CANZUK International - "merger" of UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I wasn't trying to characterize the whole relationship as just take-take. What I was trying to say, rather poorly I suppose, is that I'm under the impression Quebec is mainly concerned with pursuing a higher level of independence as of late, and that it's only matter of time before we arrive back at a referendum situation. I feel like many quebecers just don't really care about Canada, and that Quebec would be independent already if it weren't for all the potential risks and drawbacks that come with seceding.

That's just my cynical impression, though. Not trying to present that as fact.

It is in the nature of the relationship for Quebec governments (even not overtly separatist) to pursue more autonomy and for the feds to want to centralize more power in their own hands.

The Couillard Liberals (cozying up to Ottawa and Canadianization) and the Mulroney Tories (Meech) were just exceptions that confirmed the rule.

Both got —-slapped for that too.

[biguc]

@Commentariat: Not illegally detain everyone who dares to be a refugee in a boat. I don't have to have all the answers to know when the answer given isn't right.

Originally Posted by Acajack

These are not immigration related but Canada has black marks as well. 10... 10! prison guards in St John's were charged in the murder of an Indigenous inmate. How can 10 people employed by the government (allegedly) conspire to kill someone???

What about MMIWG or Joyce Echequan?

I don't see how the actions of individuals acting within a system cog set up by a country should be held up as examples of that country being morally flawed overall.

An Aussie could hold up these examples or others to argue that they shouldn't enter CANZUK with those evil Canooks.

If it were the government of Canada's policy to imprison people for merely being indigenous women in boats, or something similarly arbitrary, there would be a comparison. Nauru isn't a problem of a few guards being terrible, it's a problem of Australia's government illegally detaining people, being super secretive about it, going back to the same stupid well again after drinking themselves stupid from it before, and their opposition party doesn't even have a problem with it.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by biguc

@Commentariat: Not illegally detain everyone who dares to be a refugee in a boat. I don't have to have all the answers to know when the answer given isn't right.



If it were the government of Canada's policy to imprison people for merely being indigenous women in boats, or something similarly arbitrary, there would be a comparison. Nauru isn't a problem of a few guards being terrible, it's a problem of Australia's government illegally detaining people, being super secretive about it, going back to the same stupid well again after drinking themselves stupid from it before, and their opposition party doesn't even have a problem with it.

In 2021, Canada still has race-based legislation in effect and in force. The federal departments that run it are headquartered in my city. Most of the people who work in those departments and run the race-based law aren't even part of the group of people who are governed by it.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Not sure if you missed all of my posts about this over the years but I regularly push back on the gleeful "Quebec separatism is dead and buried" posts that appear on here from time to time.

I witnessed the mid 80s so-called death of separatism in Quebec only to see it surge unexpectedly in the early 90s and almost carry the day in 1995.

I always say independence is as much about seizing a window of opportunity in history as it is about national destiny.

For fun you should Google François Legault and référendum gagnant and check out the videos from the past week or two.

Lovely. And Legault was so outspoken about never having another referendum. Maybe I'm being too cynical but it makes me wonder if Bill 21 isn't as much a provocation as anything.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

In 2021, Canada still has race-based legislation in effect and in force. The federal departments that run it are headquartered in my city. Most of the people who work in those departments and run the race-based law aren't even part of the group of people who are governed by it.

Well, if we can get the UN to call it illegal and get the Australians to pay attention to anything except Whistler, we might just scare them off yet.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by biguc

Well, if we can get the UN to call it illegal and get the Australians to pay attention to anything except Whistler, we might just scare them off yet.

Not sure about "illegality" but the UN has already denounced Canada's treatment of Indigenous peoples on more than one occasion.

Also, the still-in-force Indian Act served as an inspiration for the South African apartheid system, so that's another feather in our cap I guess.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by biguc

Lovely. And Legault was so outspoken about never having another referendum. Maybe I'm being too cynical but it makes me wonder if Bill 21 isn't as much a provocation as anything.

It's clearly not. As we've discussed in other threads, there are several other factors that are pushing Quebec in that direction.

Bill 21 wouldn't be the smartest gambit, as the odds IMO are that it will stand to the notwithstanding clause, and even an Supreme Court judgement if ever it got there for some reason.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by biguc

Lovely. And Legault was so outspoken about never having another referendum. Maybe I'm being too cynical but it makes me wonder if Bill 21 isn't as much a provocation as anything.

It's less that he brushed off the referendum idea completely but that he didn't think it was worth having the debate. So, instead of wasting time on a debate that was going nowhere, he ignored it.

Whereas the PQ always had it as part of The Manifesto. Given the PQ's lack of success in recent times, one might conclude that it's not The Goal anymore of most Quebecois. Those who remember the bad old days - Lucien Bouchard, Jacques Parizeau and Gilles Duceppe aren't driving that party because they're fading out of politics and voting intentions.

Does it mean Legault wouldn't ever put it forward? No, if something were to happen that fired up that debate again, he might just. It's just not his cause célèbre.

[biguc]

^I always thought the secret to his success was playing Quebec nationalism without alienating voters who aren't into separatism.

Originally Posted by Acajack

It's clearly not. As we've discussed in other threads, there are several other factors that are pushing Quebec in that direction.

Bill 21 wouldn't be the smartest gambit, as the odds IMO are that it will stand to the notwithstanding clause, and even an Supreme Court judgement if ever it got there for some reason.

Isn't the best gambit no gambit at all? At the very least he gets Bill 21. Why not poke Ottawa too? Even if Bill 21 couldn't survive the Supreme Court, Legault's put himself in position to capitalize.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by biguc

Isn't the best gambit no gambit at all? At the very least he gets Bill 21. Why not poke Ottawa too? Even if Bill 21 couldn't survive the Supreme Court, Legault's put himself in position to capitalize.

In fact, I'd bet Legault knew (and was glad) that Ottawa would have to react given the Federal Liberals were in charge. Nothing like a us versus them battle to make people choose sides.

Had it been the Conservatives, I doubt they would have done anything more than shrug their shoulders. The Conservatives might have even been a little happy about Bill 21.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by biguc

^I always thought the secret to his success was playing Quebec nationalism without alienating voters who aren't into separatism.
.

Yes, that's his political sweet spot. For almost 50 years Quebecers only had a binary choice between a federalist party and a separatist party, a situation which unfortunately co-opted all of the other issues.

Whereas according to the famous line from comedian Yvon Deschamps, the answer to "what does Quebec want?" actually was "un Québec indépendant au sein d'un Canada fort et uni" (an independent Quebec inside a strong and united Canada).

The genius of the CAQ and Legault is precisely positioning themselves almost perfectly astride of those ideas.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by biguc

^I always thought the secret to his success was playing Quebec nationalism without alienating voters who aren't into separatism.

Of course. That's not a secret.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Acajack

It is in the nature of the relationship for Quebec governments (even not overtly separatist) to pursue more autonomy and for the feds to want to centralize more power in their own hands.

The Couillard Liberals (cozying up to Ottawa and Canadianization) and the Mulroney Tories (Meech) were just exceptions that confirmed the rule.

Both got —-slapped for that too.

Precisely, but does it not feel to you like their pursuit of more autonomy is simply part of their ultimate goal of full independence? That's where the waters get muddy for me. Not sure what their end game really is. As some have said on here, Legault and CAQ have done a good job of appealing to the pro-separatist crowd without going full-on referendum mode. But is it all just to fly under the separatism radar until they can build up the political momentum to pursue that goal?

[thurmas]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Precisely, but does it not feel to you like their pursuit of more autonomy is simply part of their ultimate goal of full independence? That's where the waters get muddy for me. Not sure what their end game really is. As some have said on here, Legault and CAQ have done a good job of appealing to the pro-separatist crowd without going full-on referendum mode. But is it all just to fly under the separatism radar until they can build up the political momentum to pursue that goal?

I don't think so, Quebec by and large now is in I think a happy spot now where for the most part they are left alone to do their own thing, they have the benefits of being in confederation with very little risk at the same time viewed as a semi french nation when dealing with France. The CAQ is basically the modern equivalent of the old Union Nationale the Quebec version of a provincial PC party that is more autonomous than the Liberals while not full separatist like the PQ. I think they found a sweet spot politically that is where most Quebec voters view themselves these days outside of Montreal.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Precisely, but does it not feel to you like their pursuit of more autonomy is simply part of their ultimate goal of full independence? That's where the waters get muddy for me. Not sure what their end game really is. As some have said on here, Legault and CAQ have done a good job of appealing to the pro-separatist crowd without going full-on referendum mode. But is it all just to fly under the separatism radar until they can build up the political momentum to pursue that goal?

I don't think there's a goal per se, aside from 'Let me do what I want'.

A lot of people get caught up in the concept of an overarching plot. Most of that time, there's no grand scheme. It happens to be a lot of little schemes that push in a direction until they don't.

There's no shadowy cabal with a grand design. No George Soros-led conspiracy. Just a bunch of people and a bunch of money with varying interests.

[Acajack]

"Tous les Québécois sont séparatistes au moins une heure par jour." - Daniel Johnson Sr.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by biguc

With that said, I'd actually agree that Quebec is a diversion. The real issue--and fatal flaw in CANZUK--is loss of immigration sovereignty.

I already posted this article about Nauru, but here it is again.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/a...u-australias-dumping-ground-for-refugees

here's another:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-ne...hildren-in-australian-offshore-detention

If you want to make an Australian with a heart and a brain squirm, all you have to do is mention Nauru. But most Australians are as delightfully oblivious to everything--it's the source of their bluff charm--as most of the world are to Australia. If anyone paid attention, they'd be an international pariah.

Australia's illegal, human-rights-violating approach to refugee (non) settlement is obviously incompatible with Canada's, and ought to irritate every instinct we have about what it means for Canada to be a good and just country.

Being completely cynical, CANZUK could read as a play to sideload less humane immigration policies. I prefer to think its strident supporters aren't attempting an end run around our better instinct by appealing to freedom, and just haven't thought it through.

I don't understand why you think this is the smoking — that "proves" CANZUK won't work. Firstly, if it was really a deal-breaker for a "good and just country" like Canada, wouldn't New Zealand have sought to kill the Trans-Tasman Travel Agreement with Australia? Wouldn't many of the highly-regarded European social democracies have a problem with the EU outsourcing the inhumane treatment of millions of refugees to Turkey? Doesn't seem to be stopping them from being members in free-movement blocs. Why? Because the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, and its almost impossible to manage large refugee crises in a fully just and humane way without fully opening one's borders.

[wave46]

For all the debate, I think CANZUK is dead in the water because it lacks inertia, not any obstacle that can be overcome.

The UK, Canada, Aus/NZ (I'm treating them as one) just aren't in each other's business much in most facets of day-to-day life.

Unless there's a drive from the base level for this to happen, it won't. A lot of the drive for the EU, NAFTA and TPP was driven by business interests. I don't see the business case, hence my lack of belief.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by thurmas

I don't think so, Quebec by and large now is in I think a happy spot now where for the most part they are left alone to do their own thing, they have the benefits of being in confederation with very little risk at the same time viewed as a semi french nation when dealing with France. The CAQ is basically the modern equivalent of the old Union Nationale the Quebec version of a provincial PC party that is more autonomous than the Liberals while not full separatist like the PQ. I think they found a sweet spot politically that is where most Quebec voters view themselves these days outside of Montreal.

Honestly, I hope that's truly the case. I'm all for a more independent Quebec in Canada, considering they have special needs and interests compared to the ROC. The possibility of a fully independent Quebec is a scary prospect that always seems to loom large. I don't even want to think about how we would deal with the maritime provinces being physically cut off from the ROC, or how control and sovereignty over the St Laurent would be allocated.

Originally Posted by wave46

I don't think there's a goal per se, aside from 'Let me do what I want'.

A lot of people get caught up in the concept of an overarching plot. Most of that time, there's no grand scheme. It happens to be a lot of little schemes that push in a direction until they don't.

There's no shadowy cabal with a grand design. No George Soros-led conspiracy. Just a bunch of people and a bunch of money with varying interests.

Certainly not trying to imply that the CAQ is actively conspiring to secede, but given their official party mandate, one has to consider it as a real possibility. Perhaps we're getting to a point where the true goal really is just greater independence within Canada, and if so, great.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by wave46

For all the debate, I think CANZUK is dead in the water because it lacks inertia, not any obstacle that can be overcome.

The UK, Canada, Aus/NZ (I'm treating them as one) just aren't in each other's business much in most facets of day-to-day life.

Unless there's a drive from the base level for this to happen, it won't. A lot of the drive for the EU, NAFTA and TPP was driven by business interests. I don't see the business case, hence my lack of belief.

The UK is the only major Canadian trading partner out of those three countries... they are 5th. Australia is 20th, NZ is 42nd.

It's not like there is some kind of exceptionally close relationship with those countries on a cultural level that would be considered relevant to most people. I mean, there is a cultural heritage shared with the UK, but it's more on a historical level than something that's current. We don't even share that much with Australia and New Zealand.

CANZUK is a solution in search of a problem IMO.