By the way, a 'poke' is from the French ''poque' a sack and the phrase reminds us not to buy something sight unseen.
Now I've no problem with sovereignty as a concept for Quebec.
Self-determination is a universal right and let's face it, Quebec represents a 'distinct society' living in a somewhat definable geographic area (we'll not discuss borders here.)
But opting for independence is a BIG step, something to be considered seriously, the consequences dramatic and irreversible.
When you are an impoverished nation, seeking independence is not much of a risk.
Take for example East Timor, one of the newest members of the family of nations. About 40% of the population lives below the international poverty line – which means living on less than U.S. $1.25 per day and about 50% of the population is illiterate. The country sits 134th on the Human Development Index.
Not much of a risk going independent, I imagine.
But even basket case countries with nothing to lose, sometimes actually do worse after independence.
South Sudan is another twenty-first century example of an impoverished nation declaring independence after a referendum where an astonishing 98.83% voted in favour of independence. Unfortunately, it hasn't really worked out that well with a war of succession ravaging the country.
But in the end, one can understand that those living in these cesspools would vote for any change, considering their hopeless situation.
But in Quebec, nobody can make the case that we have nothing to lose if all turns out badly, because the province enjoys one of the highest standards of living in the world.
If you work at McDonalds or Tim Hortons, quitting your job is not much of a risk, but if you are a successful executive making a large six figure salary, quitting your job on the if-come, a decidedly risky and foolhardy affair.
Now who of we sovereigntists or federalists would buy a home sight unseen?
A thinking person would consider things like the location, the size, the layout, schools and transportation and above all THE PRICE.
I, like you, have too much to lose if the decision turns out wrong, so I'd like as much information about the concept as I could obtain before taking the plunge.
This is where I take issue with sovereigntists and particularly those advocating for the project blindly without a clue as to what will be.
We haven't heard much from Pauline and the PQ, but what we have heard is frightening, a distinct lack of forethought and a manifest deficiency in planning.
How on Earth can anyone vote for the unknown and risk it all on the if-come. It boggles the mind.
The latest round of nonsense is Pauline's declaration that the new country of Quebec will use the Canadian dollar, this with or without the approval of Canada itself, permission to do so, not likely.
Now some sovereigntist leaders remain adamant that Canada can't stop it from using the Canadian dollar, but Canada can certainly make the process awfully uncomfortable, Canadian dollars not quite as bountiful and widespread as the U.S. dollar.
Worse, Pauline's proclamation that Quebec would seek a seat at the Bank of Canada is also awfully presumptuous, an idea so foolish that it underscores the separatist leaders utter misapprehension of what Canadians think and who Canadians are.
It goes to her complete ignorance of the utter disdain Canadians would likely display towards Quebec post-Canada.
Tourism? Open borders? A European-like union? ......Is she smoking crack?
"No one can stop Quebec from using the Canadian dollar," former Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe says in defence of Pauline Marois' claim that an independent Quebec would retain the loonie and request a seat at the Bank of Canada.
"All of the economists will tell you that it is impossible to stop a country from using the Canadian dollar,"
Last week on the campaign trail, Marois was firm on these points:
Duceppe told Question Period that Marois' was right to make all three points. For example, if Canadians continue to be allowed to carry more than one passport, Duceppe said, the courtesy should extend to residents of an independent Quebec. Link
- Quebec would continue using Canadian currency
- Request a seat at the Bank of Canada should a sovereignty referendum end in a "yes" vote
- The border between Canada and Quebec should also remain open if Quebec secedes
 |
| I demand my Canadian passport, the Loonie and I want my MTV! GODAMMIT! |
Sounds like dependence rather than independence. According to Duceppe, an independent Quebec will use Canadian money and its citizens will travel under a Canadian passport. Perhaps Canada should keep equalization going and continue funding Radio-Canada and pay deadbeats in the Gaspé not to fish. Talk about incoherence!
Again the question is why all these connections to Canada?
Probably because these nonsensical ideas make sovereignty more appealing to the reluctant, nothing more than a strategy to fool Quebecers into voting for something they can never get.
Let us not forget Parizeau's assertion that he was going to fool Quebecers into sovereignty, like 'lobsters in a trap.'
The truth is that after sovereignty, Canadians will hate Quebecers at the worst, ignore them at best.
Interact with them as good neighbours? Not going to happen.
It's more likely that a virtual if not physical Poutine Wall will be erected between Canada and Quebec, with travel back and forth for tourism a pipe dream conceived by an idiot.
By the way, that ferocious defence of Quebec's right to use the Canadian dollar flies in the face of logic and indeed the very policies that the PQ defended until recently.
Have we forgotten the debate over the 'Dutch Disease' question where Quebec separatists were claiming that the Canadian dollar was overvalued because of oil and therefore penalized the Quebec manufacturing industry?
"The phenomenon is called "Dutch disease" and works as follows: the more oil production is an important part of the domestic industry and exports more oil and gas push up the value of the currency.
High currency increases the price of other goods and services exported, making them less competitive abroad, resulting in job losses for non-oil sectors. In addition, the oil industry employment with high wages employees, which leads to higher wages in other industries, also making their products more expensive and therefore less competitive, hence more job losses. I cited a study by three economists saying that "up to 54% of manufacturing jobs lost in Canada between 2002 and 2007 were due to Dutch disease." Applied in Quebec, this ratio provides 55,000 jobs lost. Jean-François Lisée,
"The problem is that in 30 years, the oilsands could be much less important. And we will have done away with industries in Quebec, "worries Rodrigue Tremblay, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Montreal. LinkSo in fact until last week, sovereigntists were saying that one of the prime goals of independence was to get rid of the over-valued Canadian dollar, a so-called hindrance to Quebec prosperity.
Now they have utterly reversed themselves, embracing the Loonie as the currency of choice in an independent Quebec.
In the French press the word 'incoherence' is a favourite catchword, used to describe 'inconsistency' in policy, something that the sovereigntists and the PQ demonstrate a mastery of.
It is likely that a cold hard look at the potential value of a Quebec dollar, frightened the separatists to reconsider.
A report by François Barrière, vice-president of currencies at the Laurentien Bank of Canada predicted the Quebec dollar to be worth 73¢, right off the bat, something deemed unacceptable by separatist strategists in the debate for hearts and minds. Link{fr}
But how can the complete reversal of the position on currency go so unnoticed, unchallenged and un-debated? It smacks of amateurism.
So many of the positions on sovereignty just don't stand up to the most rudimentary of examinations, like the theory that Quebec would save money by getting rid of costly bilingualism, operating in just one language, French.
It's an easy sell to those eager to believe, until one examines the truth, which is that Quebec lives in English North America and would have to interact in English just the same.
Let us consider the price of a movie ticket which today is the same in Quebec City as is in Sudbury. Yet the Quebec version of the movie is dubbed into French, the cost borne by consumers across Canada, where in fact English Canadians pay for 77% of the cost of bilingualism.
This translation cost for Canadian and American products will be borne by Quebecers alone in an independent Quebec.
In fact, disconnecting 'national' pricing will have an adverse effect of Quebec consumer prices, including everything from software to Corn flakes to cars.
Today Canadian consumer prices are disconnected from those in the USA and we can see the adverse effect, with a car built in Windsor, Canada costing up to $5,000 more in Toronto than Hawaii.
This same effect will manifest itself as Quebec becomes its own distinct market.
It doesn't auger well for consumers, where in stores like Costco, prices today are higher than in American locations, largely due to reduced expenses, south of the border.
The same will apply to Quebec where prices will be higher than in Canada because of higher taxes and operating expenses. No longer will Canada level the consumer price playing field for Quebec by robbing Peter to pay Pierre.
Quebec sovereigntists have always used the cherry picking option to show how Quebec is badly served by federalism, pointing to those certain programs where Quebec gets less of its fair share, while ignoring where it gets more and the balance of benefit, some $17 billion to the good.
In fact it doesn't fill one with confidence to know that the leader of the sovereignty movement doesn't even know how much equalization payments Quebec will get next year, mistaking the total federal transfer (an admission that she is aware of the transfer) of some $17 billion, instead of the $9 billion plus which is the equalization payment.
Jean-François Lisée, another light bulb, tells us that the PQ is acting responsibly by running up the deficit to pay off the debt. It's scary.
Mention that Radio-Canada receives 40% of the CBC budget or that Quebec sucks out 40% of the unemployment fund and all that is offered in rebuttal is blank stares by separatist apologists who universally conclude that these asymmetrical payments are reasonable and fair.
Some idiot sovereigntists even maintain that the equalization payment Quebec receives is a plot to somehow keep Quebec down and beholding.
What will be in an independent Quebec is of vital importance and interest for those making the decision, the voters of Quebec.
Recently a panel of so-called sovereigntist experts came to the conclusion that Quebec would be just fine after sovereignty, all without ever considering the Canada 'effect' and the relocation of perhaps hundreds of thousand of taxpayers and businesses.
The truth is that nobody really knows what will happen and it is frightening that Quebecers are willing to risk everything on an unpredictable future.
It can go okay or it can go dreadfully wrong and a risk that I am shocked that so many people are willing to make on blind and idiot faith.
I don't want to sound the trumpet of gloom and doom, because if there is a plan that makes sense I'd like to hear it and I'm sure Quebecers should want to hear it as well.
But until then, voting YES is like buying a pig in a poke, not a good idea 400 years ago and not a particularly good idea now.
