They've had
two referendums on secession in the last thirty years. The
first referendum in 1980 came back with No at 59.56%/Yes 40.44%. The
second referendum in 1995 came back as No 50.58%/49.42%. The largest political party in Quebec, the
Bloc Québécois advocates for secession. And in 1999, the Canadian Parliament passed the
Clarity Act, which outlines the conditions under which the Canadian Crown-in-Council would recognize a province's secession.
So it's very fair to say that secessionist sentiment in Quebec is a major political force, far more than what we'd ever be familiar with in modern America. And yet I still doubt Canada would collapse if Quebec seceded.
Speaking as a Canadian, if Quebec left the federation the major problem would be the dominance of Ontario, with a near-majority of the Canadian population and Ontario, while western Canada--Alberta especially, also British Columbia--would resist, well, resist. I don't think that the collapse of Canada would happen if only because there's a real Canadian community, but it would make things complicated.
*nods* That's what I thought, and that's also what I think will happen to the Federation. Andor's secession will be hard, but it won't be a fatal blow.
The thing to note when you're talking about Quebec separatism that it isn't a binary situation. The 1995 referendum question didn't even use the word "independence."
Do you agree that Québec 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 Québec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?
Said bill would give Quebec the "exclusive power to pass all its laws, levy all its taxes and conclude all its treaties," and let it become "sovereign"--not, again, "independent." It also authorized the Quebec government to negotiate a very close federation with Canada, including a shared economic space, common labour market, and even a shared currency.
Hmm. Sounds almost like a miniature version of the European Union.
How does this relate to Vulcan and talk of Romulan reunification? Vulcan may be split down the middle between pro- and anti-reunificationists, but we have no idea how they're defining reunification. Are we talking about opened borders? A new Vulcanoid bloc? Romulan membership in the Federation? Federation (or Vulcan) membership in the Typhon Pact? A strong commitment to intensified cultural and economic exchange programs? Joint projects? Any suggestion or combination of suggestions is imaginable, IMHO.
Exactly!
Sci
About ZSG:
More like the klingon ambassador stated the federation's political instability as clearly as possible - not that this statement about the federation provides him with cover regarding the Klingon Empire - and Bracco had nothing to contradict him with.
More like you would like to ignore such statements because you just don't like them.
No. I just (rather consistently) assign less value to such statements than do you, as I don't take hyperbole to be completely accurate.
About Canada - already answered by rfmcdpei.
Yes.
rfmcdpei's statements backed up my own argument: That, just as Quebec's hypothetical secession would be a hard but not fatal blow for Canada, Andor's secession will be a hard but not fatal blow for the Federation.
About 'Taking wing':
"A political majority can be transitory," T'Sevek said coolly. "Particularly such a narrow one."
"Vulcan must be split right down the middle on this, Troi thought."
Exactly. No information about the opinions of the minority of Vulcan poll respondents is offered. Troi infers that Vulcan is split down the middle because of the differences of political opinion that exist between Admiral Akaar's advisers at the briefing, but solid data is not offered.
About RBoE:
Again, Sci, like it or not, Spock worked for decades, tirelessly, for a reunification knowing full well it can involve Vulcan breaking away from the federation.
So? I favor the current uprising in Egypt, even though I know there's a possibility that a hostile, fundamentalist government might assume power if Mubarak loses power. That doesn't mean I favor such an outcome, it means that I'm willing to take the chance that one bad outcome might occur as the cost of pursuing a better outcome (a moderate, stable, Egyptian liberal democracy).
That Spock is aware that Vulcan
might choose to secede from the Federation in the process of unifying with Romulus does not mean that he (or, by extension, the majority of other Vulcans in favor of unification) favors or has no problem with Vulcan secession. It's more likely that he's simply willing to take the chance of one bad outcome (Vulcan's secession) occurring as the cost of pursuing a better outcome (Vulcan-Romulan reunification within the context of Federation Membership).
People who participate in or try to shape the political process know full well that politics is not a binary, "Either/Or" process. There's a wide range of potential outcomes, and favoring one direction that could later veer into yet another direction does not mean you favor that other direction. Politics is a continuum.
Knowing full well it's a lot more unlilely for such a reunification to create detente.
Says who? Hell, Spock's Unification movement is partially responsible for the rise of the moderate Gell Kamemor to the praetorship. That's a significant step towards detente in the first place. There's no reason to consider that option more unlikely than Vulcan secession.
And after 'Destiny' you can be sure the previous borg encounters were looked at with a microscope - by everyone.
And the inescapable resulting conclusion is that the borg would not have attacked so soon, in so large numbers and with intent to exterminate if Picard/Janeway would not have provoked it by killing queens and destroying a transwarp hub.
Sure. By the same token, the Third Reich would not have attacked Britain and France so soon if they hadn't declared war after the Reich's attack on Poland. That doesn't mean the Third Reich was not the aggressor, and it doesn't make the British and French governments responsible for Hitler's choices. Picard and Janeway are not responsible for the Borg Collective's choices.
So - an unstable federation, with a founding member already left (a decision taken by vote, with a substatial margin), another founding member with a very good cause for leaving,
Which there is no evidence it wants to secede.
many other victimised, looking for what went wrong, who made the mistakes that lead to such a catastrophic outcome - yes, the trend IS for the federation to disintegrate.
I'm sorry, what was that about
me having convoluted hypotheses? You're the one who's proposing that the Federation's trend is to disintegrate because of one Member State seceding, making up "evidence" that others want to do the same with no actual evidence to back it up.
Is this a possibility, not a certainty, Sci? Yes, but a possibility far likelier than the ones you advocate.
What ones have I been advocating, exactly? The most I've been saying is that Andor's secession will be hard but not fatal for the Federation and that there's no evidence that most Vulcans want or have no problem with seceding. Please do not put words in my mouth.
rfmcdpei
"More like you would like to ignore such statements because you just don't like them."
What statements from canon/trek lit have I ignored, exactly, rfmcdpei?
You're taling about Sci and his convoluted hypotheticals
Eh? What convoluted hypotheticals have I proposed, exactly?
)
