News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6K     0 

I thought that the PLQ only had 2 years left? Maybe I am mistaken on that. Either way that would put the next possible referendum 3 to 4 years away. If in three years you see a PQ majority in Quebec (highly likely) and a Tory minority on the federal side they might have a situation where they can still play on the soft supporters and paint a striking contrast between a right wing provincial government and a left wing society.

I think a lot of what is being reported right now (in terms of polls and the so called 'unstoppable seperatist movement' is purely reactionary and simpley because of the Gomery Commision and a lot of the anger it has produced. The issue will likely fall out of headlines in a few months and wont really enter back into media until the next provincial election. At that point in time who knows what the political standing of Canada will be and how this will all turn out.

I wouldnt be surprised if a referendum happened and produced a majority voting yes. In fact without strong federalist leadership Im certain the PQ could pull it off. However I do also think that with federalism being questioned by other provinces as well and a general dissatisfaction with the current state of it that actual intelligent discourse between all parties could happen and simpley lead to a restructuring of federalism in Canada. Something will change but which direction it heads 3 or 4 years down the road is still very much a coin toss at the momment.
 
And one day after the Leger poll comes another which this time shows the split at 47% Oui, 53% Non. Again, another poll, another grain of salt but it does show that this support is largely variable depending on who you talk to and how much of the Gomery Commission they have in their mind that day. And its in french but for those who can read it, enjoy.

Denis Lessard
La Presse
Québec

Le sentiment souverainiste a monté depuis les révélations faites à la commission Gomery, mais reste toujours à des niveaux comparables aux résultats obtenus dans la dernière année.

C'est le verdict de la maison CROP dans sa plus récente enquête réalisée sur 10 jours, du 14 au 24 avril. CROP observe que la souveraineté aurait obtenu 47 % d'appuis, une hausse de 2 % sur la précédente enquête, pas bien loin de la moyenne des résultats enregistrés depuis le début de l'année, 45 %.

«Pour nous, ce n'est pas un niveau pour la souveraineté. On a déjà eu des scores identiques ou même supérieurs», observe Claude Gauthier, de CROP.

Cette lecture est bien loin de celle faite par Léger Marketing dans un sondage publié hier, qui estimait que 54 % des Québécois se seraient prononcés en faveur de la souveraineté si on leur avait proposé la souveraineté partenariat, comme en 1995.

Pour M. Gauthier, cette différence «importante» quant aux intentions de vote référendaire s'explique quand on prend connaissance des autres questions posées par les téléphonistes de Léger Marketing. Dans la même enquête, on demandait aussi aux répondants s'ils avaient «l'impression d'avoir été trahis ou non par Jean Chrétien et le Parti libéral du Canada après le référendum de 1995». Par la suite, Léger demandait aux Québécois: «Le scandale des commandites vous incite-t-il davantage ou non à voter pour la souveraineté du Québec?»

«C'est des questions très fortes, normalement on ne fait pas les choses comme ça», soutient sans détour le spécialiste Michel Lepage qui, pendant plus de 20 ans, a été le sondeur du Parti québécois. Il a été remercié l'automne dernier.

Selon lui, la souveraineté augmente lentement, année après année, mais la lecture de Léger Marketing est probablement contaminée par les autres questions «dures» de l'enquête. Pour lui, il est possible que la souveraineté ait atteint son «potentiel» de 54 %, toutefois, un score atteignable au terme d'une campagne sans faute. Le Bloc est probablement plus proche de 50 % que de 53 %, observe aussi M. Lepage. «Les libéraux répondent toujours moins, surtout dans une situation comme celle qu'on connaît. Avec la vague Lucien Bouchard, on avait eu 49 % et c'est bien difficile de traverser 50 %», de poursuivre M. Lepage.

«Entre un CROP et un Léger, je prendrai toujours un CROP. Au niveau méthodologie et résultats, les sondages CROP étaient plus proches de nos sondages internes», a confié un ancien conseiller de l'ancien gouvernement Landry.

Joint hier, Jean-Marc Léger a d'abord souligné que l'ordre des tableaux des documents confiés aux journalistes représentait l'ordre dans lequel il avait posé ses questions. Selon ces documents, la question sur l'intention de vote référendaire (tableau 9) suivait immédiatement celle sur la «trahison» et sur le «scandale des commandites ».

Par la suite, M. Léger a soutenu que la question sur l'intention de vote référendaire avait été posée en premier, mais a refusé de produire le questionnaire qui, d'ailleurs, n'avait pas été davantage remis aux médias qui avaient traité son enquête.

Hier, le record d'appui pour la souveraineté a été accueilli avec une satisfaction bien contenue du côté de Bernard Landry. Pour lui, au-delà des «photos» que sont les sondages d'opinion, le sentiment souverainiste est une tendance lourde, irréversible, qui progresse à travers les générations. «C'est ça qui va nous conduire à la victoire», a dit M. Landry.

Pour le gouvernement, le ministre Benoît Pelletier a souligné que le mouvement souverainiste était à l'évidence un élément important dans le spectre politique québécois. Toutefois, souligna-t-il, le sondage Léger Marketing contient aussi «des paradoxes»: on y observe par exemple que 56 % des souverainistes souhaitent que le Québec continue de faire partie du Canada.
 
The return of the "neverendum."

Sounds almost metaphysical when you think about it.
 
dismissing quebec nationalism as ethnically-based is inexcusably reductionist. there is a current of ethnic nationalism that is rooted in the old conservative nationalist movements of the 19th and early 20th century; this is evident mostly in rural areas. but most young francophone quebecers, who support sovereignty more than any other demographic group, are not ethnic nationalists; they tend to be left-leaning and see an independent quebec as an opportunity to fashion a truly social democratic society. consider what these young nationalists are listening to: groups like les cowboys fringants and loco locass, which are both decidedly left-wing.

montreal's francophone immigrant communities -- haitian, algerian and so forth -- contain about the same proportion of separatists as the broader francophone community (based on my own observations). the cameroonian-born actor maka kotto -- a bloc québécois candidate -- was elected by a landslide in the lily-white suburban riding of saint-lambert last year. he doesn't exactly fit the profile of a "pure laine québécois."
 
I don't think any of that demonstrates that ethnic nationalism is not a key motivator for the sovereignty movement.
 
how doesn't it? ethnic nationalism involves the construction of a nation-state based on shared ethnic or racial characteristics and experiences. that describes the nationalism propagated by the société saint-jean baptiste and various fanatic fringe groups, but it certainly doesn't apply to the vision of non-french-canadian sovereigntists, who see quebec independence as an opportunity to fashion a scandinavian-style social democratic country.

my whole point is that there has always been competing nationalisms in quebec. the PQ was founded as a coalition.
 
whats the difference between Canadain and Scandanavian style Social-Democracy?
 
Most sovereigntists are ethnically quebecois (ie, generally white third or more generation francophones). You are trying to use a small minority to generalise about the entire movement.

Perhaps you are not comfortable with the idea that the sovereignty movement is predicated on ethnic nationalism? Secession is hardly necessary for Quebec to become more socialist. To say that it's the primary drive behind separatism smacks of an attempt to paper over the ethnocentric connotations of the movement.
 
you're putting words in my mouth. i never said sovereignty was essential towards building a social democracy. i don't believe that which is why i'm not a separatist.

Most sovereigntists are ethnically quebecois (ie, generally white third or more generation francophones).

get this: most people in quebec are "ethnically québécois"!
 
"You are trying to use a small minority to generalise about the entire movement. Perhaps you are not comfortable with the idea that the sovereignty movement is predicated on ethnic nationalism? Secession is hardly necessary for Quebec to become more socialist. To say that it's the primary drive behind separatism smacks of an attempt to paper over the ethnocentric connotations of the movement."

afransen:

You've said all that needs to be said in four concise sentences. Well done - nothing needs to be added.
 
Chris, I wasn't trying to attribute that idea to you, per se. It's an argument I've heard separatists use before and I wanted to address it.

It seems to me that sovereignty is a lazy idea. Instead of actually going about creating the society that Quebecois want, there is a great deal of debate and political capital expended in an effort to convince the majority of Quebecois of the idea.
 
Imagine if all the energy put into this debate in Quebec and Canada could go elsewhere. I really want Ottawa to call Quebec's bluff - go or stay, but don't string the country along with vague threats all these years.
 
I said it before, but Canada's biggest mistake in Quebec was not following up the 1755 explusion of the Acadians with a complete eviction of the Francophones from Canada after the 1763 Treaty of Paris (ceded all Canada to Britain). The alternative should have been a forced assimilation into the culture of the Empire. The British decision to leave a smoldering latent franco nationalism in Canada will be our undoing as a unified nation.
 
^And to make matters worse, we've let in all these other non-British people in since the 1960s. What were we thinking?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top