Tell the Quebecoins that they can all move to Iraq, Canada will foot the bill.... Warm weather...YEAH !! DD
In Denmark they speak better English than we do. It’s embarrassing. They speak it better because they speak proper English without all the slang that we use as part of our everyday speech. You can find some people who don’t speak English if you really try, but they are generally senior citizens. People in their 50s and 60s tend to know English quite well but they speak it with a fairly thick accent, but anyone younger than that seems to speak embarrassingly flawless, almost accentless (to me anyway), English. They get a kick of out if when you say, “tak for mad” or “tusinde tak” but they have no expectation that you will know Danish, so there isn’t the political and cultural baggage that you will sometimes have to deal with in Quebec. In Denmark they use English all the time but often it’s not to talk to native English speakers. I knew a Dane who worked in Germany in the office of an international sportswear company, but he doesn’t speak German and they don’t speak Danish. The language of the office is this proper form of English which they all speak. It’s become an international language of sorts that is almost separate from the one we speak in North American because it doesn’t have the slang or the cultural references. I found it a bit strange to say the least, but very interesting.
and the accents are interesting, sort of "mid-atlantic" in the danes' example, but in germany you many people who speak english w/ either an american or an english accent, depending on which zone they grew up in. my old man was danish, and arrived in this country at 20, back in the 50s, completely fluent. he went to rice, then baylor med, and developed a pronounced texas accent, which only became apparent to me after i moved away to new york.
I’d call it kind of a Canadian English without the Canadianisms. They must teach that accent in their schools and it wouldn’t completely surprise me if they used Canadians to make their instructional materials. The BBC and other broadcasters in the UK have used Canadians a lot in the past because our accent was seen as neutral and pleasing too most of their listeners, and it doesn’t carry the political baggage that their regional accents often do. I have Danish ancestors too, btw, but mine left a little over a thousand years ago. I also had a girlfriend who was Danish, though, and most of her family still lives in Denmark, all over Denmark, and we took a couple holidays there including an extended one for a couple of months, so I got a good taste of the place, and the beer, and the Akvavit, and the herring ...
Regarding what would happen if Quebec became a country and some provinces wanted to stay with Canada, I believe that a somewhat relevant parallell exists in the seccession of Georgia from Russia. Sout Ossetia, Abkhazia and Adjaria have all tried either remain with Russia or become independent, and Georgia has had minimal problems with the idea of forcing them to stay with Georgia.
best way to learn another language, altho my old man used to say danish is not a language, it's a throat disease! my wife's family is danish as well, emigrated in the 1870s and ended up in north dakota. but they came from fyn, and my dad's family was from eastern jutland, so really only about 20 miles apart as the herring swims. my ancestors were Huguenots, driven out of france in the late 17th century- they migrated to germany, and northern europe. some of the set up a huguenot colony in fredericia. they kept the french names (my dad was jean-rene), intermarried, and generally remained apart from the rest of denmark until after the first world war. the curch in fredericia kept amazing records, and i've been able to trace my direct patrimonial line back to erlangen,in bavaria, in 1650. can't find the link to france tho...
It seems to me, at first look anyway, that the issues there would apply more to the separation of Quebec from Canada and would suggest that Quebec cannot legally separate from Canada. If the principle involved in our case is based on the idea that a people have the right to self-determination, then how can you then claim that the borders of Quebec can’t be violated? You can’t have it both ways. If Canada can be divided then Quebec can be divided by the same principles, it seems to me. To give you an idea of just how convoluted the issue has become here is the actual 1995 referendum question that almost passed. This is what people walked into the voting booths saw on their ballots. "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?" Huh? But wait, it gets foggier. Here is that agreement. ----- The Parti Québécois Government's Sovereignty Plan Text of the Tripartite Agreement of June 12, 1995 NOTE: This document was released during the campaign for the October 30, 1995 referendum. Its purpose here is purely informative. Under the Referendum Act, the Québec government cannot hold more than one referendum on the same subject during the same term of office. Therefore, new elections must be held in Québec before there can be another referendum on sovereignty. The bill entitled "An Act respecting the future of Québec," to which this text refers and which deals with the October 30, 1995 referendum, is therefore null and void. TEXT OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN The Parti Québécois, the Bloc Québécois and the Action démocratique du Québec Ratified by Messrs. Jacques Parizeau, Lucien Bouchard and Mario Dumont In Québec City June 12, 1995 A common project As the representatives of the Parti Québécois, the Bloc Québécois and the Action démocratique du Québec, we have reached agreement on a common project to be submitted in the referendum, a project that responds in a modern, decisive and open way to the long quest of the people of Québec to become masters of their destiny. We have agreed to join forces and to coordinate our efforts so that in the Fall 1995 referendum, Quebecers can vote for a real change: to achieve sovereignty for Québec and a formal proposal for a new economic and political partnership with Canada, aimed among other things at consolidating the existing economic space. The elements of this common project will be integrated in the bill that will be tabled in the Fall and on which Quebecers will vote on referendum day. We believe that this common project respects the wishes of a majority of Quebecers, reflects the historical aspirations of Québec, and embodies, in a concrete way, the concerns expressed before the Commissions on the future of Québec. Thus, our common project departs from the Canadian status quo, rejected by an immense majority of Quebecers. It is true to the aspirations of Quebecers for autonomy and would allow Québec to achieve sovereignty: to levy all of its taxes, pass all of its laws, sign all of its treaties. Our project also reflects the wish of Quebecers to maintain equitable and flexible ties with our Canadian neighbours, so that we can manage our common economic space together, particularly by means of joint institutions, including institutions of a political nature. We are convinced that this proposal is in the interests of both Québec and Canada, though we cannot of course presume to know what Canadians will decide in this regard. Finally, our project responds to the wish so often expressed in recent months that the referendum unite as many Quebecers as possible on a clear, modern and open proposal. The referendum mandate Following a Yes victory in the referendum, the National Assembly, on the one hand, will be empowered to proclaim the sovereignty of Québec, and the government, on the other hand, will be bound to propose to Canada a treaty on a new economic and political Partnership, so as to, among other things, consolidate the existing economic space. The referendum question will contain these two elements. Accession to sovereignty Insofar as the negotiations unfold in a positive fashion, the National Assembly will declare the sovereignty of Québec after an agreement is reached on the Partnership treaty. One of the first acts of a sovereign Québec will be ratification of the Partnership treaty. The negotiations will not exceed one year, unless the National Assembly decides otherwise. If the negotiations prove to be fruitless, the National Assembly will be empowered to declare the sovereignty of Québec without further delay. The treaty The new rules and the reality of international trade will allow a sovereign Québec, even without a formal Partnership with Canada, continued access to external markets, including the Canadian economic space. Moreover, a sovereign Québec could, on its own initiative, keep the Canadian dollar as its currency. However, given the volume of trade between Québec and Canada and the extent of their economic integration, it will be to the evident advantage of both States to sign a formal treaty of economic and political Partnership. The treaty will be binding on the parties and will specify appropriate measures for maintaining and improving the existing economic space. It will establish rules for the division of federal assets and management of the common debt. It will create the joint political institutions required to administer the new Economic and Political Partnership, and lay down their governing rules. It will provide for the establishment of a Council, a Secretariat, an Assembly and a Tribunal for the resolution of disputes. As a priority, the treaty will ensure that the Partnership has the authority to act in the following areas: - Customs union; - Free movement of goods; - Free movement of individuals; - Free movement of services; - Free movement of capital; - Monetary policy; - Labour mobility; - Citizenship. In accordance with the dynamics of the joint institutions and in step with their aspirations, the two member States will be free to make agreements in any other area of common interest, such as: - Trade within the Partnership, so as to adapt and strengthen the provisions of the Agreement on Internal Trade; - International trade (for example, to establish a common position on the exemption with respect to culture contained in the WTO Agreement and NAFTA); - International representation (for example, the Council could decide, where useful or necessary, that the Partnership will speak with one voice within international organizations); - Transportation (to facilitate, for example, access to the airports of the two countries or to harmonize highway, rail or inland navigation policies); - Defence policy (for example, joint participation in peacekeeping operations or a coordinated participation in NATO and NORAD); - Financial institutions (for example, to define regulations for chartered banks, security rules and sound financial practices); - Fiscal and budgetary policies (to maintain a dialogue to foster the compatibility of respective actions); - Environmental protection (in order to set objectives in such areas as cross-border pollution and the transportation and storage of hazardous materials); - The fight against arms and drug trafficking; - Postal services; - Any other matters considered of common interest to the parties. Joint Institutions 1) The Council The Partnership Council, made up of an equal number of Ministers from the two States, will have decision-making power with regard to the implementation of the treaty. The decisions of the Partnership Council will require a unanimous vote, thus each member will have a veto. The Council will be assisted by a permanent secretariat. The Secretariat will provide operational liaison between the Council and the governments and follow up on the implementation of the Council's decisions. At the request of the Council or the Parliamentary Assembly, the Secretariat will produce reports on any matter relating to the application of the treaty. 2) The Parliamentary Assembly A Partnership Parliamentary Assembly, made up of Québec and Canadian Members appointed by their respective Legislative Assemblies, will be created. It will examine the draft text of Partnership Council decisions, and forward its recommendations. It will also have the power to pass resolutions on any aspect of its implementation, particularly after receiving the periodical reports on the state of the Partnership addressed to it by the Secretariat. It will hear, in public sessions, the heads of the bipartite administrative commissions responsible for the application of specific treaty provisions. The composition of the Assembly will reflect the population distribution within the Partnership. Québec will hold 25% of the seats. Funding for Partnership institutions will be shared equally, except for parliamentarians' expenses, which will be borne by each State. 3) The Tribunal A tribunal will be set up to resolve disputes relating to the treaty, its implementation and the interpretation of its provisions. Its decisions will be binding upon the parties. The working procedures of the Tribunal could be modeled on existing mechanisms, such as the panels set up under NAFTA, the Agreement on Internal Trade or the World Trade Organization Agreement. The Committee An orientation and supervision committee will be set up for the purposes of the negotiations. It will be made up of independent personalities agreed upon by the three parties (PQ, BQ, ADQ). Its composition will be made public at the appropriate time. The Committee will: 1) take part in the selection of the chief negotiator; 2) be allowed an observer at the negotiation table; 3) advise the government on the progress of the negotiations; 4) inform the public on the procedures and on the outcome of the negotiations. The democratically appointed authorities of our three parties, having examined and ratified the present agreement yesterday, Sunday, June 12, 1995 - the Action démocratique du Québec having met in Sherbrooke, the Bloc Québécois in Montréal, and the Parti Québécois in Québec - we hereby ratify this common project and we call upon all Quebecers to endorse it. In witness whereof, we the undersigned Jacques Parizeau, Chairman of the Parti Québécois Lucien Bouchard, Leader of the Bloc Québécois Mario Dumont, Leader of the Action Démocratique du Québec -------- So, amongst the numerous interesting questions this raises is, what kind of sovereignty includes keeping the citizenship of the country you just separated from? How can you have the same monetary policy, and note that they wanted to keep Canadian money too, and free movement of people and labour, and yet claim you shouldn’t have to pay any Canadian taxes or be a part of the Canadian political process? The average Quebecer I’m sure didn’t even read this let alone grapple with the huge questions it raises. This was a con job on the Quebec people designed to give their PQ government the right to try to separate completely, and this gave rise to the Clarity Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum http://207.61.100.164/cantext/modpolit/1995pqbq.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarity_Act
Yeah, but Canada won't be able to get away with brutal military tactics that Georgia used to put down separatists in those provinces. The possibility of an additional split would be much more likely with Quebec.
