Well our experiences have just been different I guess. I found people in Toronto and Windsor to be very friendly, but did not find that to be the case in Montreal. In the case of Montreal my position is been there and got the tshirt, don't need to go back. If I want to be insulted in French I will go to Paris (just kidding people).

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

Hahaha... Well I have known people from Quebec, and have some family there and find it 50/50 on nice people, but I find that about the whole country, although Montreal does seem to produce beautiful women, haha. If you really want a place with lots of friendly people, go to Newfoundland. You'll be treated great and even though you can't understand the language ( ) you feel great.
Nova Scotia is pretty good too, actually the whole East Coast is pretty friendly to visitors.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else get your way.

"There is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation" - Pierre Trudeau

“No one is more enslaved than a slave who doesn't think they're enslaved.” - Kate Beckinsale

I've been to western Canada once, never to the eastern coast. When I go to Canada I seem to spend most of my time in Toronto for some reason. I like it there is I guess one reason. Canada is like anywhere. You have you friendly people and you total assholes. I mean just look at New York for an example in the US. I have run into some of the friendliest people there and also some of the biggest jerks and most selfish people all in one city. I guess Motreal doesn't really hold anything interesting for me. If I want to see a European city I will go to Europe. I am sure there are some redeeming qualities about Montreal, it is just my experience has led me not to care to look any further. I don't hate it, I just prefer to spend my money where I am more comfortable.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

I don't see it as hatred (such a strong word), I see it as frustration. It has been hanging over the rest of Canada for so long that most people just want it over one way or another.

I would prefer to have Quebec as a part of Canada who is equal to all the other provinces, because each province and territory is itself unique. If Quebec insists on receiving more 'special' treatment in order to remain a part of Canada I would have no problem with them leaving.

I couldn't agree more. It's amazing how those on the East Coast can make you feel like you've been around forever, and treat you like an old friend. There was a rumor a while back that 90% of Newfie jokes were started in Newfoundland. Wouldn't surprise me one bit.

__________________
Two-thirds of the world's lawyers practice in the US

I've been around since "Buy American" meant "Made in the USA".

The people can leave, but the land is Canada's and would cause a problem for the East as Quebec divides us from the rest. So I agree except they can all leave and move somewhere else if they don't want to be in Canada, but the land is this country's.



My uncle is from Newfoundland, and that is where I get most of my newfie jokes. He can go on for days he's got so many. Just another thing that makes them great. If the whole nation had their attitude we would all agree we are just a nation, and we'd all laugh at ourselves. Too bad we can't learn.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else get your way.

"There is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation" - Pierre Trudeau

“No one is more enslaved than a slave who doesn't think they're enslaved.” - Kate Beckinsale

I wonder what your sources for that view are Gort. Just think about it: if it would be like that, a newly independent state could so easily be isolated by neighbouring countries. This would lead immediately after the foundation to deep economic crisis and political instability, so no it is not like that. In addition, the Canadian government concluded all international treaties and agreements for the entire Canadian state (including Quebec), the same goes for all national laws. According to your logic, also all national laws would immediately cede to be valid after the independance of Quebec, causing chaos and anarchy until the new Quebecois gvt votes all those thousands of laws that are coming from Canada, and according to your logic, lose any viability.

No of course not.

As the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of treaties states, it is up to the newly independent state to continue the membership of any multilateral treaties (Art.17), as for bilateral treaties both parties have to agree on the continuation of the treaty (Art.24). NO treaty loses its validity automatically (Art.16).

__________________

[quote]I am not talking about isolating Quebec, merely indicating that NAFTA was concluded with the Canadian government not the government of the newly independant Quebec. Accordingly including Quebec into NAFTA would have to be agreed upon by Canada, the US, and Mexico. Furthermore I am not even sure the convention to which you refer is an issue here. To my knowledge neither Canada, the US or Mexico is a signatory to the Convention, and in fact it appears that most of Europe isn't either. Moreover it appears that the intention of this treaty is to deal with one state disolving such as the USSR or Yugoslavia, and what the obligations and right are of the state that succeed it. In the case of Quebec, Canada would not be disappearing, one part of it would be seperating to form an entirely new state. While the treaty does talk about two or more states combining into one new state it does not appear that this would meet that criteria.

http://www.walter.gehr.net/frame2bis.html
[quote]You are right the Canadian government did conclude NAFTA with the US and Mexico, and since Quebec was at the time part of Canada it was included. However as soon as they elect to leave this multi lateral treaty ceases to apply to Quebec, although it would still apply to Canada, the US, and Mexico. Quebec would have to apply for inclusion into NAFTA and that inclusion would have to be agreed to by the President and ratified by the Senate in order for it to apply to the US. If that ratification is not forthcomming then a new agreement would have to be drawn up with Quebec. I am really not sure this is even an issue though. Considering how Quebecers feel about the US I feel they are more likely to turn to France for their trade agreements than us.

[quote]As stated before to my knowledge neither the US, Canada, or Mexico are signatories to this treaty and accordingly if that is the case, if it is not please link to where we have signed, the convention does not apply here. While UNSC resolution do in fact apply without requiring additional approval from the President and the Senate, I do not believe this is a UNSC resolution. Simple UN conventions are considered treaties and as such are not binding on the US until the constitutional requirements pertaining to international treaties have been met. In this case I do not believe it has.

Febobo do not get me wrong, it isn't that I am opoosed to Quebecs independance. Frankly that is none of my business since I am not from there. However I am concerned about how that independance will afffect the US and that is my concern. If Quebec wants to be independant and the rest of Canada wants to let them pursue that path that is their concern. However treaties we have with Canada do not automatically apply to Quebec since we are not signatories to the convetion you refer to and even if we were I am not sure Quebecs independance meets the definition of successor state in the convention.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

[quote=Gort;863200]You are right but in international law you conclude a treaty for the entire surface of your state, that means that the treaty also applies to territories that you do not govern anymore, if this territory wishes so. Again just think about it: if it would be otherwise, a newly independant state of Quebec would lose the work of over 200 years of Canadian diplomacy...

You are correct the Convention itself is not that important, nevertheless there is one part which can be considered as a part of universal international law which is the established practice that a multilateral treaty continues to be in force unless the newly independant state (and nobody else) wishes so. This is even in the source that you quoted.

The treaty is not only talking about two states forming one new, but also about "newly independent states" (Part III.) In Article 2, newly independent state is defined as "a successor state the territory of which immediately before the date of succession of states was a dependent territory for the international relations of which the predecessor state was responsible." Well, this is kind of complicated legal English but as I interprete it, this would be kind of the case of Quebec.

I think I already answered this, international treatys are concluded between governments on behalf of their territories (not states and not populations). As for the feelings of Quebec towards the US you might be right. An orientation of Quebec towards the EU might be an alternative, yet, this is absolutely no issue whatsoever right now.


Treaties and UN SC resolutions are not the only sources of international law. We also have to include among other universal international law. Although this is a small part (and in practice often unimportant admittedly). Nevertheless Art.16 can be considered as such a part (see also your web link) since this is the general rule which is applied in almost all cases of state succession. Nevertheless in such an event, it might depend on the policy of the US how all this is regarded, e.g. Art.16 does not apply to the membership to International Organizations. As for your example of NAFTA it would be interesting to see if this association qualifies as an International Organization which I doubt.

I understand your point. Also for Quebec is far away and it is not all to urgent for our matters over here. My main interest in all that was a legal point of view. How that might work.

__________________

[quote=Febobo;863276]
The bottom line is since we have not signed the convention you spoke of, nor has Canada or Mexico the convention does not really apply here. As such Quebec would not be automatically considered to be included under NAFTA unless the three parties agreed to allow them in after they requested to be included.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

As if any of the lower 48 states would ever be allowed to leave the union in real life.

I wonder if there are many people in the northern U.S border states who would rather belong to Canada?

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?

I have an American Uncle who says Minnesota is a Canadian province lost in the US. He also says the reverse of Alberta. Not sure I agree with Alberta but Minnesota is soooo big on hockey at every level, it makes you wonder, hehe.

As for Louisiana, I am an Acadian and live in the only recognized French community in Nova Scotia, and the people in this community would love that idea as they love Louisiana, obviously due to the ancestoral connection.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else get your way.

"There is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation" - Pierre Trudeau

“No one is more enslaved than a slave who doesn't think they're enslaved.” - Kate Beckinsale

I doubt it, more like some of thiose in southern parts of Canadian provinces would prefer to join the US. Either way it isn't going to happen.

__________________

The universe grows smaller every day and the threat of aggression by any group anywhere can no longer be tolerated. There must be security for all or no one is secure... - Klaatu

I agree with Thematic, if the magority truly think being part of Canada is such a burden then they are free to leave any time, but why should we help them if "they can do so much better outside of Canada".

__________________
I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember -- I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?
George W. Bush
A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.
Prime Minister Jean Chrétien

Agreed. I hear there is lots of space in Antartica and Greenland.

__________________
Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else get your way.

"There is no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation" - Pierre Trudeau

“No one is more enslaved than a slave who doesn't think they're enslaved.” - Kate Beckinsale

I actually believe that the majority of people in Skåne (which is the southern province of Sweden) rather would belong to Denmark, and I think they should be allowed to vote about it too.

__________________

It all comes down to this on election day: Are you a racist, or do you look down on spastics?