Quote:
Originally Posted by Thunderball
I agree with you, but to play devil's advocate on some of these points.
France claims they don't care, but sure enough they are usually around to stir up trouble. Furthermore, they may say they want nothing to do with them now, because saying otherwise would be a casus belli (yeah, right, but still...) or at very least a massive diplomatic insult against Canada. But a sovereign Quebec... that's now a different story with different rules.
That argument goes the same for the EU. I suspect the EU would ignore them though.
The US is a different angle. Quebec would be a threat to them unchecked, how better to keep them under control, then to make them a protectorate, like Puerto Rico.
Canada could likely try to step in the same as the US in that regard. Canada and Quebec would have to maintain decent relations for obvious reasons... for one, our capital would be a bordertown, with half of its former boroughs in a foreign land... another, we would both rely on the St. Lawrence Seaway, and both would have legitimate claim to it.
One thing can not be understated, it would be a total political cluster###### and an economic nightmare.
|
But that's why it would never happen. The Clarity Act was ham-handed, but it essentially sets term for separation. A failure to disobey those terms would, in my mind, be an act of sedition and subject to military intervention by Canada.
It's fairly simple to see how an actual separation would proceed. Canada gets Montreal and co-sovereignty of the St. Lawrence. The aboriginal bands get the North and the leftovers for the separatists are basically Quebec City and hick-town Quebec.