 |
|  |
 |
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001 time: 00:37
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Last Conformist
What's "NEP" in context? |
It was the National Energy Policy (or Program, used interchangably) that the Trudeau government enacted in 1980. Vastly simplified, it determined that oil revenues generated anywhere in Canada were to be the purview of the federal government and not for the benefit of whatever province actually had the oil. This, along with other snubs (real or perceived) pissed western Canadians off since almost all the oil was being produced in Alberta (mainly) and BC (secondarily). The sentiment was that western Canada was being exploited in order to keep central Canada's (ie. Ontario and Quebec) industry humming along.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
when we don't want areas to leave, we fight them
when canada doesn't, it pays them money
just a different way of doing things
Jon Miller
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000 time: 22:37
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Sprayber
Then what is the use of paying the frenchies off to stay in if they can't simply leave? (if that is what is being done)
And now your saying that they can't really do this. Either they are a serious separatist threat or like Alberta they can't unilaterally secede in which case treat them like every other provence. Seems rather simply doesn't it. |
well its not that simple.
My recollection ( I could very well be wrong here) is that the Canadian constitution is silent on the whole topic of separation of a province. It doesn't say it is allowed and it doesn't say it is not allowed. It is not even contemplated as an issue, so nobody has any idea how separation would work in practice.
Now there is a reality that even if the constitution says something could not be done, that does not mean it cannot be done. Constitutions can be amended and they are sometimes ignored.
Many Canadians seem to feel that if enough people in a province wanted to leave then, well, they should be allowed to go. After all, Canada is not based on the idea of forcing huge chunks of people being part of something they don't want ( although tehre are questions as to the land a province should take with them if they separated-- ie the aboriginals in northern Quebec want no part of a separate Quebec and people have talked about their separation from Quebec if the issue arose). Now in Quebec there is a significant minority that are Quebec nationalists and who support separation regardless of the the circumstances. They are big enough a group that the issue will never go away. But the reality is that unless some issue galvanizes the rest of the population, its unlikely that separation would EVER have the support of more than half the population there. Even fuzzy questions talking about greater Quebec sovereignty have never quite gotten to the 1/2 mark
As to the Canadian army . . . even if it were the best military force in the world, how exactly do you stop the peaceful separation of a province?? Do you shoot citizens? Do you arrest the premier and if so on what charge??
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37. Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|