The Liberal Party's celestial fuckup, Michael Ignatieff is at it again. Not content with consigning the once great Liberal Party to a rump, he's now stirring up Quebec separatism.
In an interview on BBC Scotland, His Igness opined that a victory by Scottish nationalists in their 2014 referendum will ignite separatist renewal in Quebec.
"He also said Quebec and the rest of Canada have little to say to each other and that the two are already “almost” separate countries.
Ignatieff told BBC Scotland that devolution of central powers, whether from London to Edinburgh or from Ottawa to Quebec City, will likely be only temporary.
“'It’s a kind of way station. You stop there for a while, but I think the logic eventually is independence – full independence,” Ignatieff said in an interview in his home last month.
"Asked by interviewer Glenn Campbell if he was referring to Quebec as well as Scotland, Ignatieff replied: “I think eventually that’s where it goes.”
On the contrary, a liberal Liberal Party should invite discussions from former leaders and all supporters on important topics, even if we don't like what they say!
We are not the semi-totalitarian Conservative Party of Stephen Harper.
Speak out, Michael Ignatieff, and speak often. You are welcome to join in the dialogue within our Liberal Party of Canada.
Well Cat, you confirm my hypothesis of how the Libs went from Sussex Drive to Stornoway to Motel 6. BTW, how much dialogue has Iggy been exchanging with the LPC since he popped them in the toaster?
Mound, we need a dialogue within the LPC about how Quebec fits into our country. The party has failed to connect with voters in that province and needs to find out why.
As for Ignatieff's views, he is welcome to them, and welcome to the discussion on the future of Canada.
With what Harper's doing to Canada, could you blame Quebec?
Not that this is the entirety of my thinking on the subject, but it's way-curious that the Liberal Party of Canada, the party of Trudeau, become indifferent to Quebec separatism after having lost it to the NDP.
Sure, sure, Quebec would go to the Conservatives every once in a while. But to go to the Conservatives and then to the Bloc, and then to nobody, and then to the NDP???
Liberal Party leaders see the province as an irritating barrier to complete corporate rule in Canada. So fuck it.
Since probably the mid 80s I've had little doubt that one day Quebec would secede from Canada.
I agree with Ignatieff that it's pretty much inevitable. Just as Scotland independence is pretty much inevitable. Probably Ireland and Wales too.
And BC. Perhaps Alberta. Maybe Newfoundland.
Canada really only works under very particular sets of circumstances and under particularly sensible and sensitive governments at every level. Not to mention the engagement of citizens who understand the significance of Quebec and the french fact in Canada and North America.
We won't be having one of those governments again any time soon and the number of citizens who understand or care about anything to do with Quebec goes down with every high school graduating class.
Just as the conservative movement has been contemplating for 25 years or thereabouts.
MoS: I must disagree with you here. If Canada is buggered as you say and Quebec separation comes, it's not Iggy's fault--he merely made a comment as a private citizen--he's not in politics anymore. He could speak his mind. He only told the truth here.
With everything Harpercons have done to alienate Quebec to date--non-French speaking senior officials, shoving the monarchy down our throats, Ignoring the Richelieu area while floods were happening, dumb on crime bills, gun registry, and of course, the environment--Harpercons have contravened long standing Quebec values.
The PQ is likely to win next election despite an unlikeable leader in Pauline Marois.
All have been happening since Iggy brought up anything.
If CAnada is buggered, it's not becasue Iggy's recent statements to the BBC, Harper has been doing well with that all on his own, well, with the help of his cheerleaders.
Next, since Harper took over, can anyone be really enamoured with Canada the way it is? I sure am not. I find myself these days less capable of defending federalism.
I understand your point, CK. Here on the west coast Harper is fanning those same flames with the Northern Gateway pipeline and the Kitimat supertanker port in particular.
Iggy is irrelevant.
Iggy has an unfortunate tendency to talk (or write) curious statements he later recants. If you put a microphone in front of him or offer to publish him in The New York Times he's apt to say just about anything.
It always struck me as bizarre how anyone who read his remarks from his time at Harvard could have ever thought this guy was a liberal. That later became obvious as Iggy transformed the Liberal Party into a conservative-lite movement that the public properly rejected.
"And who ever thought this dipshit was fit to lead Canada?" In the beginning you did and I was glad to read you changed your mind.
Actually on December 9, 2008, I wrote that Liberals should put their dislikes and suspicions aside and tentatively support Ignatieff to give him an opportunity to show himself worthy of leadership. I was very hesitant to even give him a "wait and see" endorsement.
Oh yeah. While I gave him a "wait and see" endorsement in December, 2008, MI wasted no time losing my support by his positions on the assault on Gaza, the Tar Sands and Afghanistan.
Good lord, reading all this "Quebec will leave because they hate Harper, BC will leave because they hate Harper...."
Wouldn't it just be easier to make Harper leave?
Post a Comment