Quebec, the French Language, and Quebecois Identity

[New Brisavoine]

They wouldn't be strong-armed either. This is precisely why France developed nuclear bombs (decided by the politicians of the 4th Republic, 2 years before de Gaulle returned to power), because France was strong-armed by the USSR in the Suez Crisis ("you withdraw from Suez or else...") and the US failed to support us (and failed to support the Brits too). The French and the Brits then reacted in two opposite ways: the Brits concluded that they had to align unconditionally with the US and stop all pretense of being an independent great power anymore (hence the "poodle" moniker). The French concluded that they had to develop an independent nuclear weapon in order never again to have to cave in under Soviet threats, and not to depend on the fickle Americans anymore.

The first French bomb eventually exploded in 1960, two years after de Gaulle returned to power, so people tend to imagine that it was a Gaullist policy, but in fact it was decided in 1956 by the 4th Republic politicians (most of whom were left-wingers in fact, notably Guy Mollet the leader of the French Socialist Party). France also gave the secret plans of its nuclear bomb to Israel (with whom we had launched the Suez expedition), which allowed Israel to create its own nuclear bomb, long before the US became "Israel's best pal", but that's not something that the Israeli (or the Americans) will ever acknowledge today. Without the French, it's not certain Israel would have an atomic bomb today.

[New Brisavoine]

PSPP tells the French: "You should not submit to Anglophone imperialism!"

• Video Link

[le calmar]

PSPP is in a delicate position. Not so long ago he could say "anglophones bad" and get away with it.

With Trump in the picture however, the picture isn't as well defined anymore. You have the aggressive anglophones south of the border who may attempt in a hypothetical scenario, that is still far-fetched but that can no longer be ruled out either, to swallow Québec whole and force it to surrender its language and culture and kill off the sovereigntist dream.

Then you have the anglo neighbours in the ROC who are willing to allow Quebec to function as a quasi-country within the confederation and let it do (almost) everything it wants it terms of language, culture, immigration, etc. In the current circumstances, some soft separatists may begin to think that associating with the not-so-bad anglos in the ROC could potentially save them from what is starting to look like an existential threat.

That said, things could also swing the other way if the PQ can somehow sell them on a project to strengthen ties with Europe, who knows.

[New Brisavoine]

It depends on two things I think:
1- your "almost", which would have to be defined... (does "almost" include secularism, Islamic veil, immigration laws, language laws that Québec can decide as a sovereign state, or does it not and Québec has to be submitted to the Anglophone majority of Canada here?)

2- will Trump be history in 2028 (by the earliest time the 3rd referendum could take place), or will he be about to win his 3rd term in office having totally subverted American democracy and constitution?

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by le calmar

PSPP is in a delicate position. Not so long ago he could say "anglophones bad" and get away with it.

With Trump in the picture however, the picture isn't as well defined anymore. You have the aggressive anglophones south of the border who may attempt in a hypothetical scenario, that is still far-fetched but that can no longer be ruled out either, to swallow Québec whole and force it to surrender its language and culture and kill off the sovereigntist dream.

Then you have the anglo neighbours in the ROC who are willing to allow Quebec to function as a quasi-country within the confederation and let it do (almost) everything it wants it terms of language, culture, immigration, etc. In the current circumstances, some soft separatists may begin to think that associating with the not-so-bad anglos in the ROC could potentially save them from what is starting to look like an existential threat.

That said, things could also swing the other way if the PQ can somehow sell them on a project to strengthen ties with Europe, who knows.

I think the question will be with what power Canada wants to have closer links, the USA or the EU. Closer ties with the USA might mean annexation (not as a state but as a territory, Republicans will never allows a new California to join in), ties with Europe would mean more distance with the USA and joining a group where English isn't the hegemonic language it is in North America.

I am pretty sure Québec will prefer Europe, not sure for the ROC. English-Canadians sure identify as Not American but are also culturally quasi-American (well, liberal Americans, not conservatives). If joining the EU fully (instead than just strengthen bonds) is a possibility, Québec might prefer that while the ROC might prefer the USA. Québec might also prefer to join the EU alone than to be absorb by the USA, or even prefer to join alone than as a part of Canada. Québécois don't really want to become independent anymore, but if the Canadian status quo is to disappear, then independence and an eventual union with Europe would be a real possibility.

We might be parting ways soon, and it will be thanks to Donald Trump.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

I think the question will be with what power Canada wants to have closer links, the USA or the EU. Closer ties with the USA might mean annexation (not as a state but as a territory, Republicans will never allows a new California to join in), ties with Europe would mean more distance with the USA and joining a group where English isn't the hegemonic language it is in North America.

I am pretty sure Québec will prefer Europe, not sure for the ROC. English-Canadians sure identify as Not American but are also culturally quasi-American (well, liberal Americans, not conservatives). If joining the EU fully (instead than just strengthen bonds) is a possibility, Québec might prefer that while the ROC might prefer the USA. Québec might also prefer to join the EU alone than to be absorb by the USA, or even prefer to join alone than as a part of Canada. Québécois don't really want to become independent anymore, but if the Canadian status quo is to disappear, then independence and an eventual union with Europe would be a real possibility.

We might be parting ways soon, and it will be thanks to Donald Trump.

This all seems very far-fetched. Much more likely seems to be a radical realignment to the right from a strong Conservative majority that also needs to react to Trump's policy choices. Trump's tax cuts and deregulation would force even a Liberal government to converge somewhat. Quebec could easily decide it's place is outside of Canada if we see such a massive shift.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

I am pretty sure Québec will prefer Europe, not sure for the ROC.

Well, it doesn't depend solely on the Canadians, it depends also (and above all) on the EU citizens!

And it may shock you to learn that they would probably oppose Canada joining the EU. In fact seeing how no European country except France is ready to help Denmark regarding Greenland, and how the Danes are too afraid to anger the US to accept the French offer of help, I am pretty sure the vast majority of EU countries would block any move to have Canada getting closer to the EU (I'm not even saying "joining" the EU, but just having Canada being more closely aligned with the EU via treaties or otherwise), for fear of angering Uncle Sam.

So you're on your own. In the very worst case scenario, if it really came to that and the US was really going to annex Canada, I think the only "savior" that the Québécois (but not the ROCers) could find would be France, by joining France basically, which the French would be ready to accept I think (even if it angers the US), and the other EU countries could not oppose (just as we could not oppose Germany annexing the German Democratic Republic in 1990 and therefore the GDR entering the EU 14 years before the other Eastern European countries).

[le calmar]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

1- your "almost", which would have to be defined... (does "almost" include secularism, Islamic veil, immigration laws, language laws that Québec can decide as a sovereign state, or does it not and Québec has to be submitted to the Anglophone majority of Canada here?)

It's a significant asterisk, agreed. That's why the Supreme Court test about Bill 21 will likely make or break things and determine how things are going to evolve.

Originally Posted by ToxiK

I am pretty sure Québec will prefer Europe, not sure for the ROC. English-Canadians sure identify as Not American but are also culturally quasi-American (well, liberal Americans, not conservatives). If joining the EU fully (instead than just strengthen bonds) is a possibility, Québec might prefer that while the ROC might prefer the USA. Québec might also prefer to join the EU alone than to be absorb by the USA, or even prefer to join alone than as a part of Canada. Québécois don't really want to become independent anymore, but if the Canadian status quo is to disappear, then independence and an eventual union with Europe would be a real possibility.

The dynamics with the ROC and its attitude vs. a potential partnership with the UE or straight-up admission into the UE will definitely be a deciding factor. The idea of joining the UE has been circulated lately, but it isn't being taken seriously yet. Lots of talk about the idea being unrealistic ("Canada is not in Europe"), but such details no longer matter when the situation is about to become critical for everyone imo. There's going to be a time when the idea will need to be discussed seriously, and probably sooner rather than later.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Well, it doesn't depend solely on the Canadians, it depends also (and above all) on the EU citizens!

And it may shock you to learn that they would probably oppose Canada joining the EU. In fact seeing how no European country except France is ready to help Denmark regarding Greenland, and how the Danes are too afraid to anger the US to accept the French offer of help, I am pretty sure the vast majority of EU countries would block any move to have Canada getting closer to the EU (I'm not even saying "joining" the EU, but just having Canada being more closely aligned with the EU via treaties or otherwise), for fear of angering Uncle Sam.

So you're on your own. In the very worst scenario, if it really came to that and the US was really going to annex Canada, I think the only "savior" that the Québécois (but not the ROCers) could find would be France, by joining France basically, which the French would be ready to accept I think (even if it angers the US), and the other EU countries could not oppose (just as we could not oppose Germany annexing the German Democratic Republic in 1990 and therefore the GDR entering the EU 14 years before the other Eastern European countries).

Why would France want the economic burden of Quebec?

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Why would France want the economic burden of Quebec?

Why Canada wants it so much? When Québec tried to separate, the shields went up in Ottawa to stop it. Must not be that bad, right?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Why Canada wants it so much? When Québec tried to separate, the shields went up in Ottawa to stop it. Must not be that bad, right?

Not surprising that a country wants to protect itself. It has all been pretty subdued in Canada's case, but it's not absent.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

This all seems very far-fetched. Much more likely seems to be a radical realignment to the right from a strong Conservative majority that also needs to react to Trump's policy choices. Trump's tax cuts and deregulation would force even a Liberal government to converge somewhat. Quebec could easily decide it's place is outside of Canada if we see such a massive shift.

That is also what I meant by getting closer to the USA. If Canada harmonizes too much its policies to mimic a more and more conservative United States, the status quo ante is no more and Québec might finds itself in a new "America Junior" instead that in the old Canada.

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Not surprising that a country wants to protect itself. It has all been pretty subdued in Canada's case, but it's not absent.

Then Québec is not so bad, right?

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

Then Québec is not so bad, right?

Don't make me say it.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Hecate

Why would France want the economic burden of Quebec?

First of all I don't think Québec is an economic burden, but above all the French never think in terms of economics. We're not Anglo-Saxons. That's why we didn't colonize North America in earnest in the 18th century and we are now exchanging in English here and not in French.

The French elites (and even the people) are still a bit nationalistic. Not in a bad way as in invading other countries, but if a territory asks to become French, it's hard for me to imagine the president and government then in power would refuse to accept them inside France. The mentality is very much "the more the merrier", "y a de la place pour tout le monde". It's a mixture of fuzzy 'youre all welcome' left-wing stuff, and right-wing nationalism and pride. That's why France agreed to Mayotte remaining French in 1976 (the Brits would never have agreed to such a thing), even though Mayotte has 0 economic value.

When Belgium was on the verge of breaking up around 2010, the Francophones had also received reassurances that they could join France if it came to that (polls showed a large majority of French people agreeing to take Wallonia inside France, even though Wallonia is an economic basket case, and Québec an economic Texas in comparison).

[ToxiK]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Well, it doesn't depend solely on the Canadians, it depends also (and above all) on the EU citizens!

And it may shock you to learn that they would probably oppose Canada joining the EU. In fact seeing how no European country except France is ready to help Denmark regarding Greenland, and how the Danes are too afraid to anger the US to accept the French offer of help, I am pretty sure the vast majority of EU countries would block any move to have Canada getting closer to the EU (I'm not even saying "joining" the EU, but just having Canada being more closely aligned with the EU via treaties or otherwise), for fear of angering Uncle Sam.

So you're on your own. In the very worst case scenario, if it really came to that and the US was really going to annex Canada, I think the only "savior" that the Québécois (but not the ROCers) could find would be France, by joining France basically, which the French would be ready to accept I think (even if it angers the US), and the other EU countries could not oppose (just as we could not oppose Germany annexing the German Democratic Republic in 1990 and therefore the GDR entering the EU 14 years before the other Eastern European countries).

Joining the EU is complicated and a long and complex process... in a normal world. We are not in a normal world anymore. Still, joining the EU might not happen, but there are other possibilities. Joining France, as you said, is one. Free trades agreements are another, so both Canada (or just Québec), and Europe can find new customers for their products and services that they can no longer sell in the U.S.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by ToxiK

and Europe can find new customers for their products and services that they can no longer sell in the U.S.

You don't understand the other EU countries. For them, the alliance with the US is the NUMBER ONE PRIORITY, above anything else. If they had to choose between the US and the EU, they might even choose the US and break the EU. They cannot imagine surviving without the US. The idea of gaining a few million Canadian customers weighs nothing compared to the protection afforded (so they imagine) by the US. It's also cultural at this point. They are so used to being a US ally, so dependent on the US culturally, that they simply cannot imagine severing ties with the US. The attitude of the Danish prime minister this past week has had people in France raising their eyes in disbelief.

She even went as far as saying that Denmark was "always a good ally of the US", so the US shouldn't mistreat Denmark. I mean even your prime minister would not fall to that level of abjection and servility.

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

First of all I don't think Québec is an economic burden, but above all the French never think in terms of economics. We're not Anglo-Saxons. That's why we didn't colonize North America in earnest in the 18th century and we are now exchanging in English here and not in French.

The French elites (and even the people) are still a bit nationalistic. Not in a bad way as in invading other countries, but if a territory asks to become French, it's hard for me to imagine the president and government then in power would refuse to accept them inside France. The mentality is very much "the more the merrier", "y a de la place pour tout le monde". It's a mixture of fuzzy 'youre all welcome' left-wing stuff, and right-wing nationalism and pride. That's why France agreed to Mayotte remaining French in 1976 (the Brits would never have agreed to such a thing), even though Mayotte has 0 economic value.

When Belgium was on the verge of breaking up around 2010, the Francophones had also received reassurances that they could join France if it came to that (polls showed a large majority of French people agreeing to take Wallonia inside France, even though Wallonia is an economic basket case, and Québec an economic Texas in comparison).

lol. You guys gonna send them 14 billion a year to maintain their standard of living? Didn’t the money you guys were sending over to the Americans basically bankrupt the country and cause the French Revolution? lol. Round two?

[mousquet]

Of course, as a Frenchman, I'm all in favor of keeping the French language well alive in Canada, but I'm skeptical about the strategy.
Not sure that an independent Québec would be stronger. It could well be the opposite, may weaken their economy and jeopardize their prosperity on the long run.
Then they would turn an even easier prey...

What strikes me in the speech of the separatists is their feeling of being despised, scorned. That's a bit sad, as if they lacked self-confidence, but Québec is not alone.
France will always back them anyway. Brisavoine is an evidence in his own way.

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

One tries to imagine having to put up with the barren landscape and the cold, and then surrendering when the enemy appears .....

You mean the French military? No, they will never surrender again. WW2 is the vaccine against cowardice, if that's what you're thinking of.
The chasseurs alpins are well trained in rough cold environment and would have fun in Greenland.
There would be tough competition with the Foreign Legion in toughness.

As for myself, I would simply indeed.

More seriously, our army has been deployed for a number of operations over the past decades and it is proven effective.
All the more that the military budget was cut over and over, over a long period of time.
We thought we were at peace once and for all, but that was naive of us. So the military had to deal with touchy situations while their operational staff and equipment shrank over the years.
They grew even better under that kind of constraints. I hear the US military like to work with them cause they're tough and reliable.

That said, the time when we could afford to cut the military expense is done. It is increasing again, now that the world is going unstable.
We still have a competitive military industry and all the required engineering, so it might not hurt our economy too badly.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

She even went as far as saying that Denmark was "always a good ally of the US", so the US shouldn't mistreat Denmark. I mean even your prime minister would not fall to that level of abjection and servility.

This is what I was alluding to. I cannot imagine Trudeau (or any other Canadian prime minister) falling to that level of abjection (but who knows?).