actually believe that. How insanely dillusional. What costs exactly. At best I understand there is a price to pay regarding maintaining Canada's "standing in the world", if at least in organization like the G8, with a membership perhaps a bit more difficult to maintain being a smaller country... but government costs? Long term economical costs? Cultural costs? And there wouldn't be a "huge hole in the middle", there would still be Québec.
  14. Without segregating or 'kicking anyone out', it should be possible to question some of our immigration policies without immediately being labeled a 'racist'.
  15. I wish you were trolling but you are probably simply clueless. That a culture is intrinsically tied to it's language doesn't mean that the language is the sole difference but that the language is the root of the differences. A different language means a whole different set of cultural references. The best example of this would be Québec's own star system which spawns music, tv shows, comedians and movies that are it's own. In large, there is no comparison to make between the interest the Québécois have their home grown cultural products versus the interest Canada has for it's own. Québécois care, Canadians do not. Québécois watch their shows and they watch their movies while Canadians have no interest in their own. It does not mean that Canadians cannot appreciate their local talents, it simply means they will not appreciate them simply because they are Canadians. The reason for that is fairly simple : Canadians and Americans are culturally interchangeable and nobody manages to notice a difference. A Canadian cultural product has therefore no added value to Canadians.