If there is anything that puts me on fire "you know where," is to hear someone talk about the 1995 referendum, saying: "The referendum was stolen ! or "The federal money ... bla bla bla".
outset, there is agreement immediately. During a poll, it is not money that vote, it's people. It is wrong to claim that a country that spends more brings more votes. The best example is the recent election of the city of Quebec, where a budget of just $ 5,000 and no sign election, Mayor Andree Boucher won handily. However, Vision Quebec hit rock bottom despite an expensive campaign. I unfortunately do not have the figures with me, but it is clear that the campaign Bellemare was expensive, and besides, the debts are not repaid, according to my sources. On the other hand, money is the sinews of war. It does not hurt, but it is incorrect to believe that money makes the difference every time.
outset, there is agreement immediately. During a poll, it is not money that vote, it's people. It is wrong to claim that a country that spends more brings more votes. The best example is the recent election of the city of Quebec, where a budget of just $ 5,000 and no sign election, Mayor Andree Boucher won handily. However, Vision Quebec hit rock bottom despite an expensive campaign. I unfortunately do not have the figures with me, but it is clear that the campaign Bellemare was expensive, and besides, the debts are not repaid, according to my sources. On the other hand, money is the sinews of war. It does not hurt, but it is incorrect to believe that money makes the difference every time.
Now if you look at the source of the funds of the Yes camp, one finds for example that the Prime Minister created a Ministry Parizeau of sovereignty, upon taking office in 1994. Subsequently, more than 25 million dollars have been spent in pre-campaign "to promote sovereignty. Rather questionable, I think. What do leaders separatists? During the last debate of Francophone heads the federal election, Gilles Duceppe said "Yes, but 25 million was LEGAL! The 2 million Option Canada was illegal!". In other words, $ 2 million "illegal" is worse than 25 million highly questionable. Funny observation, but it is an opinion. In my case, that he who is without sin cast the first stone. If someone condemns the latest of the No camp, either. But at the same time, also condemned the Yes camp, these people have done exactly the same thing.
Here, for example, where I most want is electioneering at the Yes side. Approximately one month after the referendum, the CEO made a public appearance on the tellers for the Yes side had deliberately set aside the votes (for failure) without reasonable cause in the "West Island". Moreover, I invite everyone to observe the high number of rejected ballots in districts west of Montreal. After investigation, the CEO has just expressed a little blame to some tellers. But going further. On the 25th anniversary of the referendum of 1980, we had a media release from the former PQ minister Richard Le Hir, exposing the questionable practices of the Yes side in the referendum of 1995.
http://www.vigile.net/05-5/histoire-2.html # 2
http://www2.canoe.com/cgi-bin/imprimer.cgi?id=188655
Indeed, the latter (which in 1995 was involved in the electoral committee of YES) denounced the alliance between unions and the PQ to help "tamper with" the referendum results. Indeed, we all know that the West Island of Montreal is a land completely infertile sovereignty movement. The strategy was to appoint tellers from the trade union movement (with the complicity of two ministers from the Québec unionism, Guy Chevrette and Monique Simard ... the same who voted illegally in a municipal election http:/ / www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/01/1892.htm ) and block votes for the NO. Dear friends and PQ separatists, is that such movement can be seen as democratic? The answer is NO! And is that the No camp has used such a method? Again, the answer is NO! As far as I know, has never prevented a federalist sovereignty to vote for the option. So why blame the No side to have used questionable methods when the Yes side does not really make lessons? It's a question I always ask. The reaction
sovereignists out of Mr. Le Hir evokes no surprise: "It's not true! Is not true is not true!" (As if these people would say they had cheated ...). To me, knowing how unions organize voting assemblies, I can only give credence to what Mr. Le Hir and condemn the Party Quebec. To hear them speak, leftists, the PQ and / or the separatists have a monopoly on integrity, honesty and frankness. To this end, the slogan of the Bloc Quebecois in the federal election of 2004 is quite revealing: "A clean party in Quebec." To summarize, if the Yes camp had been perfectly honest in counting the votes, the result would, no doubt, much less close to what we announced on the evening of October 30, 1995.
To finish with the results of said referendum, I would draw your attention to something that nobody seems to consider, yet is of paramount importance: international law. Indeed, it has attempted to make the Parti Quebecois in 1995 was neither more nor less than a form of unilateral secession. Let me explain. In 1980, the referendum question was about the fact whether to grant a warrant to the Quebec government to negotiate with Canada an association between states. Subsequently, a second plebiscite would follow to actually define the status of Quebec. In these terms, the referendum is legal. However, in 1995, the referendum will read: "Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having formally offered Canada a new economic and political partnership within the framework of the bill on the future of Quebec and the agreement signed June 12, 1995? ". In other words, it directly asks Quebecers to opt out for sovereignty. In short, we are asking Quebecers to separate, and Canada has no say.
In this regard, the separatists will reply: "Worse then?". After? International law is explicit . The unilateral secession is possible (I said "possible" and not "automatically granted") in two cases: a colony or an oppressed people (as was the case of Bangladesh in 1945, following military intervention of India http://209.85.129.104/search?q=cache:upZ4u-BpzzEJ:www.justice.gc.ca/fr/news/nr/1997/fact.html+s% C3% A9cession UNILAT +% C3% A9rales & hl = en & amp; amp; amp; gl = ca & ct = clnk & cd = 2 ). Quebec does not meet either of these two possibilities. If such an alternative is impossible, what possibility is there for Quebec? Likely to discuss rules "referendum" with Canada. For example, consider the recent referendum in Montenegro, where the EU has demanded a 55% majority http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montà © nà © gro . Let me be very clear. I just do not say that Canada has the right to demand a referendum result greater than 50% + 1. I'm just saying that Quebec and Canada should agree on rules to follow during a possible future referendum, just as proposed by Guy Bertrand in the late 1990s, and the majority should be a point to negotiate agenda.
If the rules are clear for everyone, it can be to the advantage of Quebec who could potentially receive support from Canada on the final vote at the UN. Indeed, the last word belongs to the UN. In the case of Montenegro, it was done without difficulty http://www.un.org/apps/newsFr/storyF.asp?NewsID=12571&Cr=Mont% C3% A9n% C3% A9gro & Cr1 =. Do not think that is a mere formality. Consider the case of Biafra, which received the recognition of only a few countries. In short, in three years, Biafra was reintegrated into Nigeria. Also think about the Bantustans of South Africa and Namibia that have not received any recognition, nor the UN nor by other states http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantoustan . In short, to get recognition, that is to the advantage of the secessionist state of having passed by a healthy democratic process and especially the overwhelming support of the population. The rest goes to lawyers in international law.
In summary, all the separatists who want a third referendum, so accept that your option has been beaten twice and it is time to move on, as to resolve the problems caused in the near future the demographic shock, to find solutions to health care or education, preserve the environment and sustainable development, etc.. That is a federalist or sovereignty, we can not remain indifferent to this state of facts, and contrary to what many think, sovereignty is not a panacea. The river is still polluted, unhook still young, graduates are still in debt, population aging will be even and hospital corridors are still crowded in the aftermath of a hypothetical independence.
